>>7640925 Well, you know, people who say that religion does good in the world, ignore the fact that religion is the cause of religious wars and indoctrination and persecution. All religion is a cult. Religion has been used to control masses of people for years and years. It's a sort of an attempt at an answer to solving all the world's problems. So instead of say, asking how we actually got here, it asserts the universe was created by god. This inhibits skeptical thinking, but of course not of you compartmentalize your beliefs. You know who hasn't started religious wars or indoctrinated people? Atheists. If everyone was an atheist we would have so much fewer problems in the world. We'd be way more humanitarian too, because if you look at the morals that a lot of people hold, they're religious morals. As we all know, it's better to think for yourself and develop ideas based on reasoning, rather than obsequiously following the teachings and commands of others. Thinking for yourself, is what they call that. Atheism is, as a matter of fact, only a lack of belief in god. That's all you need to be an atheist, it doesn't require you believe in things which have been asserted without evidence.
>>7640943 I'm sorry that the concept of death is too scary for you. It must be so comforting knowing that when you die, you go to heaven. I know you don't take your bible /that literally/ though, it's okay. I'm an understanding atheist.
>>7640953 Well, that's your own shortcoming that you're not willing to consider other people's opinions. You can keep yourself locked in the fantasy of god, for the rest of your life if you want. I'm just trying to present you with new ideas, because it actually makes my skin crawl every time I have to see religiosity, or hear the effects religion has on the world. Maybe some day you'll realize that you're following a gigantic ass cult.
>>7640974 The phase that I'm going through, isn't something that you can simply go through. I don't see the universe as too bewildering that it has to be a creation of divine origin. I see the universe as a very ordered, law based system and I see the assertions of god and religion to be so absurd, they're the very antithesis of intellectual to me. Your comment is condescending to me, I'm probably wasting time even typing this response to you, but I have a lot of practice typing so it's not that much effort for me.
>>7640979 My point as that the bad of religion comes from religion. I shouldn't have put my two points so far apart in that paragraph I wrote further up there. My point is, that no wars have ever been fought over non beliefs. Religion IS the cause of religious oppression and persecution and wars, there's simply no denying that. The morality of a religious person is based on simply following what they're told, hence why a lot of people believe in killing infidels and persecuting homosexuals, and other such completely senseless moral institutions.
>>7640983 it's fine what you believe, it's the "i'm so enlightened in my atheism and i'm going to share it with everyone" that's the obnoxious phase. but feel free to keep thinking you're the first to come up with everything you spout.
>>7640997 No I'm not. To concede the universe is a well-ordered and structured system with 'axioms for life and consciousness and then shart your breakfast out because someone has the gall to ask what set those laws in the first place is as anti-intellectual as any fundie christian
>>7641024 Well, the entire premise of the whole argument you're making, is that universe was intelligently designed. The scientific explanation is either "I don't know" or the big bang. It's probably even better to just say "I don't know" because asserting that the universe was intelligently designed, is completely senseless. Religion is to magic as science is to skepticism. There's literally a concrete difference between the two. One is simply an institution, which is based off beliefs. Science either says it doesn't know, or it makes claims based off the evidence it finds. You decide which one makes more sense to you.
>>7641044 I know exactly what a straw man is. It's when someone uses examples of a generalized other to argue against, instead of arguing against the person they're actually arguing with. It's taking the worst examples you can think of, then defaming the person you're arguing with, which is nothing more than defamation of character really.
I wish someone had just told me the truth right up front, as soon as I was old enough to understand it. I wish someone had just said:
“Here’s the deal, Wade. You’re something called a ‘human being.’ That’s a really smart kind of animal. Like every other animal on this planet, we’re descended from a single-celled organism that lived millions of years ago. This happened by a process called evolution, and you’ll learn more about it later. But trust me, that’s really how we all got here. There’s proof of it everywhere, buried in the rocks. That story you heard? About how we were all created by a super-powerful dude named God who lives up in the sky? Total bullshit. The whole God thing is actually an ancient fairy tale that people have been telling to one another for thousands of years. We made it all up. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
“Oh, and by the way . . . there’s no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Also bullshit. Sorry, kid. Deal with it."
>>7641089 I guess. It really just complicates things though. It's not valid that they come up with so many different versions of what god means to them anyways. Frankly, it's extremely annoying and offensive.
You know what you could say about each and every one of those versions though, which I guess I was reluctant to explain, because I already said this in the past numerous times? They're all presented without evidence. I didn't want to leave myself hanging after that last comment, because it sounded like I was surrendering to your argument, when in reality I'm just getting bored with this.
>>7641140 Honestly, I can't tell if you're just an honest atheist or a philosophical christian, but honestly I don't need to present evidence for why god doesn't exist, because I'm not the one claiming that it exists. If someone claims something exists, they can't just going around saying other people have to disprove it. I sort of see how it would become a challenge to say, disprove that every single version of god exists, when there's so many different versions. I think the main point remains just as relevant though, which is that they're the one's making the claim and they can't just go around telling other people to disprove something that never had any proof to begin with.
>>7640961 >I'm just trying to present you with new ideas
No offense, but your ideas date to the 18th century and have rehashed and reused since. There's nothing new or interesting in whatever you had said. Your post is just as insightful and innovative as 50 Shades of Grey, or the latest Bieber album.
>>7641153 its not really important if I am any of this categories to what being said about rhetoric.
in order to exceed beyond some idea you first need to locate it and understand it, show form within its faults and how they pronounced. only after it, when its in the rabbles you build upon it or castrate it to what may at very least seem as a powerful explanation.
you can't just judge a theoretical god that you created, but something that derive from established outside idea so any point can be demonstrated from within it. implicating upon it from outsider make a very weak argument to say the least.
>>7641232 It's a sad world, when I have to go study something I can already determine is false, based on the nature of it's claim, by having to go and understand every detail underlying the tacit lie, just so I can say I can prove it wrong. Fortunately, there's plenty of people who do that in the world.
>>7641333 Dude, I've been around on this earth for 21 years. I think I'd know by now that after everything I've heard about god, I can make up my mind for whether or not I think it sounds like bullshit. Do I believe there's unexplainable "intelligent" forces that govern the universe? Okay, but why does it seem like all the notions of god are completely anthropomorphism? Look at artificial intelligence, that's one of the things you'll see scientific theorists talking about when they talk about that, is it won't have wants and desires like a human does. Why is it so fucking important to the "believer" that there be an intelligence that is controlling the universe? It all just plays into this big belief complex, it's because it's what you want to believe. Otherwise you wouldn't reflect god as the image of what you want. Your "god", this anthropomorphised concept of "the intelligence of the universe." I'm sorry, but the universe doesn't give one single fuck that you exist, it doesn't think. If you go and talk to a tree, you're insane unless you know what you're doing looks silly. How do I know that you're not just insane?
>>7641457 Why do internet atheists always resort to speaking in first person when questioned? Like, come on dude, no one cares about your personal opinion; the point of these questions is to get you to defend your opinion, not justify yourself.
e.g. "I can make up my mind for whether or not I think it sounds like bullshit."
Your sentence here is absolutely meaningless. I'm sorry, but no one on 4chan gives one single fuck that you exist. You are on an anonymous imageboard. Do you know how silly it looks to pretend people here care about you as an individual?
>>7641480 >Why do internet atheists always resort to speaking in first person when questioned? Idk, why do you stumble over yourself in an argument? >Like, come on dude, no one cares about your personal opinion; the point of these questions is to get you to defend your opinion, not justify yourself. What? Yeah, you're questioning my disbelief in god, as if it will make me ask myself what I think about god. It just comes across as a really naive and stupid attempt to "get me to think, which will awaken me hurr". >Your sentence here is absolutely meaningless. I'm sorry, but no one on 4chan gives one single fuck that you exist. Oh, I guess you were just arguing for the sake of your own pleasure? You're being a god damn hypocrite. >You are on an anonymous imageboard. Do you know how silly it looks to pretend people here care about you as an individual? Nice bait fuckin' hitler wannabe.
>>7641495 I'm not the same guy and this isn't an argument, and I have no idea why you would think it is one. I'm just pointing out how stupid you look. You're even doing the fedora "argument style" that wouldn't even be taken seriously in high school:
Smarmy one-liner that ignores any context in the post.
If you're doing the "pretend-I'm-a-Redditor" thing as a troll then you got me. I shudder for all the dorks too anti-social to even join their high school debate team who legitimately think these exchanges could be called "arguments" in any sense of the word.
>>7641525 Blah blah blah. Why don't you shut up and argue instead of complaining like a bitch? I presented a mountain of fucking shit you could have actually been responding to in this thread. You literally don't have the guts to respond to that, instead you just come and make up some "oh this is the worst thing I've ever seen, blah blah blah", what horse shit.
Witness this shit, please /lit/, when the time comes, people will create a thread asking the dumbest thing you have ever read on /lit/. This is what you will show them.
>You know who hasn't started religious wars or indoctrinated people? Atheists One of the biggest genocides in human history: The Forced Stalin Famine. Our glorious atheist by his will, left MILLIONS his own people to starve to death.
>If everyone was an atheist we would have so much fewer problems in the world The moral you know came from The Holy Bible, around 10.000 years ago, leaving stone age. Look up God Moral Argument. One can be good without believing in God, but one can not be good WITHOUT God
> We'd be way more humanitarian too All the people who tried to take God away from a country (communists) caused the BIGGEST genocide in the human history. You can take all the natural tragedies, cruzades, every single argument you edgy atheist teens use to show how christianity kills so much, and all that combined wouldn't even come close to the number of victims of the atheists.
>>7641613 Because some goofy Christian came in and gave a stupid argument, I should just back off and leave? It's like, oh wow atheism and Joseph Stalin, wow I'm like fucking speechless. What an absolutely senseless fucking argument this is.
>>7641648 It's like, okay, joseph stalin killed a lot of people. did he even do it in the name of atheism? I don't fucking know. We're talking about people who start wars over their beliefs. It still sort of plays into my argument, that if religion didn't exist there wouldn't be a need to start wars. Do you really think that because joseph stalin lacks belief in god that he killed those people? Atheists in general, they don't do a single fucking war in the name of their disbelief. So what is all those bullshit? I suppose that absolutely none of the other points I made in this thread have any relevance to you, probably because you're too stupid and lazy to go back and read a fuckin' thing.
>>7641656 no one wages war over religion ya fucking dufus, the elites just use religion to get morons to line to up to die...not that there's anything wrong with that, hopefully we can get some of these mexican catholics to sign up to die fighting isis, then we can kill two degenerate birds with one stone
>>7641656 it doesnt fucking matter in theory why did they start war, what matters is: all atheists leaders are fucking murderers, the best kind of mudereres. Also, name for me a war started in name of CHRISTIANITY
>>7641708 I said christianity in a way of excluding islamism, because >>7641656 said about starting a war in name of religion. The al quran clearly states that is worth it to kill all the non believers. But now, in the holy bible, you can't find 1 reason given, 1 statement saying to kill anyone for whatever reason. So obviously if you, atleast in this situation, mix those two together as simply "religion", the inbred here is you, since both religions presents completely different viewes about it and changes completely the context, faggot
>>7641728 >But now, in the holy bible, you can't find 1 reason given, 1 statement saying to kill anyone for whatever reason. That's factually incorrect, and you should feel bad about your inability to understand English grammar.
>>7641792 1st of, that is called justice. Converging a bit to politics, from my view (and many murica states), any premeditated crime resulting in a death should be equal to death to the one that took the life.
2nd, lets compare it to an al-quran verse.
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".
Slight difference, huh?
>you killed a guy, you shall be killed >you do not share my view, I shall slay your head off and play football with it
>>7640940 >religion is the cause of…indoctrination and persecution. Clearly there aren't any other causes and certainly not persecution in atheist states (like the Soviet Union). That would be silly.
>You know who hasn't…indoctrinated people? Atheists. Once again, communists.
>We'd be way more humanitarian too, because if you look at the morals that a lot of people hold, they're religious morals. First off, you're wrong, most morality people hold is social, philosophical and/or secular. Second, if you were right, if "most" morality was based in religion, removing that from the equation would result in a more amoral society, not a humanitarian one.
>>7641656 >if religion didn't exist there wouldn't be a need to start wars Haha oh wow Because all the major wars of the last one hundred years have been because of religion. Those goddamn Christian Japs, going to war with China twice, both times to spread their holy crusade and definitely not because of dwindling resources on an island nation and a renewed form of crypto-fascist nationalism. Or the perpetual warfare that pervades the south and central Americas; obviously because of religious reasons and not because of the corrupt juntas and military dictators. World War II? Obviously the Nazis were invading Poland to spread Christianity, and not to perform ethnic cleansing, increase the size of the Third Reich and create a viable path through Europe to further their goals. Cold War? Fought entirely over religion, clearly.
Every post you make you sound increasingly more and more like someone suffering from severe brain damage.
>>7641457 I agree the concept of god doesn't need to care for anyone in personal manner that a specific christian concept which base on the idea of personal guidence and other faults along with it. But clearly its not the only understanding of god So the original question is still open.
Thread replies: 97 Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 479360
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.