I have a question for Atheists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like religious people).
oh look, it's this thread again.
OP much of your confusion seems to come from the sad fact you don't seem to know what words mean. Maybe you should read a book sometimes other than the bible, a dictionary of the English language would be a good start.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, OP. Atheists are just another religious group. I don't believe in any God, but I'm sure as hell not an atheist!
However, just like every other religion, atheists have the right to delude themselves if that's what it takes for them to be happy. Who are we to judge?
Burden of proof, Hitchen's razor etc.
No real reason to belief, so just don't do so. The question whether there is a god, doesn't really interest me.
>It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like religious people).
You are obviously a troll, but I do want to point out that I never understood this argument.
You are as stupid as me? You are as irrational as me? I don't understand how this is an argument.
>there is no proof that he does not exist?
...and there is none that he DOES exist
like literally none
there is evidence that dinosaurs existed, that other planets exist, that
oops i got baited, abort sorry SEND
indeed. die hard atheists make me laugh just as much as religious people.
>I have a question for Marvel fans. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Spiderman when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like DC people).
The word atheism refers to a non-believe in God, as theism refers to a believe in God.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, while a theist is someone who does believe in god.
You see how this is all about belief, or non belief, but has nothing to do with knowing?
For describing if someone knows if God exists, or doesn't know exist there's a whole other pair of words:
If someone knows God exists, he's a gnostic, if someone doesn't know if God exists he's an agnostic.
Most people would describe themselves as agnostic, either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.
So when you address the majority of atheists, you are talking to agnostic atheists. I hope you can now see why you look like a retard asking this question OP.
You actually can prove that something doesn't exist. There are two ways:
1. You can show that the very nature or definition of it contains a logical contradiction.
2. You can show that, if 'X' existed, we would expect to find more evidence of X than we do in fact find. Another way of putting it is: If X existed, we should find Y. However, we do not find Y. Therefore, X probably does not exist.
Both of these types of arguments can be used as arguments against God.
I have recently looked into Islam, although I have not read the Quran yet. I believe there is a god, and that the big bang also happened, being his creation. I also think following the laws of religion whether or not there is a god is by far the most honourable and honest way to live. `
I already knew all the shit you just said, but I'm annoyed with the logic
>If someone knows God exists, he's a gnostic, if someone doesn't know if God exists he's an agnostic.
But since literally zero people *know* the truth, why even add that? It's superfluous.
If you can, formulate 2 examples for me... one being what a gnostic theist would say about the existence of god, and an example of what an agnostic theist would say about god.
can everyone please copy this and just paste it every time of of these stupid fucking threads gets made. i'm sick of stupid faggots making these threads now its beyond a joke. this is the only thing you need to know.
Just to clarify some terms:
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is NOT the absence of belief in God.
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Atheism is the view that there is no God."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In order to be a rational atheist, you need to give reasons for thinking that God does not exist, otherwise you're left with agnosticism.
Also, just to make you guys mad, atheism fits perfectly under the definition of a religion.
And we know that some 4th century AD writers put together some old stories of a carpenter travelling the middle east 400 years before and because it sounded boring they brushed it up with a little miracle here and there.
Anyway, my point is it's all fiction.
Well I only posted this logic to point this concept out to OP, as he seems terribly confused, blame his extra chromosomes.
But if you need further elaboration, here you go:
Agnostic theist: I believe in god, I can just feel he exists, but of course I can't really know, but I think doubt is a healthy aspect of faith and actually strengthens it.
Gnostic theist: They may call it psychosis, but I know that God exists because he appeared before me, lifted be into the heavens and showed me the truth. Also the food in my local mental ward is fucking delicious.
how many threads are you going to make before you fucking grasp a simple concept, NOBODY KNOWS. you're just going round in circles and picking on what certain words mean and don't mean. at the end of the fucking day it's figuring out how to look past the words that we've put on things and just use your common fucking sense. you're like some malfunctioning robot.
First off, I've made zero threads on any religious topics. I think you have me confused with someone else.
2, Im asking a question about the semantics and terminology. Maybe you should read what I said again, slower this time. Youre screaming at me NOBODY KNOWS.. and yet I said that exact same thing.
All I'm asking for is an example of the differences in beliefs between a gnostic theist and an agnostic theist. Control your fucking emotions and either attempt to answer that, or dont fucking post, you histrionic screamer. Im not trying to prove/disprove anything. I'm asking a legit question and youre in full-on flame mode.
Sorry. Not until you provide some hard evidence that can prove with 100% certainty that there is no God. Also tell me how this universe was created (inb4 'big bang') while you're at it. Until then, don't act like you have all the answers when no one does and infact you are just stating your opinion.
>I have a question for OP.How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is a God when there is no proof that he does exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical and open minded to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like every other person ever).
Wrong. The absence of a toy factory in the North Pole, and the absence of new presents under Christmas trees on Christmas morning is positive evidence against the existence of Santa.
This too is a very weak argument. We know where those fictional places originated, thus we have good reason to think that they don't exist in reality.
I guess I must have missed that. Feel free to tell me.
I hate every claim of such, there is no logical scientific fact that supports any of them and people who successfully live their lives with the assumption that there is something that has no factual basis and never directly affects the actual events of their lives is confusing.
I am an atheist and I don't think to be different from religious people. I hold a strong belief that god don't exist, you can't prove I'm wrong, so I want the same respect that christians have for they beliefs. That's all.
certainly there is a chance it all exits
the chance is probably far below 0.X
but still, I would agree that there is a chance it exists. // i do not belive that tatooine exists, but I cannot say with 100% certainty that it does not
>Considering how butthurt you got, you didn't.
Now I'm really curious. I honestly don't remember getting butthurt.
>You can look it up in the archives yourself.
Eeh, I don't feel like it.
It's like this:
Some ten thousand years ago we were given a box with a jigsawpuzzle in it.
The picture on the outside of the box says that the puzzle will look like a giraffe.
And we were all like; "Yeah, seems legit. We'll trust the box"
But around 500 years ago, some people actually wanted to try to put the puzzle togheter. Some people got pissed at this, since there was box was the clear answer and there was no need to actually put the puzzle togheter.
Fast forward 500 years and it's becoming pretty apparent that the puzzle is a picture of a parrot. I mean, it's a very colourful birdlike creature at least.
There are still some pieces left in the box, but even if we never find out where to put them in it's obvious that that the picture on the puzzle is of a parrot.
But still people are claiming it's a picture giraffe, because the box tells them it is.
>You can look it up in the archives yourself
>my opion is correct becasue I read something somewhere in the past
>I cannot give reference
>I cannot express my arguments becasue I am stuck in 4th grade
>I also like to suck nigger dick
You fucking stupid faggots.. It makes no sense. Religion was invented so that little minded people could rationalise existence. Also to put forth a set of morals to have "order" in "society"
Wrong. See >>582978431
All-powerful, all-knowing, perfect, necessary, supreme, etc
That type of argument against God is very unreliable, though, because theists will often arbitrarily define God in a way that will slip by any argument you could give.
>agnostics are only agnostics because they're afraid god will be mad
>implying god exsists
This is a common fallacy. Negatives such as "Can you prove that a god DOESN'T exist?" cannot be logically disproven. However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unless you have evidence of something's existence, it is the more logical alternative to operate under the assumption that such a thing does not exist until/unless evidence for it is given. The burden of proof is on you for claiming that god exists, not on me for not believing you.
I can't know and never will, but see my second point.
If any of the gods are real, there's no fucking way they're looking out for us.
This dude that apparently created the entire fucking universe cares whether or not we are in certain building on a specific day to tell him how awesome he is?
How petty and insecure is he?
This is the main problem we are dealing with. Christians fallaciously take the lack of any evidence at all for or against a god as proof of his existence simply because it has not yet been disproven.
So, do you have any reasons for your belief? Any justification?
>Can you prove that a god DOESN'T exist?" cannot be logically disproven
Wrong. See >>582978431
>ehrmagerd, you prove no gerd
>>no wai, you prove gerd
So sick of this shitty base level burden of proof bickering.
How about we start by establishing that it doesn't go: Atheist > Agnostic > Theist
Everyone is either:
Agnostic or Gnostic
Atheist or Theist
This gives you four choices of position on the subject of theism:
1. Agnostic Atheist - Not certain, but doesn't believe.
2. Gnostic Atheist - Certain in disbelief.
3. Agnostic Theist - Not certain, but believes.
4. Gnostic Theist - Certain in belief.
1. Rational position.
2. Lazy position.
3. Difficult position.
4. Deluded position.
I like these kinds of posts. 4chan is so upset about triggers on the one hand and then these posts, that must enrage some religious people so hard on the other hand.
And then I also know, that this is probably very true for many people who took LSD or whatnot.
I believe in god. I think at the end of the day, that a god existing would be nice, and it gives me a weird understanding of things that I believe normally would be impossible for me to rationalize. Call me weak minded, or whatever you want but I choose to believe in god because I am comforted by the fact that a god exists. I should probably clarify I don't believe in any man made religion. I just believe a god exists and maybe he doesn't, but maybe he does and I will continue to be a decent person because I imagine god is adecent person.
Really? You don't think the pursuit of "truth" in the existence of a god is a futile exercise?
Only a fool would call it pointless, but honestly how could we ever conceivably determine the existence of one other than a divine appearance?
So faggot, do you have to believe or not believe in Russels teapot too?
I mean, Russel told you it exists, but you may never know. It will be rational to disbelieve it but not to be sure?
The churches are probably the best evidence of the non existence of god.
Consider that many people throughout time have been non believers, though some of those people seized upon the idea of god as being a great motivational tool.
The idea of god has provided great financial gain to the churches and ruling classes as well as being instrumental in the rise and control of civilizations.
Yet if god was like the way it is sold to us there would be no need for such a self interested bureaucracy to represent it nor the many manifestations of worshiping styles.
athiests dont hate a non-existent god, they hate idiots like you that are incapable of accepting that your god is a myth, your religion is plagiarized
Both. You made two baseless assertions.
But even if the Christian provides no proof, you're left with agnosticism if you don't give any reasons for thinking atheism is true.
>The laws of thermodynamics demonstrate the impossibility of perfection
Physical things like that wouldn't apply to God, if He exists, because He would have created the universe and therefore is not composed of physical parts.
A: I dont agree with your understanding of Atheism. I know you referenced shitty dictionaries in nyour post, but Ill stay with the logical interpretation of being "not a theist" otherwise all the words like asexuality would make no sense in comparison.
I know language doesnt have to fucntion logically and words can mean the opposite of what they say, but theres a lot of people out there who share my understanding of the word, so Ill stick with it.
Follow my definition and the word agnostic becomes irrelevant. Clearly thats a plus.
B: Een if what you said was considered: A logical reason to then call myself would just to say: no god is still more likely than god. 1000 times more so if its any specific god.
your flowchart of terminology does zero to even attempt to answer his question though..
how can you know there is no god?
What if there is a creator being, but it's not accurately described in any human religion? What if the creator being is responsible for sparking living matter into being, but it does not watch over us, doesnt punish/reward us for our actions, doesnt want our worship, and has never communicated with humans in any way? What if it's incapable of ever communicating with us? What if it's beyond our scope of understanding and perception, yet it's a mortal being itself that will die or has already died?
how do you know any of this cant possibly be the case?
There is literally endless amount of things that can or can not exist. Easter bunny, santa clause, god, Odin etc. Why do you have to even presume that any of it exist, or give it any thought at all? Because other people do it/used to do it?
I really would like to hear an answer.
Wrong. See the fact that there are dictionary definitions going either way and you don't get to pick the one you like better and redefine the label used by everyone of a certain position, just because your entire argument is dependent on being able to do so.
Belief and claims to knowledge are not the same thing. While theism has a tendency to attract more of the gullible, there are idiots on both sides of the theism fence. I prefer to address the group made entirely of idiots: gnostics, ie. anyone who claims to know absolute truth in either direction. You guys can just fuck right off.
Last I checked, burden of proof usually goes to the one making the claim. Meaning that logically OP has to disprove the existence of God, not the other way around. Ironically, empirical evidence isn't really justifiable and logical/rational conclusions can't be substantiated. Meaning that atheists and theists are at a standstill...like always.
whats truly ironic is that belief is all thats left...which is a facet of faith. Weird
Then it would not apply to logic and you can not make a logical definition of god and given that you are physical you have to accept that you can not interact with that thought in any way because nothing you have experienced is perfect including any description of a god or its physical interactions which is in direct contradiction with the idea of perfection because if an idea were perfect, there would be no way to refute or deny it, even partially or poorly.
I'm just pointing out why OP's question makes him sound like a retard, not saying anything about my personal believes or knowledge.
It's funny cause if you had to put me in one of those four categories I listed, you'd probably find me in the gnostic theist drawer, although there's a big problem with knowing, for how can you know anything really? Socrates, Plato, ,yadda yadda.
By the rules of logic those who assert must prove. In a persuasion dialogue if an atheist and theist are trying to convince the other that their thesis is true, then both have a positive burden of proof. Atheist claim they reject the theist assertion, but in reality they make a positive assertion on the opposite side of the same debate. If the atheist claims that "God does not exist", demonstrable evidence is required as to how they came to that conclusion. Rejecting a Burden of Proof while holding to a conclusion, and lacking evidence to support this conclusion, is a textbook example in which the asserter commits the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.
>how can you know there is no god?
Nobody ever can. That was my whole point you stupid fuck.
>What if there is a creator being, but it's not accurately described in any human religion?
What if who gives a shit? What if I'd rather think about what we can know about this world and what it means for me? What if I don't want to waste a second of my life thinking about a hypothetical creator being that either A. doesn't actually give a flying cunt about this planet, or B. has gone to great lengths to create such a planet without any detectable evidence of its own existence, but rather mountains of evidence of natural mechanisms requiring no such creator?
>how do you know any of this cant possibly be the case?
1. Never said I knew. 2. Why waste my time on pointless philosophical questions that have been contemplated for thousands of years by greater minds than mine or yours, and yet achieved precisely not one fucking thing EVER.
if this helps the "agnostics" think of this:
rythmic= sound in a pattern
arythmic= sound not in a pattern
arythmic=/= I HAVE SOME DEEPER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PATTERN
sexual = has sexuality
asexual = does not have sexuality
asexual =/= does not have sex or hates sex or whatever. My hand for itself is asexual, yet it sometimes does this thing for me, which I would describe as deeply sexual.
Um, you're arguing my point I think.
I don't need faith in my life either as a moral compass or to feel like there's someone watching over me, for better or worse.
I don't really think about it that much, or presume the existence or not of any of the fictional characters you mentioned. God isn't important to me, and as I said, I haven't seen any evidence anywhere near strong enough to convince me personally of a divine being.
What REASON do you have to believe a god exists -- and what reasons did people have to believe in gods in the first place; what evidence led them to believe that a god existed, and is that evidence sufficient?
Wrong, you can't prove otherwise because anyone can add to the claim to fit the new evidence presented debunking previous claims.
Have you ever studied "The God of the Gaps" fallacy?
even if there is, i'd rather not be associated with the man responsible for 90% of wars in the history of the world
>inb4 different religions
>different prophets, all the same god
I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and you can't prove it doesn't exist.
That's the level of credibility a god has.
WHY do you belive he exists?
is the first question.
Unless you have a RATIONAL reason for believing that he exists, WHY should anyone consider the possibility -- when there's an infinite amount of irrational ideas that could be true, if we forsake rational thought?
Agnostic atheist is not "god probably exists" or "god exists but doesn't do anything" (The latter is deism by the way) agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in god at the moment and does so solely due to the evidence placed before them, and does not say "There is no possibility that a god exists" just "I haven't yet seen enough evidence, therefore I choose at this moment not to believe"
Yet Agnosticism is defined both in the dictionary and wikipedia by itself, as a standalone concept.
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
So, according to the fine folks behind our English dictionary, I am correct in saying simply "Im an agnostic". Until Merriam-Webster says I can no longer say that accurately, I will continue to use agnostic as a middle ground between theism and atheism
>I dont agree with your understanding of Atheism
Not just my understanding, I referenced philosophical dictionaries.
> but Ill stay with the logical interpretation of being "not a theist" otherwise all the words like asexuality would make no sense in comparison.
Contradictions in language has no bearing on what a philosophical definition of a word is.
> a lot of people out there who share my understanding of the word, so Ill stick with it
That's not a good reason to stick with it. If most people are wrong about something, why would you go ahead and be wrong with them?
>Follow my definition and the word agnostic becomes irrelevant. Clearly thats a plus.
That's not a plus. Being able to be more precise in defining your beliefs is very useful in philosophy.
> Een if what you said was considered: A logical reason to then call myself would just to say: no god is still more likely than god. 1000 times more so if its any specific god.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
>See the fact that there are dictionary definitions going either way and you don't get to pick the one you like better and redefine the label used by everyone of a certain position
I didn't do that.
>1) There is no god.
>2) IF - big fucking IF- there is a god, he's apathetic at best and downright sadistic at worst.
I somewhat agree with that.
If they're shifting ground like that, then they've already lost. That doesn't change my point.
I consider myself apathetic.
I don't believe there is a good, and I'm fairly firm in that belief.
However, if there were to suddenly be the second coming tomorrow, I would not suddenly become a devout man of whatever faith.
I think it's just another human construction and a hangover from our early years as the first and worst explanation for both the wonders of our planet and existentialism.
I don't know how assertive you want me to be man.
I like it when there are threads like this without all the antagonism though. Even if this is /b/
I was an atheist for a while but my girlfriend got me back into Catholicism after we were sating for a year and then some. But midway through one day i realised, i love God and believe in him with faith even if i doubt him. And in the end, if there is a God gr8 i worshipped and loved him and i get to live with him. But if there isnt? Well beimg religous still helped me be morally correft so nothing is lost.
>tl;dr there is no reason not to believe in God.
gnosticism and agnosticism are not states of belief, they are states of "can you know?" theism and atheism are states of belief, you cannot be an agnostic AND neither theist nor atheist.
any given one. Simple concepts like omnipotence (cant create rock he cant create) can be used for themselves, or you just pick any other parts from a given defintion that dont work.
Worst case, we might someday have created a concept that is so complex and well thought out, that we cant find ways to disprove it anymore.
That would be interesting o have in itself and at the same time, Im sure that after another 1000 years of disproving gods people will have wisened up.
Only retards think belief is a choice.
You either accept the evidence and believe or you don't accept the evidence, but its still a personal reaction to your environment, like whether you like the smell of something, it is not really a choice you can control.
"Agnostic" is not an actual position.
You can be an agnostic atheist
Or an agnostic theist.
You can be so divided on the matter, that you change stance multiple times per day, by your current thought process -- but you cannot not be one, or the other.
One requires an actual active belief; the idea that god exists = 1.
ALL other values for "god exists" than "= 1" means that you do not currently believe.
While "agnostic" may indeed cover those that change positions at different times, they are atheists or theists like everyone else.
Why, you ask? How many examples of human suffering shall I cite? Or torture of animals?
God gave us free will in the same way we don't turn our kids into slaves.
But would you let your children do any number of unspeakable acts to each other or to innocent animals without intervention?
If you love your child, you don't let it put its hand in a fire, or chew glass, or run across a busy street and then when your kid gets fuckin mangled say "well, up to you mate".
Sound like a caring parent to you?
Exactly. The source of your claim is marginalizing atheism to the idea of atheism being antiteizm actually.
I don't know where this idea even comes from because never in my life have I seen a person who thinks that "There is no possibility that a god exists". I actually think people like this are a legend made up by theists.
That is what I dislike. Instead of saying agnostic atheist you could just say atheist, without actually loosing any meaning.
I agree that belief is reactionary, but on the topic of things with such sparse and ambiguous evidence as the religion debate, I think there is enough wiggle room that you can choose (based on evidence) to believe something.
An apathetic all powerful god is a contradiction because it is missing the power of motivation.
A sadistic all powerful god would mean there is perfect pervasive suffering which is not supported by evidence or the presence of consistency and logic.
"Worship me and be thought policed for your entire existence, be punished and repent for the way I created you, or face an eternity of torture from which there is no appeal.
PS Love you though
I know all that, but I dismiss it. Since literally nobody knows, gnosticism/agnosticism are being used in this situation as just further descriptors of one's beliefs.
Since zero people have the actual knowledge, I refuse to classify people as "those who know" and "those who dont know". No one does.
And the dictionary says an agnostic is a noun, a person. So that's what I am.
If you believe in one then you believe in the other
Here goes, the question itself is too much for human comprehension, thus we will never know. However, there is strong evidence in the Quran that there is indeed a god. The tricky thing here is everyone thinks there was a start of time and that there is going to be an end to time. The fact is no one will ever know when time started and when time will end. That is why god is real, only he can comprehend such a difficult question. The answer god gave us is simply, infinity. Infinity has no start and no end, just like Allah, he has no begging and no end. Scientists will never be able to disprove god because they would also be disproving infinity, which in itself is impossible because infinity exists. It's hard to explain 100% because it's an incomprehensible question. It exceeds human knowledge.
I keep seeing this. People keep repeating this. But actuaally I completely agree with this guy >>582983353
Redefining words is a normal process, but what are you trying to do is to give it a meaning (based on the composition of word) that is not actually wide spread (apart from /b) or sensible(IMO), so I see no reason for it.
I wouldn't argue against you on that, however, the problem of natural suffering I think is infinitely stronger than the problem of evil.
Why couldn't that mean God gave you an immaterial mind, because He Himself is an immaterial mind?
That's an interesting thought.
Ok, take a criminal investigation, the suspect tells a first version of his story, then the police prove that that version is impossible, so the suspect changes his story to make it possible, and the police prove him wrong again and the suspect changes his story 100 times; how long do you expect him to be telling the truth?
>That's not a good reason to stick with it. If most people are wrong about something, why would you go ahead and be wrong with them?
I was essentially saying the same about your point. sorry if you couldnt understand it, due to me being german or due to yourself.
>Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Gave you a logical reason to call yourself an atheist even under your own flawed understanding.
There is no evidence to support there NOT being a flying spaghetti monster, therefore he exists.
You have a compost pile that you occasionally and carelessly add organic material to.
In it thrives a micro ecosystem which for the sake of the argument, evolves to have a consciousness.
Do you, as the creator, take an active role in the happenings in the compost bin or have any motivation to have created it?
Pretty bad analogy, but I think it gets my point accross
There is no proof that leprechauns do not exist. There is no proof that unicorns do not exist. There is no proof that the little man living inside my asshole does not exist. Honestly though, if you are on bee and you claim to be religious, you're simply a baiting liar.
here in germany you pay an immediate price for calling yourself a theist, because people see them (rightfully imo) as dumb.
Agnosticism while it will not immediately get you disrespected is still sort of intellectual hisperism.
In addition I gain personal satisfaction from applying thought to my life and from the views I build on my scientific-philosophical education
This isn't how it is, the true religion, Islam teaches us that we are human and God understands our mistakes. We are punished for failing to see the wrong in our ways. For example, you get caught stealing once and you're forgiven by the store owner and he tells you not to return to his store. You then decide to say fuck it and try to steal from him again, this time however you are not forgiven and are now having the police arrest you. God teaches us not to make the same mistakes over and over, but we're human, it's natural for us to reject someone telling us what to do because our urges out way our intellect. If we were able to remove human emotion from everything we would never have wars and we'd probably be way more advanced if we all lived to serve eachother instead of ourselves.
And a good all powerful god would meand there is perfect pervasive harmony which is not supported by evidence or presence of consistency and logic.
If you apply free will as an explaination for suffering, I'm going to say that the universe appears MORE sadistic than it appears to be good.
What happens if a one year old child manages to crawl out of the cat hatch in the middle of night, during winter in a very cold area of the world?
What happens if the most innocent creatures are exposed to suffering?
*I* would not be able to watch, unless I was a sadistic monster.
No it is not. All your idea of god is based on Bible and religion, and it is "well documented" that "creator" took serious part in life of this "compost pile" before. But suddenly stopped.
Any analogy is a lie, and analogy that compares you to god that is "perfect" by definition is complete shit.
>I was essentially saying the same about your point. sorry if you couldnt understand it, due to me being german or due to yourself.
>I know language doesnt have to fucntion logically and words can mean the opposite of what they say, but theres a lot of people out there who share my understanding of the word, so Ill stick with it.
>but theres a lot of people out there who share my understanding of the word, so Ill stick with it.
That implies that the reason you use that definition is because other people use it, which I pointed out was wrong. The definition I use is the one recognized as correct by official philosophical references.
>Gave you a logical reason to call yourself an atheist even under your own flawed understanding.
It looked like a jumbled mess to me, probably because you're German. Try explaining it to me better, please.
>here in germany you pay an immediate price for calling yourself a theist, because people see them (rightfully imo) as dumb.
>Agnosticism while it will not immediately get you disrespected is still sort of intellectual hisperism.
I didn't know that. Pretty interesting.
Pretty much what I was saying.
Humans are the only creatures NOT innocent. And I don't say that as a misanthropist. The good/evil duality thing is a human construct so how can an animal behaving solely on instinct be subject to morality?
Who says god has to be all powerful to be god? The organized religions are what say that garbage.
Why cant there be a creator that is incapable of protecting/watching/communicating with us? If it does exist, it exists outside the boundaries of our reality and physics, so how could we claim it must follow our logical rules to exist?
Well humans have a consciousness, animals don't think to themselves like we do, they decide on instinct. Humans have never acted on instinct, when faced with danger we run away, think of ways to avoid or defeat the danger and then act. There's a reason why we use computers and animals don't. How is it even a question as to why animals shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?
if you've spent more than 1 fucking day on /b/ you would already know this because stupid cunts like you post it about 100 times a day
so you, not as an individual, but as a group of stupid cunts, have posted this exact topic before.
Taking the bait, because I'm a tremendous faggot.
>Oscar: There are flying strippers who watch everything you do, know literally everything, and are literally perfect(except for the fact they have genital warts and HPV).
>Mike: That makes no fucking sense, why should I believe you? Prove it or gtfo.
>Oscar's friend, Charlie: It's true! The strippers fly around so fast they're invisible to the naked eye. I've never seen them myself, but Oscar told me about them!
>Oscar's friend, Juliett: We don't need proof because why would Oscar lie to us? We have faith! That's all you really need!
>Mike: So you're telling me that you all believe in something that makes no sense, has no supporting evidence, and has actual scientific evidence AGAINST it?
>Oscar, Charlie and Juliett: Yep!
Later that month Oscar, Charlie and Juliett are found dead; huddled around a punch bowl full of cyanide.
because it begs to be questioned. At one very real point in the past there was zero living matter anywhere in the universe. And then there was a moment after where there was living matter. Humanity burns with desire to know what caused such a phenomenon.
Mfw Germans have better English vocabulary than me...
>All that crap about Horus
Any Egyptologist could tell you that this is crap. For one, Horus wasn't a virgin birth, he was the product of his mother Isis having sex with the corpse of her brother/husband Osiris. How are we supposed to agree with you if you do exactly what you accuse us of doing and make shit up?
Haha it isn't really, I was just agreeing with >>582985028 that bad shit happens to us coz of free will, but why does it happen to animals outside the influence of humans.
If cruelty befalls us by our doing, by that logic, animals should not suffer the same.
Because unlike other religions Islam is the words of god, never changed, there is no new or Old Testament. For example Christianity is a book written ABOUT God. Islam is a book that was given to us from god. Unlike other religions Islam also encourages questioning, believe me I grew up in America and I had the same questions as all of you, my imam(priest) crushed all of my questions and disbaliefs, If you have a mosque near you I highly encourage you to sit with the imam and question Islam.
>I have a question for Atheists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like religious people).
Yet another faggot who doesn't understand Atheism.
"Belief" = different from "knowing with 100% certainty."
Religious people believe in God with no proof that he physically, actually exists. Atheists don't believe in God, and also cannot prove with science that he does NOT exist. But neither religious people or Atheists know with 100% certainty if God exists or not. Anyone who says they do are delusional.
The difference is that smart people tend to not believe in something until it can be physically verified. Just like I don't believe there is a clone army of my favorite female celebrities ready to suck my cock all day long, I don't believe there is a "God" in religious definition of the term.
That is another thing I always laugh about: religious fags assuming their version of "God" all the time, like there can be no other consideration of what "God" means. That comes from ignorance and a lack of education.
Why do I have to be 100% certain? 99% certain works just as well. Without evidence, I have no interest in what you are selling.
Actually contrary to your claim, western science is absolute not haram, Muslims are the ones who pushed science and discovery more than any religion. Infact if you were to learn about Islam you would find that it encourages us to question the world around us and to find ways to improve ourselves, evidence: Muslims are the reason for modern healthcare and are the reason you know math.
I respect your beliefs and your right to practice whatever religion you choose, but I don't think I stand to gain anything by it. I'm happy to be my own man in charge of my own destiny, and honestly don't believe any imam or priest will be able to change my mind, as willing as I am to be open-minded about it.
This is excactly my own view aswell, i just can't comprehend why people differ about this shit like little children, if there's no proof, please shut up about it untill you can prove it, it's useless speculating seriously if there's a naked old man with a zombie jew son, or a spaghetti monster, or whatever scientology believes. I wouldn't have such a porblem with all these religious fucktards if they shut the fuck up about it.
Well then you will be left forever wondering with no real purpose in life. Remember one day you WILL die, don't ever forget that, when you're dead you're left with nothing but yourself. And when god asks you what did you leave behind in life you'll be left with nothing to say as you just drifted through life never reaching your full intellectual and spiritual potential. If there was one piece of advice I could give you it would be to seriously consider the thoughts of what happens when you die, if the answer is nothing then you believe everyone has died for nothing. I personally decided to dig into religion because I lost my father and I wondered what was going to happen to him, burying him wasn't the end because as I was there I knew there had to be more to life then just living for the sake of living.
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Odin when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
I'll bite. Don't know why, but I'm biting.
I'm not 100% certain there is no god. But I still believe there is none. Just like I'm not 100% certain there is no nigger hiding under my bed: There could be, but it's unlikely so I'll assume by bed is nigger-free.
I see no evidence and I have no reason to suspect there is a god.
They're is more proof of God's existence than there is against it. I'm not a scholar on it or anything like that, but if you did the research from an unbiased point of view there is no denying it.
Yep, the "op is a faggot"ers have arrived.
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Cthulu when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
We'll then you're the reason the world is being held back, if you're ok with 99% over 100% then you're ignorant. 1% is the difference as to why you could be born like the 99% of us or you could be born as the 1% defected of those who never had the chance to live outside the womb. Please consider this viewpoint.
The Quran has MANY examples actually. In the quran which I mind you was given to humanity a very long time ago has the a 100% accurate description of what the miracle of life looks like. How could Mohammad SWT be able to know what a single sperm cell or even a single female egg look like back then?
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Wotan when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
It's funny how the point of my fathers passing flew straight over your head. Also, you're calling me weak minded when you yourself have probably never took the time to go really investigate religion. Instead you sit at home on your computer eat up all the bullshit about how god telling you what to do is gonna ruin your life. Kind of like a child who ignores his parents, those guys normally turn out good right? Also, for the record the sage ID is heaven, which is ironic because it's probably the only time you'll have the pleasure of having it. I do pray for everyone to one day reach heaven, can you say the same? Of course not, you judge others as if you were supreme in any way.
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Xochiquetzal when there is no proof that she does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Nephthys when there is no proof that she does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Hera when there is no proof that she does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Baal when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
>you use that definition is because other people use it, which I pointed out was wrong
what? to say something stands in a dictionary is not the same as saying other dictioanries might not have better definitions or that people dont use it differently.
You are unfit for this discussion.
>Gave you a logical reason to call yourself an atheist even under your own flawed understanding
You say you need a logical reason to call yourself an atheist, whithout absolute certainty, that some form of a god doesnt exist.
use likelyhood. Its rational in the same way that you can use it to gain science grades or tell if youre in love.
OBVIOUSLY you can't just believe with certainty that something doesn't exist. We c a n t disprove God, so there is no way a "rational person" by scientific standards would entirely refute it. I think really diehard Atheists are hilarious because of that. Most Atheists would probably tell you that they don't believe in God based on the idea that you don't believe something without clear reason to believe it. Odds are also that if God came down before everyone and whatever, they'd believe in God. Deep down everyone is Agnostic because everyone (reasonable) will consider the possibility of the other being true, given neither is proven (nor provable).
I have a question for you. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is a god when there is no proof that he exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
Proof does exist if you go to a mosque. Chances are you, like many, don't want to believe in god because you're too busy trying to have fun before you die. See my previous posts. You're alive for a max of 200years, but you're dead for eternity, think about which one is more important that way.
it's called "education", which seems to lack in the US, or you'll
have to pay for it (Really? Yes, really! Education is only for the
rich(er) over there. Keep the poor poor and the rich rich.)
What about the omnipotence paradox? The idea of an omnipotent god is disproved by the simple question: can God make a rock too big for him to lift? No matter how you answer it, it means God is not all powerful because to be all powerful he must be able to do anything, which he clearly can't.
I'll take the fucking bait. Sorry bud, but no. No offense to any theists but the search for God is about the least important question we could be asking these days. There are much bigger fish to fry so sitting around wasting time wondering whether or not I'll burn, fly around with pretty little wings, or just die after life is a waste of the already short time we have. Instead, just embrace Marcus Aureilus "If there are Gods and they are just then they will not judge us by how devout we have been but by the way in which we have lived our lives. If there are Gods and they are unjust, then they were not worth following in the first place. And if there are no Gods, then you will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories f those around you"
O now I get it. You're afraid to die.
And to answer your question, being alive is more important than being dead.
You know that when you die you're dead right? D.e.a.d. No longer alive.
Just like before you were born. You have to be full retard to think you're
still alive after you died.