[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
> For atheists: why do you think that...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 274
Thread images: 15
File: Zeus.jpg (238 KB, 800x1667) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Zeus.jpg
238 KB, 800x1667
> For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?
> For theists: why do you think that god exists?
>>
I'm a panentheist. Reality and its principles are the proof
>>
>>677877
Why yes?
Comparative analysis of philosophies and religions.
Also, use the capital G. It's simple grammar.
>>
>For people on 4chan: why do you have this thread everyday?
>>
don't give a damn

god or not the world is still what it is
the reason why religious discussions are stupid is because proof or not, none of our country's/world's problems will be solved
>>
>>677885
>punctuation
>grammar
>>
>> For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?

No evidence for it, the concept isn't falsifiable
>>
>>677877
> For theists: why do you think that god exists?

Because I can look down and see my 2 foot long dick.
>>
>>677877
Can't conclusively prove a negative while still remaining skeptical.
If I'm going to believe in god I may as well believe any number of unsubstantiated claims.
>>
None of the manmade religions seem plausible to me.

An impersonal god like whatever deists and pantheists believe in seems possible, but since its ultimately unproven and the existence of an impersonal god wouldn't really affect my life I don't believe in it.
>>
>>677944
>m-muh evidence

Autists will never get it, will they? God is what you arrive through self-knowledge, through investigation of consciousness by conscious
>>
>>677997
LITERALLY MUH FEELS
>>
>>677882
>meme-tier belief system
>>
>>677997
>>m-muh evidence
>implying evidence is an invalid way to figure out the truth
Kek
>>
>>677997

And when Atheist founds that he does not believe in gods after that you call him fedora.
Great job.
>>
>>677877
> For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?

Because I actually appreciate what religion is and the role it plays in societies. If you understand the purpose and origin of religions there's absolutely no reason to actually believe they are fact.
>>
>>678014
>>678005
>>678014

There is knowledge of properties as revealed by science, and there is knowledge of essence as revealed by consciousness, or rather, there is a form of knowledge peculiar to consciousness itself which is superior to discursive reasoning in the domain of value, meaning, and the nature of existence.
>>
>>677877
>For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?
I don't. I just don't believe in any god. If someone can prove that their god is real and the right one, cool, but until that I just wish people would shut up about it.
>>
I could accept a deist god. The arguments aren't perfect but they're substantial. The leap to any organized religion however is too large for me.
>>
>>678046
Are you making up words?
>>
>>678046
>knowledge of essence revealed by consciousness
This better not be mysticism you're talking about. You could literally think up of anything in your mind, and then use subjective "truth" to justify it. We need something that we can empirically test, or at the very least logically demonstrate to exist. I've never had any so-called proof for God bring my belief beyond "it's possible," so I've found no reason to believe in him.
>>
>>678060
Go back to school.

>>678061
The Buddha intuited no-self thousands of years before any "philosopher" of mind had anything to say about it.

Daoists have been describing psychological flow states since the Tao te Ching

The knowledge of spiritual figures is intuitive knowledge. How autistic do you have to be to want empirical proof for "do unto others as you would want done to yourself"? This is the field where religion/mysticism operates. Science has nothing to say here.
>>
>>678072
I never said shit about science. I said we need something we can either empirically test or rationally demonstrate, not just a feeling. Believing in some sort of higher power or "unity" and only having the justification of "I feel that it's true, so I know by intuition" isn't acceptable. You must have proof.
>>
>>677877
I believe that God exists because that's what I was taught as a child. It's something that I tried to shake when I was in high school and college. I've come back around and learned to embrace it, even if I am in constant doubt.
>>
>>678089
How many times do I have to say you can't have physical proof for a transcendent state/being? How about the commonalities between religious experiences found in all cultures? Either way, that's as good as its gonna get. Which is pretty good considering nearly all spiritual aspirants agree in their descriptions of higher states of consciousness. Even if they are describing nothing that exists outside the universe, and it's all in their minds, it is still a fact that what they describe about the mind is real.

God you guys really are just robots sputtering "p-proof??" all the time
>>
File: 1454592933663.jpg (82 KB, 533x799) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1454592933663.jpg
82 KB, 533x799
>>677877
>why
grew up christian
after a certain age stopped going to church
learned about other religions
doubted them in my teenage angsty years
looked into philosophy
looked into mysticism
looked into occultism
had a bad stint in occult reading
began to obsess over magic
later began to realize God is the source of all knowledge
>mfw God is the supreme mind
return to mysticism by way of christianity
attain gnosis through experiences in contemplation
experience entheogens (DMT, mushrooms)
>mfw God is no longer an idea, but an urge

I've spent years refining my approach to "God." I believe because I know. God is not a figure. God is a dimension. A mode of being. God is home. And we must all find our way back by delving into life and being true to your most noble self. Being honest with yourself is the first step. Everything else is secondary.
>>
I don't believe in God because I don't think the world is structured in a way that would call for a concept like that. e.g. there is no 'first mover' because movement doesn't descend in a tree structure like the Aristotelians wish it would.
>>
>>678102
>transcendence
What is this even supposed to mean?
>Even if they are describing nothing that exists outside the universe, and it's all in their minds, it is still a fact that what they describe about the mind is real.
Then it's all just psychology. Peyote used to be (and still often is) considered a method of obtaining a higher state of consciousness, and it's just a hallucinogen. It's not too much of a stretch to call spiritual experiences a fully psychological phenomenon, and not actually related to any truths about the world.
>God you guys really are just robots sputtering "p-proof??" all the time
Maybe because I don't want to believe in something I don't have proof for? Jesus, it's simple logic.
>>
>>678102
Nothing you have said in any way proves, or even justifies a belief in any god. At best it justifies the moral values of some religions.
The question wasn't "Do you believe in religion/think religion is right?" it was "Do you believe in god?".
>>
I am a deist and a neohumanist.
>>
>>677877
>> For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?
I just don't know man.
>>
>>678118
If you truly do want proof, you'll have to find it yourself. You realize this right?
>>
>>678116
Elaborate
>>
>>677997
>Autists will never get it, will they? God is what you arrive through self-knowledge, through investigation of consciousness by conscious

No it isn't you mong you can't just redefine it to suit your whims.
>>
>>677877
>why do you think that god doesn't exist?
no reason to
>>
>>678145
>you'll have to find it yourself
You mean make it yourself? Because that's what I see most theists doing. Making new evidence and reinterpreting old conclusions to their heart's content. And when that fails, they use some form of mysticism or "transcendent knowledge" to put their god on an unfalsifiable pedestal. That's just pulling shit out of your mind, which is a pretty bad way of finding the truth.
Besides, if God existed, he would make incontrovertible evidence of His existence. That way, no good but misguided people would turn away from his faith; only the truly wicked would do so.
>>
>>677877
I personally think that God exists. When new scientific discoveries are made it only seems to strengthen the argument for God, in my opinion.

Also, science, in its need to avoid God, always ends up creating some supernatural event anyways, in an attempt to explain the creation of life and the universe.
>>
>>678102
>How about the commonalities between religious experiences found in all cultures?
They can be better explained by similarities in human anatomy/psychology.

> transcendent state/being
What's that supposed to mean? seriously asking, I'm not trying to be obnoxious.
>>
>>677877
Theist: i assert that god exists

Atheist: any other stance

Its not claiming "god doesn't exist".

Atheism in general doesn't make claims. Gnostic atheism does, but basicly noone does this.
>>
>>678181
>Also, science, in its need to avoid God, always ends up creating some supernatural event anyways, in an attempt to explain the creation of life and the universe.
Like what?
>>
>>678155
>god isn't inside you, it's in books and churches lmao
lol get a load of this pleb cam
>>
>>678120
>the divine is achieved experientially, not empirically
>hurr durr you haven't proven anything in this thread!!


Learn tigress dumba
>>
>>677997
>investigation of consciousness by conscious
>making conclusions about anything but your own conciousness

Buddhists do this all the time with meditation, and a LOT better and deeper and more systematic than any other religion. And none of those think it leads to theism.
You think atheists can't meditate? No, of course they can't. Only you can. You are special. And your feels count as evidence.

Science and humanity started making propper progress once it discarded this kind of egocentric horseshit.
>>
>>678193
The Big Bang, and all the questions of how it started and what existed before, may as well be asking about God. "It just was!" "There WAS nothing!"

Abiogenesis is not possible, it has never been demonstrated to be able to create life from non-living matter, and the more people try, the more they prove that the idea is folly.
>>
>>678198
>you find god through experience
What experience? That word can mean anything. If I "experience" the good old Flying Spaghetti Monster in my life, does that mean that he's there? Or does it mean that I'm decieving myself. And don't tell me that's a strawman. It's not. Subjective experience could be used to justify anything.
>>
>>678186
This

It's not even exclusive to religion

>Apple triggers 'religious' reaction in fans' brains, report says

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/05/19/apple.religion/
>>
How long will it take for theism to die out?

How is it possible for otherwise intelligent people to be convinced of such a ridiculous idea?
>>
>>678198
You're not even talking about god though. You're just rambling on about personal enlightenment. These are not the same thing at all. "God" as a concept is an external deity, and has nothing to do with your personal self.
>>
>>677877

I have never seen god.

None of the people who say they have seem to be able to point it out.

And none of them point in the same direction. Definitely not the same direction as the others, and usually not in the same direction twice.
>>
>>678072
Brains are matter, mental states are therefore bound by natural law (none of your "magic soul stuff" christ-chan).
If being empathetic is better for people, its discernable in the state of the human brain.

You clinging to "meaning and morals are magic you're not allowed to do science to it, its infringing on my feels!" or holding "medieval wisdom" as more than historical reference is just.. confused.
>>
>>678206
>The Big Bang, and all the questions of how it started and what existed before, may as well be asking about God. "It just was!" "There WAS nothing!"
The big bang theory explains how the universe was really small, then it became very big, very quickly. It doesn't ask any questions about what came before, it may raise them, but they aren't scientific because we can't gather any data to make a hypothesis.

>Abiogenesis is not possible, it has never been demonstrated to be able to create life from non-living matter, and the more people try, the more they prove that the idea is folly.
Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. It's not like people have been trying for very long.

Out of curiosity, if man managed to synthesise life completely from scratch would you question your beliefs?
>>
>>678211
Theism will never die out. It is not a dysfunction, it is actually an integral part of the human psyche. Just like we need food, water, and air, the human mind needs some (perceived) higher purpose. Even the nihilist makes entropy his god.
>>
>>678211

Why would it ever die out?

>how long will it take for people to stop naming their cars and pets and natural sites

has the same answer as your question.
>>
>>678229
>the human mind needs some (perceived) higher purpose.

What makes you say that?
>>
>>678227
>Out of curiosity, if man managed to synthesise life completely from scratch would you question your beliefs?
Yes, I would. It's not like I'm some hardcore jesus freak, you know. But I've done a LOT of reading and thinking over the years and it just seems to make sense.
>>
>>677877
Atheist here. I do not necessarily belive that no god exists as I'm not a gnostic atheist. Furthermore without further defining the term god the question becomes meaningless.
>>
>>678235

Really?

Why would humans creating life from non-life make any difference... unless your belief is predicated on this being impossible without divine intervention, that life itself proves god.

If you were really interested in knowing, you'd spend the rest of your life earnestly trying to synthesize life in the lab. I can't think of another way to test it.
>>
>>678232
Because it's been popping up in humans since the beginning of time. The Egyptians were smart enough to do all the things they did and they still had their gods. Even Socrates believed in a higher power (or powers). And I don't think you'd disagree with the notion that people function best when they have some sort of code or credo to conform to.
>>
>>678240

>gnostic atheist

no such animal
>>
>>678247
>Even Socrates believed in a higher power (or powers).

DID HE?

It sounded to me like he was challenging anyone to prove THEIR gods, the gods of Athens in this case, as more correct than HIS gods. He believed in argument, and he was searching for the same one OP is searching for. But the Greeks couldn't come up with anything.
>>
>>678247
Look up "hyperactive agency detection". Human intuitions are retarded, you'll feel intent where there is none and be VERY certain you did.

But feeling certain doesn't make it true or reliable information, you have to test shit.

If you can't admit that, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

>>678248
Not all atheists are rational. Buddhist will tell you they KNOW no theistic god exists, because they've "seen" through reality.
>>
>>678244
Consider that humans and apes share nearly 100% of our DNA, but that miniscule, ~1% difference is the gap between us, who can conquer the earth (and space eventually), and apes, who are condemned to scratching their butts for our amusement. That's just 1%. Imagine the intricacy, the precision required for the other 99% of the DNA to be created just so. (I guess you could call this a fine--tuning argument). The argument that all of this happened by chance is banking on a probability so low that it makes lotteries look like a coin flip in comparison.
>>
>>678277

We don't know how many times it is tried. If it's a one in a quintillion chance, and it's been iterated out a sextillion times, there would be a million examples of life in the universe.

Fine tuning means nothing unless we have something else to compare it to, something that isn't fine tuned. For all we know there is no tuning involved, the constants are just constant.
>>
There is a science that has for its object only things incomprehensible. Contrary to all other sciences, it treats only of what cannot fall under our senses. Hobbes calls it the kingdom of darkness. It is a country, where every thing is governed by laws, contrary to those which mankind are permitted to know in the world they inhabit. In this marvellous region, light is only darkness; evidence is doubtful or false; impossibilities are credible: reason is a deceitful guide; and good sense becomes madness. This science is called theology, and this theology is a continual insult to the reason of man.
>>
>>678277
Pretty sure we share less than 99% of our DNA with apes, wikipedia tells me it's 4% and that's where I'm going to be sourcing my numbers from.
0.1% would be the observed difference between the genome of 2 individual humans.
Consider also that your finetuning argument falls apart when one considers that only a miniscule portion of that DNA (1.5%) can be directly observed to make a contribution in the form of Protein encoding genes (There are still regulatory segments and such but those are still dwarfed in size by the apparently completely useless segments).

Your "Just so" argument falls to further pieces when you remove your "Human goal" lense. Random mutations happen, are selected for by environmental pressure and potentially push a trend for further selections.
>>
>>678277
This is not about chance. If you tried the lottery for a billion years you'd win too. And we share 70% of our DNA with sea urchins. So what?
But you are right, life is amazing. As is astronomy, chemistry, math, and the universe in general. Not intrinsicly amazing, just to us humans.

Does that tell you anything substantial about anything but human psychology? No.
>>
>>678309

If you only look at coding DNA, we share more than the wikipedia estimate; the 4% figure is more about how many generations apart we are as genus's (genuses? genii?).


Final Destination: Math is. Maths.
>>
>>678298
I think that our own solar system has something to say. Mars has no life. Venus has no life. Jupiter has no life. Mercury has no life. Saturn has no life. Why is this?

Earth has many extremophiles that can exist in places without water, places with ridiculous heat, places that are frigid. Clearly life can adapt to the most absurd environments. Why then, are our other planets barren?

>>678309
>completely useless
I will never fall for this
>>
>>678306
Oh fuck thats awesome. Thanks for that.
>>
>>678315
>If you tried the lottery for a billion years you'd win too
fallacy. gambler's fallacy
>>
>>678229
>integral part of the human psyche
There are many people that don't belief in God. Seems like they can cope just fine.
>>
>>678322
>but we're so speciul
Easiest answer: because life might need weird conditions to start out, and the other planets didn't have that. Occams razor cuts your god stuff right outta there.

Or, they had life on them some time ago. Or will have it on them later. Or, they might have life on them right now and we haven't seen it yet.

None of your given reasons point towards a deity by themselves, you are just trying to arrange a narrative that confirms your established belief.

Cut that shit out, it undermines your cause.
>>
>>678322

>I think that our own solar system has something to say. Mars has no life. Venus has no life. Jupiter has no life. Mercury has no life. Saturn has no life. Why is this?

If our solar system is typical, as you suggest, then one planet per solar system develops life, on average?

>Earth has many extremophiles that can exist in places without water, places with ridiculous heat, places that are frigid. Clearly life can adapt to the most absurd environments. Why then, are our other planets barren?

Let's wait and see what happens to those places when we actually go to them. Our extremophiles will colonize them, as they did on Earth, as they almost certainly have already done on Mars. They might be there waiting for us, and on Mars, we may have brought some of them.
>>
>>678226
Do you not get that I'm saying the spiritual feeling that is universal to all cultures is a reflection of higher truths, or do you literally think I'm saying when I think of God or morality it's happening acausally? Lol come on dude, this is reddit-tier.

>>678214
I'm talking about the Absolute.

>>678207

Objective analysis of inner experiences and detachment from results, no matter how blissful or "heavenly" is the trademark of any true spiritual path
>>
>>678326
No, it isn't
>>
>>678201
>technological progress = spiritual/moral progress
>feforafags will defend this
>>
>>678151
elaborate on what exactly? you're going to have to be more specific about what you want to hear from me
>>
>>678342

There is also the moral progress.

There is no doubt that the last few hundred years increased our capability to wreak violence exponentially.

Our actual wreaking of violence went up, but it still only matches the earlier periods of great violence, the An Shi Rebellion, Genghis Khan's Adventures, the Thirty Years War, and the World Wars (the period when our ability to commit violence was great).

Logically, our propensity to commit violence has gone down as well, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>>
>>678335
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with God. As I said earlier in the thread, anything pertaining to the Big Bang/birth of the universe may as well be about God. Also, note I'm not denying evolution, only abiogenesis.

>>678336
>If our solar system is typical, as you suggest, then one planet per solar system develops life, on average?
I'm not sure. We've discovered exoplanets but they always seem to be Jupiter-sized or so. Is that ok for life to grow on? Who knows.
>>
>>678322
It's not bait though.
A significant quantity of your genome is apparently useless.
Or are you going to insist that Introns, despite being cut out during mRNA processing, are observably useful?
Not to mention any number of other things in your genome with no apparent function.

There is also a distinct reason why I said "Apparently completely useless" and not just "Completely useless" because it would be stupid to discount everything that has no as of yet observed function.
But using it to dispute the "Imagine the other 99% of our DNA" statement is completely justified.

>>678322
Life has to be exposed to circumstances it can reasonably survive before it can adapt to them.
Starting conditions also have to be just right.
>>
I believe in the energy of the world. The Dharma, the mechanism of the universe. Nothing is supernatural as all manifestations are with in nature which is existence.
>>
>>677877
I believe that Gods exist because it is merely a word, a word that refers to something we are capable of identifying as being in control. It's subjective.

The more shortsighted you are, the more your God has a supernatural element to it; the deeper you can perceive things in the world, the more your God is really just a word for something identifiable that's in control.

And if you feel yourself entirely in control, then YOU are God.

I don't think a supernatural God or single God exists because the concept of supernatural and a thing-in-itself comes from shortsightedness.
>>
>>678366
>Or are you going to insist that Introns, despite being cut out during mRNA processing, are observably useful?
Until they can create life I don't think they have the authority to call something "useless". It could have a function that they never anticipated.
>>
I'm buddist, Why does it matter?
>>
>>678362
>I'm not denying evolution, only abiogenesis.
Thats a dogmatic stance thats not based in anything scientific.
This is the EXACT SAME as proving the absence of god. You think people dogmaticly deny the existance of god without having disproven god, yet claim certainty about abiogenesis without humanity knowing very little about how life started, and what can and can't happen.
You assert certainties based on a lack of knowledge.

If abiogenesis WOULD be possible, as a very rare event, how exaclty would the world be any different?
>>
>>678362
>I'm not sure. We've discovered exoplanets but they always seem to be Jupiter-sized or so. Is that ok for life to grow on? Who knows.

Let us say solar systems like ours are at least somewhat common. We've already found a few, so let's assume we find the same proportion as we keep looking.

If we find many planets that are in similar positions to Earth, with similar elemental compositions, having had similar histories, and they are all barren of life, that will be evidence in favor of Earth being unique.

We don't know yet.

>this may be a double-post
>>
>>678338
>Absolute
The observable and testable world?
>>
>>678380

You might be unlucky enough to be reincarnated as god.

That would suck, you'd be stuck.
>>
>>678392
You memeing or you actually don't know what I'm referring to? Ayy lmao
>>
>>678397
You memeing or you actually don't know what I'm referring to? Ayy lmao
>>
>>678384
Well, we've seen evolution. The variety of dog breeds is basically accelerated evolution provoked by humans. That's why I said that. And no, I can't prove God exists. But I haven't seen anything that DISproves Him, either. I know you won't like that, but it is what it is.

>>678391
Yeah. I wish we lived in the future, I'd love to explore extrasolar systems. feels bad man
>>
>>678408
>Yeah. I wish we lived in the future, I'd love to explore extrasolar systems. feels bad man

Until then, we can't say if Earth is typical or not. The atheist argument doesn't rely on Earth being unique or common; some theist arguments do rely on Earth being unique, so they can't prove part of their argument yet.
>>
>>678405
Go back to school dumbass
>>
>>678374
While I'm not completely discounting that there might be some function to it, especially since progress on stuff like this is getting better and better, the vast majority of DNA is "junk" that is cut out during processing or doesn't do anything observable and unlike RNA I don't think DNA even does any interesting structural bullshit.
As far as we know only about 10% of your DNA does anything which is observable.
There may be some unforeseen use to it, but just assuming that the majority of that 90% has a function that we just can't see is almost ridiculous.
>>
>>678277
That 99% thing is only valid if you compare only the protein encoding parts. What was previously thought to be "junk DNA", and now considered to hold information as well, increases that difference quite a bit.

Not that it matters, your argument would still be nonsense either way. "i can't imagine how therefore god"
>>
>>678416
Tell me what "The Absolute" is first because this subject cannot be discussed independent of other things because you don't like it.
>>
>>678408
..Why would I not like that? You just told me your worldview is based on irrational thinking and horrid misconception of burden of proof.
If you can't show anything that would convince a reasonable person that your assertion is correct, yet believe it yourself - that defines a delusion.

And don't be tempted to drag in some horseshit like "but you can't prove love, and you believe that too, so you're as irrational as i am and therefore irrationality is ok somehow". Certainty levels about emotional states of other human beings have nothing to do with assertions on how the universe was created by an invisible undetectable superbeing.
>>
>>678426
Just look it up on wiki dude
>>
>why do you think good doesn't exist.

Why should I assume he does. Stop asking this arrogant question.
>>
>>678439
You're very angry right now so go ahead and claim your win. I don't care
>>
>>678444
I did and I don't accept it. I hope this will sit firmly with astrology and alchemy in a few decades.
>>
There may be one, there may not be one.
If there is, it probably isn't a god from any religion that exists thus far, so there isn't much of a reason to follow any religion unless you want to.

Maybe you'll find out when you die, maybe not. Just be a good person in the life you have and if there is a judgment after death, maybe you'll go somewhere good.
>>
>>678457
lol OK chief
>>
>>677877

Unless you can give me a falsifiable definition of god I'm not even going to worry about it.
>>
>>678459
Or start your own kick ass cult with beer and hookers
>>
File: 122kvhx.jpg (19 KB, 642x361) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
122kvhx.jpg
19 KB, 642x361
God is the first cause. God isn't a man, god is however we perceive and try to understand the world. I think non-proselytizing faiths nail the concept of God the best, but much of the same wisdom I think can be found in many.
>>
>>678468
XD
>>
>>678214

You don't understand, in this moment he is euphoric because he is enlightened by his own feelings.
>>
>>678477
EPIC omg
>>
Atheism is the null hypothesis.
>>
>>678487

Thank you, anon.
>>
File: 2e8.jpg (34 KB, 680x483) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2e8.jpg
34 KB, 680x483
>>678452
Annoyed with nonsense is not being angry. But thanks!
>>
>>678503
Are we breaking out our shitposting memes now?
>>
>>677877
I like rahner's philosophy of god
That's why I'm religious
>>
>>678503
Observe this man. He has made science his religion, becoming its de facto attack dog against anyone who dares to question it. I hope you find peace
>>
>>678488

No it isn't.

You have no idea what the null hypothesis even is.

And I'll bet sam harris has sold you on his bullshit definition of atheism too, so you don't even know what atheism is.

Gtfo stupid pleb. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
>>
>>678518
Rich accusation by those who've got everything to lose by being proven wrong more and more.
>>
There is no proof he exists so I have no reason to believe he does
I cant even "feel" him so even more reason
>>
>>678518
He's not treating it as a religion. He's treating science as a set of prepositions which have been tested and basically proven to be true, which is is. Science is the closest thing we have to objective facts. We can't mistrust it just because of some belief that we only hold because of muh feels.
>>
>>678535
I'm religious but I completely respect your rational
But faith doesn't come easy. You have to search for God and go to church, retreats, and read theology and stuff
>>
>>678538
>basically proven to be true, which it is

WRONG

INDUCTIVE SYSTEMS CANNOT DELIVER CERTAIN ABSOLUTELY PROVABLE A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE

EVER

ALSO ITS PROPOSITIONS

>Science is the closest thing we have to objective facts.

INCORRECT SEE ABOVE

YOU ARE BASICALLY AN IGNORAMUS AND A SOPHOMORE

PLEASE LURK MORE
>>
>>678542
I'm sorry, but there is nothing more bullshit than the concept of religious faith. If I chose to have faith in an invisible, omnipotent flight of stairs which I saw as my God, what reason would there be not to? It's just as valid a theory as that of Jesus.
>>
>>678104
you should be a tripfag
>>
>>678554

you are literally an autistic 14 year old
>>
>>678549
>WRONG
>INDUCTIVE SYSTEMS CANNOT DELIVER CERTAIN ABSOLUTELY PROVABLE A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE
>EVER
And you're saying that faith can? Or some sort of "rational belief in God" that in reality only demonstrates that God cannot be disproved.
>>Science is the closest thing we have to objective facts.
>>closest
I never said scientific facts were completely objective. I just said that they're closer to the truth than anything we can get.
>PLEASE LURK MORE
Maybe you should calm the fuck down before getting buttmad on the internet.
>>
File: alizey-khan.jpg (104 KB, 900x558) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
alizey-khan.jpg
104 KB, 900x558
My god has already revealed himself to me and soon the world will know him.
>>
God is truth, if there were no truth that would be a truth, therefor God is inevitable.
>>
>>678554
The reason not to would be that you know you invented it, and lied about it.
>>
>>678571
>And you're saying that faith can?

WHERE DID I IMPLY THIS

I SAW YOU BEING STUPID AND DECIDED TO CORRECT YOU
>>
>>678563
>I don't want to bother disproving this guy's assertion
>therefore I'll call him an autistic fedora and claim my victory
It's true. People always say to have faith in God, but they never realize that one could have faith in anything. Faith is not a means to truth.
>>
>>678571
Empirical evidence is not the closest to the truth we can get.

Revealed truth from God is the closest to the truth we can get.

Having the Truth live in you is the closest to the truth you can get.
>>
>>678583
>truth

What is truth?

If you so happen to know.
>>
>>678581
Well then what's closer to objective truth than science?
>>
>>678575
>>
>>678339
I'm seeing more and more often, people who learn about the gamblers' fallacy will OVERapply it, just like we see here. So bizarre.
>>
>>678583
Correct.

Faith is the human ability to believe the unseen. The presence of faith is not the important bit, nor the sincerity. The object of that faith is the important bit.

My faith is in the risen Christ Jesus.
>>
>>678587

Revealed truth from God.
>>
>>678585
>revealed truth from God
You must be b8ing.

How do you know the Bible is God's revealed truth? Who told you? Did God come down and tell you himself? Until he does the same for me, I have no reason to believe in him.
>>
>>678594
See >>678595
>>
>>678587

Any valid deduction.

Do you even fucking understand the difference between inductive and deductive systems?

Do you have even the slightest passing familiarity with Francis fucking Bacon?
>>
>>678595

By reading and understanding it.

God.

Yes.

You do; actually, before God, you stand without excuse. You can say a billion times that God did not create the universe, but He did.

It is evidence of Him, and His attributes.
>>
>>678598
>>678600
>>
>>678472
>god is however we perceive and try to understand the world
God is "Should I fuck it or destroy it?"
>>
>>678599
The satanic Rosicrucian? Yeah, that's your Bacon.
>>
>>678592
Why not have faith in everyone being in a sort of Matrix, and that when we "die" we'll find that we're all actually immortal beings and will never die? Why not have faith in the pagan gods of old? What's the difference between them and Christianity?
>>
>>678600
Now you're doing nothing but making assertions without evidence, expecting me to read the Bible and "see" the truth. Anybody can do that. I can write my own holy book and do the same.
>>
>>678607
You can, and are certainly welcome to. It doesn't seem particularly useful or predictive to me, but if that's where you want to put your faith, in your sovereignty, that is where your faith will be.

I already know I am an immortal being who will always exist. You will also know this, as you too are an immortal being who will always exist.

The pagan gods of old are inferior to the one true God in every way possible, and are slated for the lake of fire, with all of their followers in tow.

Pagan gods are deified humans and fallen angels.

Jesus is God. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, the Christ, Who died for the sins of mankind and rose on the third day, offering salvation to all who believe the truth of who He is, and what He did.
>>
>>678607
>What's the difference between them and Christianity?
Getting other people to buy in by threat/application of violence, social exclusion, and natural tribalism/home teamism.
>>
>>678606

Basically the Father of the Scientific Method.
>>
>>678610
>I can write my own holy book and do the same.
Do it then, fag.
>>
>>678610
You cannot write a holy book, as only God can make a thing holy. There is only one holy book on the planet, the bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

It will speak to you, which, of course, is why you fear to read it.

It's not that you do not believe in God; it's that you do not want to believe in God.
>>
>>678617

>Who is Galileo Galilei
>>
>>678611
>deified humans and fallen angels
Which one is Mithra?
>>
>>678583

Answer the question.

>>678586
>>
>>678599
Yeah, and deductive reasoning is bullshit the way you're using it. You could start with any premises and have it be correct by your logic. Assumed premises must be as simple as possible.
>>
>>678619
I thought it was the Quran though, opinions?
>>
>>678619
>It will speak to you, which, of course, is why you fear to read it.

Wew. How do you confront a secular scholar/mind who has read the bible?
>>
>>678623

a fraud and general asshole
>>
>>678625
What's there to define? Truth is anything that isn't false. Why do you need my definition for such a basic concept?
>>
>>678631
>a fraud
In regards to...?
>>
>>678619
How do you know any of this? What reason do you have to believe in any of this?
>>
>>678624
Another incarnation deified of Semiramis, Queen of Babylon, and the Queen of Heaven. She's also Isis, and Ishtar, and Mary to the catholics.
>>
>>678627
The quran is the product of a man and an angel, not of God. It has no prophecy in it that was not stripped from the bible, while the bible has about 30% prophecy in it.

Only God sees the end from the beginning, and the end will demonstrate that John the Revelator saw the end, not Mohammad via Jibrail (satan).
>>
>>678629
Simple. The things of God are not for the people of this world. If the best understanding by the best Christian ever, Paul, is "as though seen through a glass, darkly", then what does that say about the children of satan being able to see it clearly?
>>
>>678626

>You could start with any premises and have it be correct by your logic.

What the fuck are you talking about? I specifically used the qualification "valid".

Have you never taken a basic course in logic, or read even fucking Plato?

>Assumed premises must be as simple as possible.

Oh, so you somehow think that ontological parsimony has anything to do with this.

Well Occam's Razor isn't a hard rule in the first place, and in fact taken blindly favors deductive systems by their nature over inductive ones.
>>
>>678611
>You can, and are certainly welcome to. It doesn't seem particularly useful or predictive to me, but if that's where you want to put your faith, in your sovereignty, that is where your faith will be.
So you admit that belief in God is purely of faith? Well I'm not going to bother with unproven assumprions of that magnitude, then.
>I already know I am an immortal being who will always exist. You will also know this, as you too are an immortal being who will always exist.
How do you know?
>The pagan gods of old are inferior to the one true God in every way possible,
That's a suhjective opinion.
>Jesus is God. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, the Christ, Who died for the sins of mankind and rose on the third day, offering salvation to all who believe the truth of who He is, and what He did.
HOW DO YOU FUCKING KNOW FOR THE MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME
>>
>>678643
No, I'm positive that someone told me that the Quran is a perfect book, written by the last and most important prophet of God. The bible is ok though.
>>
>>678647
What do you consider valid?
>>
>>678638
By definition. "Holy" are the things of a holy God, not of men, and not of angels, fallen or not.

For instance, when Moses spoke to the burning bush, he was told to take off his sandals, as he was standing on holy ground.

Same with Joshua talking with Jesus before Jericho.

There are none good but God, and there is nothing holy that did not come from Him.
>>
>>678643
How do you know that the Quran is illegitimate while the Bible isn't? Do you have any proof for that assertion?
>>
>>678632
>Truth is anything that isn't false.

Then what is falsehood?

Or are you saying that you don't know what Truth is, and yet still claiming to know the way to it?

Btw, your definition sucks major asshole because it includes statements with no truth value, like "blue". "Blue" is not true or false, but you would say that it is true simply because it isn't false.

Which is dumb.
>>
>>678657
Okay. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that holiness doesn't exist. Thus, the Bible is just a book, and the Eucharist is just bread. How would you disprove that?
>>
>>678643
>calling the last prophet of god satan
You're in for a rude awakening.
>>
>>678651

please get an education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
>>
>>678661
How caught up in semantics could you possibly be? Truth is such a basic concept that neither of us need to define it. So stop asking.
>>
>>678648
I have not seen Jesus, but I love Him. I did not see the resurrection, but I know it happened. And when I say know, I mean epignosis, as it is the Holy Spirit of God in me Who told me these things, through His Word.

To see the Father, Who dwells in unapproachable light, is to die. I am still alive. I have not seen the Father.

To see the Holy Spirit is to see the wind; impossible. You can only see the effects of the wind on the things around you, which I have seen of the Spirit.

To see the Son, you would have to be in the New Jerusalem now, as He is still building it, and perfecting it. I am not there.

Nevertheless, when I see the Son, I will see the Father, and the Spirit in me will rejoice.
>>
>>678667
>m-m-m-m-muh feelings
Come on now. The Holy Spirit didn't come to you, you just felt like he did.
>>
>>678650
Their story changes a bit. They used to say that the quran is eternal; that it is like God, without a beginning. That in its written form in heaven, it has always existed. And then Jibrail (satan) merely told it to Mohammad, in its eternal state, and some of Mohammad's people memorized it, and transcribed it after Mohammad died.

I don't think they still push that narrative, as it makes no sense, and does not account for the satanic verses, the abrogated verses, or the "new" revelations Mohammad received.

I make a distinction between what is holy, and what men say is holy.
>>
>>678667
Replace all proper nouns, son, and father with any mythology of your choice.
>>
>>678675
>I make a distinction between what is holy, and what men say is holy
And that would be?
>>
>>678658
Yes. It is mutually exclusive.

Bible: Jesus is God. Quran: Jesus is not God.
Bible: Jesus was crucified. Quran: Jesus was not crucified.
Bible: Jesus rose from the dead. Quran: Jesus did not die.
Bible: Trinity is One God, Father Son and Spirit. Quran: God is One, and has no Son. Quran: Christian trinity is Father, Son and Mary.
Bible: Belief in Jesus is salvation. Quran:
>>
>>678675
The bible is the book that was written after Jesus's death; and it is the book that has the inconsistencies. They can't even tell the same story 4 times in the same way.
This is excusable because Jesus was not as important a prophet as Mohammad.
>>
>>678681
How do you know that the Bible is correct on these matters, and the Quran is incorrect?
By the way, if your answer is just "the Holy Spirit has let me know through some nonspecific yet objective means" then I don't know what to tell you.
>>
>>678663
The bible tells the story of the earth from beginning to end. It prophesied the holocaust, and the founding of Israel in one day. It prophesied the Caliphate and the upcoming war with Israel. It prophesied the NWO with a cashless society, where people where marked, and the mark allowed them to buy and sell. It prophesies about this time, this time of apostate believers falling away from the truth, and seeking teachers to tickle men's ears. It tells that people will forget the creation, and forget the flood, and thus not believe in the Word of God. That scoffers will mock believers for thinking Jesus is coming back.

The bible is about 30% prophecy.

I would say about 10% of it is coming at you like a freight train.
>>
>>678664
Not so much, no. Mohammad was, to be sure.
>>
>>678674
Don't be jealous. He wants you too.
>>
>>678678
If you were to counterfeit a $20 bill, would you put Mickey Mouse on it as the President?
>>
File: 1393446559591.jpg (9 KB, 226x225) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1393446559591.jpg
9 KB, 226x225
>>678689
>NWO
Hoo boy
>>
>>678696
What are you even trying to prove
>>
>>678554
>having faith in a transcendent intelligence after years of soul-searching and adversity is tantamount to believing in the existence of polka dotted elephants made of cheese XDD

Autism speaks
>>
>>678679
Isn't it obvious? Not everything men say is holy, is holy.
>>
>>678682
Four eyewitnesses telling exactly the same story are proof of collusion.
>>
>>678362
>We've discovered exoplanets but they always seem to be Jupiter-sized or so.
Exoplanets are a very new thing and at the moment we can only see the bigger ones.
>>
>>678684
The bible was written by eyewitnesses.

The quran was written 600 years after the event, by a madman in collusion with the devil.

If you want to see a Muslim's journey out of hell, read Nabeel Qureshi's "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus". It is an excellent read.
>>
>>678719
Maybe in the case of a single event; but not over an entire life. Their misplacement of the "braiding the whip" story indicates that all authors of the Gospels heard the story of Jesus second-handedly.
>>
>>678705
That counterfeits mimic the genuine to the best extent they can.

That satan's counterfeits mimic the genuine to the best extent he can.
>>
>>678710
>years of soul-searching
What does that prove? How does that prove anything besides you only believing in God because you want to?
I'm also tired of the "all atheists are autists" meme. I don't care about that goddamn statistic, just because many atheists are atheists for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that atheism is false.
>>
>>678726
>600 years after the event
Stop judging other religions with the assumption that Christianity is the only true religion. That's fucking bullshit.
>>
>>678729

No clue why you think all of the gospels were written in chronological order. Really, no clue. Only one even claims to, and does, and that is Luke.
>>
>>678741

Do people 600 years after the event know more about the event than the people who saw it?

Do you know more about Columbus than his crew?

If you know the truth, and you have something that is mutually exclusive to the truth, is that really a difficult call to make that it is false?
>>
>>678736
It proves what science cannot. Live, suffer, experience reality as deeply as your constitution affords it. Spiritual is lived, not argued
>>
>>678742
>damage control
Isn't it much more likely to conclude that the Quran has it right? You're in the wrong faith, friend, but there is time to change.
>>
>>678736

To be an atheist, to say that there is no God, requires infinite knowledge.

I am now in the situation where a person with infinite knowledge tells me that there is no being with infinite knowledge.

Atheism is not a valid position; it is self refuting. Have at least the small modicum of dignity that the ignorant agnostic claims; to not know, to not have infinite knowledge.
>>
>>678759
I know that I can never be 100% sure that God doesn't exist. But with no proof for or against him, I'll live with the assumption that he doesn't.
>>
>>678755
I honestly have no idea what this "braiding of the whip" controversy is. If anyone would like to posit it, I will be happy to look into it. All I have is some complaint of eyewitness inconsistencies, and events in different orders.

And no, it is never more likely that satan tells the truth, and God lies.
>>
>>678726
>The bible was written by eyewitnesses.

Are you referring to the Gospels rather than 'the Bible'? The Bible is a long sprawling series of books.

The Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses to Rabbi Jesus' ministry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjcseBJ7_Ns

The Quran was written by eyewitnesses though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33436021
>>
>>678766
The universe is proof of Him. He made the universe.

Instead of being happy to be whatever you are, why not demand that God prove Himself to you, personally?
>>
>>678767
How do you know for a fact that Satan wrote the Quran? How do you know that it wasn't the Bible which Satan corrupted?
>>
>>678772
The universe has always existed, nerd. If time and space didn't exist before the big bang, then nothing existed before the big bang. Thus, the universe has always existed. Simple.
>>
>>678542
I find what mainstream religions preach very unappealing if not downright revolting
I made my peace with the meaninglessness and insignificance of life. Death isn't something that scares me and I'll try to be happy while im alive
>>
>>677877
Everything in the universe that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, it's very probable that the universe, which seems to have a beginning, needs a cause. That cause is God, who is uncaused, because He doesn't have a beginning.
>>
>>678770
Im the context of the competing claims of Jesus between the bible and the quran, yes, the gospels were significant.

The quran is the product of men and angels telling a story about a different gospel, and a different Jesus.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Let's not forget that the quran says that the bible is true.
>>
>>678774

I took Mohammad's word for it. And read it. It reeks of satan's handiwork.
>>
>>678777
Then we are in heat death, and not posting this at all.

oops.
>>
>>678790
No actually the Quran was written by God through Mohammad.
>>
>>678792
You and I differ on the meaning of the words "actually" and "God".
>>
>>678797
These inane statements aren't going to save you when you face the one God.
>>
>>678792

(By the way, nobody says Mohammad wrote the quran, to the best of my knowledge. Such a claim would be novel. It was written posthumously.)
>>
>>678791
>heat death
Heat death is a projection for the factors we know about. It doesn't include things we don't know about.
>>
>>678800
I will see your god in the pit, and mock him.
>>
>>678802
There's no projections if we're in infinity, m8.

That we're not in heat death is proof the universe is not eternal.

Maybe take a science class?
>>
>>678787

You appear to be trying to resolve a dispute over whether the Quran was the work of eyewitnesses and the Gospels weren't by randomly quoting the Bible at me.
>>
>>678810
The bible contains a warning that any "prophet" that comes to you, even if he says he heard from an angel, a different gospel, he is accursed.

And the quran says the bible is true.

So it's true that Mohammad is accursed.
>>
>>678828
So an accursed prophet would make the claim that the Bible is true? You ruin your own argument.
You should accept that Islam is the way to God.
>>
>>678791
We haven't experienced heat death yet. We will in the future, but just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Dumbass.
>>
>>678828
>The bible contains a warning that any "prophet" that comes to you, even if he says he heard from an angel, a different gospel, he is accursed.

Yes, that's because it is the Bible, it also contains a story about a talking donkey, trying to use quotes from the Bible to establish the Bible as authentic or 'true' is wholy circular.
>>
>>678808
>There's no projections if we're in infinity, m8.
You're not even making sense.

>That we're not in heat death is proof the universe is not eternal.
How so? Based on projections based on the limited human understanding of the universe.

>Maybe take a science class?
It means that either there's something we don't know about that prevents heat death, or that what you say is correct. It's not a proven fact that heat death did or would happen. It's a prediction based on what we know.
>>
>>678666
>Truth is such a basic concept that neither of us need to define it.

You can't define it because you don't know what it is.
>>
Why are all you stupid faggots trying to drag religion and Christianity in particular into this?

OP was clearly talking about the contrasting philosophical positions of Theism and Atheism. Religion does not apply here.
>>
>>678841

No, an accursed prophet would slyly say that the bible used to be true, but has been corrupted over the years.

"Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus".
>>
>>678844
If we ever would, it would be in the infinite past, and therefore now.

Try to think. It's painful carrying you like this.
>>
>>678888
>>678913
>>
Atheist.
Reason?
Socratic logic:
"There is not a reason to believe unless there is a reason to believe. If there is a reason to believe, there is a reason to believe. Belief itself is not reason; it is circular presumption. Presumption itself is also not reason."

td;rd:
x is x
not x is not x
where is x?
>>
>>678932

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Atheism is not Agnosticism.

Stop pretending to have read any of the Socratic dialogues.

>x is x

fucking dipshit
>>
>>678932
Reality itself is the reason you utter goober
>>
>>678913
Heat death is a theory. It's not even a falsifiable or directly testable theory. It's a prediction based on what we know of entropy.
>>
>>677877
I know he exists cuz well just look around
>>
>>678913
The universe hasn't been around for infinite years. The universe did not exist before the big bang. Existence has only been a thing for 13.7 billion years. I'm not sure why you find this so hard to grasp.
>>
>>678996
At what?
>>
>>679071

Are you blind?
>>
>>677877
There is no evidence.

The idea of God is greatly removed from anything I have ever seen in concrete experience.
>>
>>679091
Am I supposed to be seeing God? Because I don't.
>>
>>679091
Yes, actually. Is that God's fault too?
>>
>>679110

what, do you use a goddamned screen reader to watch porn with and shitpost for free on the internet?
>>
>>678227
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog
>>
>>679119
Well, yeah. Would you not? I ask him to describe the porn, and reaction images too.
>>
>>679130

>he doesn't even know what a screen reader is

4/10 go to bed, gotta get up early for school tomorrow.
>>
File: 1454349375538.gif (49 KB, 101x40) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1454349375538.gif
49 KB, 101x40
>>679096
>>679103
>>
>>678607
The difference is that people believe Jesus actually existed, so that gives precedence to him possibly actually doing the things attributed to him in the Bible.
>>
File: Judges.png (360 KB, 399x524) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Judges.png
360 KB, 399x524
>>679208

There is an enormous discrepancy between the historical figure Jesus existing and giving credence to supernatural claims.

I know Muhammad existed, I don't believe he flew to Heaven on a winged horse.

I know Julius Caesar existed, he was worhipped as a deity in hos own era, I don't think he was a God.
>>
>>679227
That doesn't matter to them.
>>
>>679069
not that guy, but there is nothing that says that the universe can not be eternal or infinite. The big bang could merely be one example of spacetime expanding into itself that has happened throughout the universes history.
>>
>>677877
I don't think any established, organized religion that gives specific details about a deity/deities or the nature of reality has any semblance of truth to it.

As mortal beings, we cannot hope to understand the nature of something eternal, immortal, or divine. It goes beyond our capabilities. There MIGHT be some sort of supernatural being/event that spurned the Universe into creation, but the true nature of this thing or even knowledge of its possible existence is impossible.
>>
>>679069
>Existence has only been a thing for 13.7 billion years

Careful, anon. Our observable universe has only been around for 13.7 billion years. It's a bit presumptuous to say that nothing else could've existed at any time before that or in a different "place", no?
>>
File: The Chart.jpg (40 KB, 544x484) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
The Chart.jpg
40 KB, 544x484
>>678201
>Science and humanity started making propper progress once it discarded this kind of egocentric horseshit.

This is literally The Chart-tier bullshit.
>>
File: image_0_0.jpg (21 KB, 460x276) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image_0_0.jpg
21 KB, 460x276
>>679173
>le all atheists are fedoras meme
>>
>>679598
Come on, those posts were quintessential fedora
>>
>>atheism = claim of any sort

Dude. Pls stop.
Atheism doesn't claim anything about anything.
It is the response to a claim made by theists.

Theist: "I believe there is a god!"

Non-Theists (= Atheist): "I do not think you have made your case sufficiently, and withhold the belief in your proposition"

Please find me an atheist that claims infinite knowledge. Ask as many as you like. Then consider if you maybe misunderstood the word.
>>
>>678801
Muhammed couldn't read. God apparantly chose an illiterate insignificant merchant as the best medium for messages.
Because spoken testimony usually is the most reliable form to convey information without alteration.
>>
>>677877
Five proofs
>>
>>679532
and in that other time and space was proof that god doesnt exist
>>
>>679630

That's Agnosticism.

sam harris is a stupid faggot and should cut off his fingers
>>
>>679647
Jesus had no problem with it.
>>
File: aquinas.jpg (12 KB, 235x325) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
aquinas.jpg
12 KB, 235x325
>>679658
>religious logic
pose a pseudo problem: causality needs a beginning!
place biased selfserving circular exception: god doesn't need a beginning, because he doesn't!
solution: god dun it!

>ducks swim
>wood swims
>ducks are made of wood
>proof
>not at all medieval nonsense

If there was nothing, yeah? No logic, space, time, laws, nothing.

What exactly would have stopped something from just coming into existance? Please be specific in your answer.

Solved your wordgame with another wordgame.
*tip*
>>
>>679684
American?

No one else has this problem really.

>The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)
>>
>>679658
That's not the reason you think he exists, that's the justification you give.

>>677877
I don't believe because it's a simple pathology. It only makes sense in anthropological terms.
>>
File: atheist-agnostic1.png (15 KB, 396x360) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
atheist-agnostic1.png
15 KB, 396x360
>>679684
Why is this so complicated? Why do you think theist and non-theist needs a third word to fill out the continuum? The fuck is with your weird finger fetish?
>>
>>677877
> For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?

Because he has given no clear indication to me that he exists or desires my worship. All I see are people making sweeping claims from books somebody else wrote about a god nobody has actually seen.
>>
>>678366
you already wrong senpai, they're finding shit in non-coding introns that play a role biologically
>>
For one, I don't partake in hallucinogens.
>>
>>680918
Less than an animal tbqh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqGDv0KCJl8
>>
>>678235
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
>>
>>679684
Agnostics are just atheists who want to distance themselves from the "le fedora man" stereotype so they call themselves something different.
>>
File: 1430440693257-0.png (424 KB, 330x328) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1430440693257-0.png
424 KB, 330x328
>>678619
>It will speak to you, which, of course, is why you fear to read it.

I read the bible from cover to cover and nothing spoke to me. I wonder why that is.
If the book is holy, it should be fairly easy to convert people, right? Maybe it is just a book in the end.

Currently going through the Quran and so far good ol' Allah hasn't shown himself.

Guess I'm hellbound either way.
Thread replies: 274
Thread images: 15
Thread DB ID: 516443



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.