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

I have a question for Atheists. How can you believe with 100%

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

Thread replies: 226
Thread images: 28

File: atheism.jpg (70KB, 604x483px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
atheism.jpg
70KB, 604x483px
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).
>>
0/10
>>
You don't. Science accepts the addition of new information. Prove God exists and I'll believe you.
>>
An argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
>>
File: 3qrM9.jpg (255KB, 707x649px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
3qrM9.jpg
255KB, 707x649px
It's not about believing 100% that there's no God.
It's about realizing that there's no more reason to believe in God than there is in werewolves or fairies.
If you could show evidence for a Christian God people would believe you.
>>
>>581961574
>>
File: j quick.jpg (12KB, 261x218px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
j quick.jpg
12KB, 261x218px
The great thing about science is it morphs to fact.

So far, there is zero factual evidence proving god.
You have the burden of proof, the weight is on you.

until that moment, there is no god.
>>
File: we do not know.jpg (38KB, 500x560px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
we do not know.jpg
38KB, 500x560px
>>581963501
>until that moment, there is no god.

>until the moment we discovered gravity, there was no gravity

Bravo, Science.
>>
How many times will we have to explain that we have to probe the non existence or something but you have to probe the existence of "X".

I just invented a god that fucks you in the as everyday OP, you just can't feel it, but it's there, raping you over and over without you even noticing it
>>
>>581961931
This
>>
>>581961574
No one could claim 100% certainty for anything, it would be foolish too.
>>
>>581961574
how do you believe that there are no thor, ra, and mithra when there is no proof that they don't exist?

you see kid, us atheists and scientists don't go about wasting our time with whatever has not been disproved because of something called the burden of proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
>>
>>581961574
This is bait, but I'll answer anyways. The large majority of atheists don't believe 100% that there is no god. It's more that there is no proof that god exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in him. Ofcourse, if someone where to supply proof that god existed, actual proof that is, then many atheists would be open to changing their beliefs. However, thus far, no substantial evidence for a creator god is present, and therefore, I will continue to doubt its existence.
>>
Because even in the remote possibility that the universe was created by a intelligent designer, it must be something way different than the version of god from the jew-derived religions.

Basically because the term "god" is that context is retarded.
>>
I would say noice b8 m8, but it wasnt noice b8, it was bad b8 m8.
>>
>>581964036
In*
>>
We can't say with 100% certainty that unicorns and hairy flying lizards that shoot gravy out of their eyes don't exist either. But we're not gonna assume those are real now are we? The burden of proof isn't on us. If someone has proof there is a god, I would believe them. But until then, no.
>>
Your parents lied to you and now you're mad that the smart people are telling you about it.
>>
>>581963769

In a geocentric world, we weren't moving anywhere, so we didn't need to explain why we were anchored to the ground and why things fell. You are trying to set it up like the idea of pre-gravity science is ridiculous, but that was a legitimate part of human history. Galileo and Newton changed everything, even if you're too busy trolling to realise it.
>>
>>581961574
>How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist.

You can't.

There might be an orangutan in your bathroom. You can feel pretty certain there isn't, but it's admittedly not completely impossible. Same thing.
>>
File: 1410219654849.jpg (85KB, 600x611px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1410219654849.jpg
85KB, 600x611px
>>581964024
>the chance of op watching this video and never shitposting again
>>
File: kjv.jpg (67KB, 523x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
kjv.jpg
67KB, 523x720px
>>
>>581963769
>>581963769
Gravity can be consistently proven through the scientific method.
god can not.

>creates the universe
>never once recorded visitation of god.
>has men write the bible
>the bible is the word of god
>"men are fallable"
>Does that mean the word of god is fallable?

Bravo, religion
>>
File: image.jpg (2KB, 100x100px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
2KB, 100x100px
>>581961574
>>
>>581963834
Answer the fucking question dumbass
>>
>>581963501
There are very few facts. The rest is interpretation.
>>
>>581964834
Spoken like someone who doesnt understand science
>>
File: image.jpg (51KB, 702x558px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
51KB, 702x558px
>>581961574
As an agnostic

I understand atheism as an ideology it's not the belief that there isn't a god it's lack of belief in general
>a true atheist isn't a proud atheist

As for those devout in their faith I understand it's hope that they cling to, though the story's produced by the religion shouldn't be what's taught is the message
Which is pretty much the same unilaterally
>love your brother man
>provide homage to those in need
>understand most are ignorant
Its foolish to push religion on those who don't believe

TL:DR ur all faggots and shouldn't bitch so much
>>
>>581964446
God would still be a god/God even if he were not omniscient/omnipotent. We could simply define have god without those qualities. Problem solved. I'll take my intarnetz now.
>>
I have a question for Christians. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster 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.
>>
I'm atheist... I mean, there COULD be a god, but it sounds pretty unlikely. Nothing in life shows any evidence of a god, and the concept of a god is simply born from the mind of men who had absolutely no clue how to explain the deepest secrets of the formation of the universe. Not that we know it today, but at least we're getting there slowly step by step.

Also your picture is derp, I never thought myself above others because i'm atheist.
>>
>>581965146
Quite the contrary. I am a product of my times. I have great faith in science. I just understand that science is a set of steps, a process. And not a body of knowledge.
>>
>>581961574

Let's do the flip side of your argument, how can you believe with certainty that there is a God when there is no proof that he does exist. That is not logical either.
>>
File: 1415850392654.gif (1MB, 168x120px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1415850392654.gif
1MB, 168x120px
>>581961574
>>
>>581961574
>I have a question for Fairy Deniers. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there are no fairies when there is no proof that they do no exist? That doesn't seem 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 facts (just like Fairy Believers).
>>
>>581965238
>God would still be a god/God even if he were not omniscient/omnipotent.

No. He wouldn't. Under those conditions I might be considered a god.
>>
>>581961574
I am as sure that God does not exist as I am that Hogwarts does not exist. No more, no less.

If I am closed-minded to think God surely does not exist, then I am also closed-minded to think Hogwarts surely does not exist. And that means everyone who thinks Hogwarts surely does not exist is closed-minded. And maybe that's possible, but it doesn't seem at all likely. Who will raise an eyebrow when you tell them Hogwarts surely does not exist? Yet if you refuse to give extra credit to the God idea, you're closed-minded. It's a double standard.

If it is not closed-minded for a person to think Hogwarts surely does not exist, then it is not closed-minded for a person to think God surely does not exist.

This is all assuming, of course, that God has no better evidence than Hogwarts does. And I think that is the case; the evidential case for either one is about on par with the other.
>>
>>581961931
Prove science exists and I'll believe you.
>protip u can't
Christians: 1
Atheist: 0
>>
>>581965959
If he would still have power over death and the ability to turn back time, then that would be enough to make him a god to me. What else would you have him do?
>>
>>581965959
So you're saying the ONLY condition for godliness is omnipotence?

How do you explain the concept of gods with fallible traits, such as most if not all of the pre-Christianity ones? Norse, Roman, Greek, and Egyption mythology, to name a few of the popular ones, are filled to the brim with gods that do wrong, actively learn lessons, and even sometimes canonically die.

Another problem with the Epicurus Proposition is that God or a god must not be malevolent to be considered one, as if a lack of malevolence is a requirement of godliness.
>>
>>581966231
it snows when its cold
semen in vagina makes babby
airplanes

christians: disqualified
atheists: winners by default
>>
File: image.jpg (128KB, 498x750px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
128KB, 498x750px
Op I love you. Here have some garlic bread :)
>>
>>581961574
It's not the job of athiests to prove or disprove that god exist, it's the religious job to prove that he does. So far there have been no compelling evidence.
>>
>>581965171
Only post worth a damn

Sage goes in all fields
>>
>>581966000
>>581966000
The Bible is supposed to be the truth concerning the origins of Man and a guide for his conduct. The Hogwart is accepted as a fictional character. They are not quite the same thing. Nice try though.
>>
>>581966502
Logically self-conflicting concepts that christians attribute to their deity can be demonstrable nonsense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU
>>
many defining replies of how people know god doesn't exist leads back to the idea that we made to idea about his existence .

Could we have guessed right, I personally think the odds of that (I've created myself) are so low that its not worth saying there is a chance he exists. Realistically there are no odds there is what there is, but we have never truly been able to figure out anything that there simply is, we just observe what has to make highly accurate odds of anything working/existing the way we thought it did exactly.
>>
>>581966676
Had a laff thanks for that

Look at that kids stupid face
>>
>>581966502
> God or a god must not be malevolent to be considered one, as if a lack of malevolence is a requirement of godliness.

No, he was saying why the fuck pray to an evil god that would willfully kill and oppress his "children". The god of the bible is a god who supposedly has these traits, so that's what i'm going on. I wouldn't necessarily call Superman a god.
>>
>>581961574
>no proof that he does not exist
Well, you see, that's not how burden of proof works.
>>
>>581961574
>How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist.
Just stop.
>>
>>581966676
kek, garlic bread always gets me
>>581966000
nice trips m8
>>
>>581965959

I'm not a Christian and not defending the existence of a god, but let's be real: this is a bad argument. Godliness, whatever that is, is something essentially non-human, to which omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence/omnispective are not necessarily necessary traits. To that end: you cannot photosynthesize, this doesn't make plants gods, and likewise if you were to remove photosynthesis from plants that would not make them human.

All I'm saying is you need a better definition of terms.
>>
explain why random phenomena happen

like why so tumors suddenly dissapear?
why do we get a bad feeling and it turns out something happens and you just avoided it?
Why are demons and paranormal so prevalent in every culture?
>>
>>581966231
By your statement Christians:0
Atheist:0
>>581966667
Your statement Christians:0
Atheist:(possibility of 1 or 0)
>>
>>581967034
I'm just gonna point out that the only thing that says the Bible is how man originated is the Bible itself. They're not the same thing, true, Rowling doesn't go around saying Hogwarts is real, but the fact remains that the Bible is only evidence if you believe it's evidence in the first place.
>>
Op you need to consider this

I'm not a Christian and not defending the existence of a god, but let's be real: this is a bad argument. Godliness, whatever that is, is something essentially non-human, to which omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence/omnispective are not necessarily necessary traits. To that end: you cannot photosynthesize, this doesn't make plants gods, and likewise if you were to remove photosynthesis from plants that would not make them human.

All I'm saying is you need a better definition of terms then you can have a valid statement
>>
>>581967034
One book is widely accepted as fictional, and the other is not. I am aware of this difference, but I do not see it as a reason to think they differ in their likelihood to disclose actually-existing supernatural realms.
>>
>>581967058
I'm not going to watch an eighteen minute video.

I made two points:
>Omnipotence is not the only qualifier of being God or a god, regardless of whether or not God has it
>A lack of malevolence is also not a requirement, as above

>>581967213
Because ethics and morals are subjective based on culture, time period, and other, more specific factors, and because specific cases of malevolence do not equal an overall malevolent being.

>No, he was saying why the fuck pray to an evil god that would willfully kill and oppress his "children".
Why respect your parents if they beat you when you misbehave? Why respect and live under a government that enforces the death penalty or arms their police with guns?

Atheist, by the way.
>>
>>581967401
>God of the Gaps.

Don't know the logistics of something or how it actually works. Guess god musta dun it?
>>
>>581967653
Also I'm just gonna point out that the only thing that says the Bible is how man originated is the Bible itself. They're not the same thing, true, Rowling doesn't go around saying Hogwarts is real, but the fact remains that the Bible is only evidence if you believe it's evidence in the first place.
>>
File: 1416129427975.jpg (109KB, 640x469px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1416129427975.jpg
109KB, 640x469px
>>581967559
Exactly. It is accepted as evidence of the origins of man by a large majority of the human race. Christians believe it is evidence.
>>
File: 1416205713446.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1416205713446.jpg
1MB, 3264x2448px
>>581967678
Because they have different truth-values and therefore are not equivalent statements.
>>
File: 1407455546745.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1407455546745.png
77KB, 500x500px
>>581963343

>your pic

He's able and willing, but he won't. Why? Because:

1. What we define as "evil" is objective to everyone. Some people will say that any crime commited is evil, while others will say that commiting a crime to save your life or someone else's life (robbing a store to have money to pay the rent or buy medicine) is fine. We all have different definitions of what is "evil" and what is not

2. Preventing someone from doing something "evil" means preventing them from using their free will. If you don't let people make their own choices, then what the fuck is the point of existing? What the fuck is the point of putting down commandements and making a Heaven and Hell if everyone will be forced to follow your word?

>mfw my sleep deprived mind just answered the question from a supposedly renowned philosophist.
>>
>>581967889
that image is cancer; please kindly fuck off
>>
How arrogant to think that we should see the face of God when we need tools just to view microscopic things.
>>
you're literally retarded if you're religious

to an atheist, the existence of a "god" isn't even worth the effort of answering
>>
>>581967401
>why do we get a bad feeling and it turns out something happens and you just avoided it?
You only remember the moments you had a feeling and actually avoided something. The rest are discarded and forgotten so the one time you're right it seems like something was telling you bad times were ahead.
>Why are demons and paranormal so prevalent in every culture?
Unexplained events and mental illness aren't something that popped up over night. Also, why are urban legends so prevalent yet discarded when compared to demons/paranormal events?
>>
File: KPrrwtZ.jpg (54KB, 620x330px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
KPrrwtZ.jpg
54KB, 620x330px
>>581963769
>>
>>581965602
>I have great faith in science
>faith.
>in science.
>faith.
>faith.

In science, it either works, or it doesn't.

gtfo my /b/ and go live in a cave.

put your fucking money where your mouth is.

trust in your god that you wont die.
>>
>>581963769
This whole thread is likely trolling, but...
>until that moment, there is no god.

>until the moment we discovered gravity, there was no gravity

I think what he means (and what you are ignoring) is that theories become accepted facts. Ancient scholars, Galileo, and Newton observed objects falling on Earth, and assumed /theorized that celestial bodies followed the same rules of attraction. Einstein accurately described it in the theory of relativity. So gravity was observable, you idiot, but science didn't describe how it worked, and thus it wasn't accepted as a fact.

On the other hand, God has never been observed, and thus there is no scientific theory for his existence. To theorize about something unobservable is to write fiction. There needs to be proof (although there is proof Jesus is real, outside of the bible, but perhaps not that he is divine, let alone the son of a god).
>>
>>581961574


It's easy to say you "believe" that with 100% certainty that there is no God.

What you believe is what you believe. I believe that there is no god just like I believe that I don't need to ever get married. Neither are wrong beliefs because they are just beliefs. But I could be wrong and I understand that.

I consider myself an atheist, not agnostic, simply for the fact that it goes without saying that there is a possibility that anything could be wrong. Doesn't mean I should have to come up with a different terminology to describe that explicitly with everything that I have learned or believed in my lifetime. Atheist is an atheist is an atheist.
>>
>>581968301
haha you sound clueless
>>
They just refuse to believe in God. That is what it means to be a disbeliever. Even if you provide proof, they will always come up with an excuse, because they REFUSE to believe. The world itself is proof enough. Our free will is proof enough.
>>
>>581968386
brutally mean and uncalled for, but either way science has proof a god does not
>>
Ok so basically you can't prove that god doesn't exist, but you can operate on the assumption that he doesn't exist given there's pretty much no credible evidence that he does.

I'm sure most people in the scientific community would accept that there was a god if you could actually prove it with evidence.

This is the fundamental difference between the belief of religious and non religious people. If you accept things as facts based on evidence rather than "believe" you can change your mind when new evidence comes to light.
>>
The atheist rhetoric isn't that there is definitely no god. It's that theistic religion makes claims that can be disproven; they have yet to show that they know the wi of god more than anyone else.
>>
god is soo real.

but you have to forget the concept of an old man with a beard and accept the presence. That being your conscious, or water, or light, or love, or whatever.

Soli Deo Gloria.
>>
>>581968386
Allow me to explain. Quantum physics, we cannot predict what will happen at the quantum level with all of our scientific knowledge to date, we BELIEVE we understand quantum physics. We just don't know. Difference. Did you spot it?
>>
>>581968641
Best comment I've seen on this thread even better than my comments. Thats saying a lot because "I'm always right"
>>
>>581961574
STOP RUINING MAH PASTA, I WAS GONNA EAT THAT YOU COCKMONGLER!
>>
>>581968610
I used to believe until "God" gave me the knowledge to remute him. I'm sure if he's real that he will appologise for misleading me at some point.
>>
File: India.gif (117KB, 500x334px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
India.gif
117KB, 500x334px
>>581961574
>>
>>581968105
That's true. But so what? Does the fact that a book makes a claim to truth mean that it is more likely to be true than a book that doesn't make a claim to truth? A little bit, I suppose. But not much.

Do you think the God of the Quran has a greater chance of existing than Hogwarts does?

Do you think Krishna, of the Bhagavad Gita, has a greater chance of existing than Hogwarts?

Even if I conceded that Allah or Krishna were more likely to exist than Hogwarts, it would not be by much. Not enough to take them seriously as possibilities. You agree, don't you? You don't take Krishna or Allah seriously, do you?

If not, then the God of the Bible also should not be taken seriously.

Maybe I should change my analogy from Hogwarts to the Immortality Rings of Alex Chiu. That's a better analogy, because it's something nobody takes seriously even though it makes a claim to truth.
>>
>>581968906
It's a leap of faith and not justified by empirical means, therefore not scientific.
>>
certainty is retarded.
>>
>>581961574
because i don't fucking care.
believe in what you want but stop bothering others with this shit
>>
>>581968130
>what the fuck is the point of existing?

I hear this question a lot and I ask you or anyone else whomever asks this quesion...

Does it matter? Would it truly rattle your cage if you found out with absolute certainty that life has no meaning? Is it truly impossible to think that life is about what you want to make it? Or the end is just a result of living? Can one not accept that it can be about the journey, not the destination?

Why does there have to be meaning? Why can't the meaning be whatever someone wants to make?
>>
>>581968906

Theoretical physics is a pretty good example of science evolving because it is happening right now. The whole business with the LHC and whether or not observing the Higgs would confirm or not current theories re: how matter exists is kindof a big deal. Remember: 400 years ago we weren't even sure whether or not the sun moved around the earth or vice versa. We've only been able to successfully treat bacterial and viral diseases for two or three generations.
>>
>>581967401
People believe in demons and the paranormal because human beings for the most part are so fucking stupid they attribute the mysterious to the mystical rather than look for a rational explanation.
>>
"We will believe once we see proof of God's existence" is a lie that you atheists believe yourselves.
You won't believe! But once that day comes, it'll be too late, disbelievers.
>>
>>581968610
Explain how the world is evidence of God's existence.

Explain what you mean by "free will," why you believe it exists, and how it provides evidence of God's existence.
>>
File: 8340_742d.jpg (49KB, 500x313px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
8340_742d.jpg
49KB, 500x313px
>>581961574

Nice strawman faggot. I don't "believe" anything like the horse shit you just wrote, and neither does any other atheist. Learn what the fuck atheism is before criticizing it. It might just blow your retarded little agnostic mind. Faggot.
>>
>>581969610

Believe whatever you want; you already do.
>>
>>581968906
Yeah but that's the basis of the scientific method. Exploration, enquiry, experimentation.

You're confusing ideas like faith with simply operating on assumptions.

Unlike faith assumptions can be changed in light of evidence to the contrary. Faith is a lot blinder than that.
>>
>>581961574
gr8 b8 m8 no h8 i r8 8/8
>>
>>581969610
I'll take my chances.
>>
>>581968967
If you were to change your example to things that no one believes in, then you lose the comparisan of blind faith and devotion. No one believes in those things blindly like they do Krishna and all of the other gods mentioned. If they have different truth values then you can't use them to make your point. In the game of logic, truth-value equivalency for these types of comparison between statements. It's like math, you can say: 3(4)=12 = 4(3)=12 not 3(4)=12 = 3(5)=12
>>
>>581961574
I am an 'athiest' right now, and yes I currently beleive that there is no god. But never 100%.

We don't know everything about our world, and you never know what we could discover.

Honestly, I would love it if a god DID exist, we could use an afterlife because right now death seems way too final :<
>>
>>581968345
>Not atheist

It's sad how many people, even scientists, confuse agnosticism and atheism. They're not mutually exclusive. There is no one on the planet that is not ultimately a theist or an atheist.
>>
>>581969736
Because something cannot be made of nothing. (The ugly big-bang story)
Because we humans are different from other beings. (We don't descend from apes. Do you not see that we are being mocked?)
Now go on and say something about my first lines. Disbelievers will always be disbelievers. Proof has nothing to do with it. Once proof comes, it will of course be too late BECAUSE you disbelieved without the proof.
>>
i dont belive in an omipotient father figure becuase of the reason there is NO proof. An absence if proof and proof are two fundamentaly different things.
>>
>>581961574
>christians believe a magic old white dude created the entire universe for a planet that occupies like .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000....00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...0000000000000000000000000000000001% of it simply so we can live on it and not masturbate
> saying atheists think they're the special ones
>>
>>581961574
Here's the dealio, there's a lot of evidence that suggests there's no God. Even less the judeocristhian one that's the most popular. Bit never a 100% certainty. That's where faith comes in and some of us prefer proof.
>>
>>581969171

Could you please read my entire sentence before you reply, next time?

I didn't ask what the point of existing would be if there was no meaning to our lives, I asked what the point of existing would be if a God decided "No, screw your free will and screw your decision making. You're all under my control now, and you do as I say."

Why would a God create us if he decided not to give us any choice in anything?

>"but isn't that already what God does?" asks the Atheists

No, it isn't. Yeah, God made a lot of commandements, but he's not forcing us to do them. He's saying things like "Hey, I created you, so, you know, maybe you could show a little bit of recognition for it" or "Hey, don't act like a dick today, alright?"

And quite frankly, this whole idea that God will instantly throw you to Hell if you disobey one commandement has always been bullshit to me. Human kind in and of itself is not perfect, and, unless a God that claims to love us is planning on dooming us all for our nature, those passages of the Bible might have been badly translated (which is something I'm not shy of admiting)

>To answer your question

If I found out that there was no meaning to our lives, I'd pout a bit. Yeah, the journey is just as good as the destination, but the idea that people who have seriously commited wrongs and got away with it will get the same end reward as the nicest people on Earth is a big bummer.

Still, I'd just shrug, go "oh well", and live on the rest of my life, with maybe a bit more fear of death.
>>
File: 1413703185342.jpg (98KB, 480x640px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1413703185342.jpg
98KB, 480x640px
>>581969850
The thing is, at some point it becomes more faith than anything else. We reached that point already with physics at the quantum level. Our traditional physics do not apply at the quantum level and therefore we are epistemicaly in the dark as to the true nature of quantum physics.
>>
File: ishygddt.jpg (18KB, 200x176px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ishygddt.jpg
18KB, 200x176px
>>581970376
>misunderstanding the big bang theory that much
>thinking humans are different from other animals just because we're smarter
>>
>>581964031
I have the same raptor!
>>
>>581970376
It is a mystery why there is something instead of nothing. Let's compare our stories:

Atheism: The universe exists for unknown reasons, or for no reason. Or it is somehow its own reason for existing.

Does theism resolve the mystery? Well...

Theism: God exists for unknown reasons, or for no reason. Or he is somehow his own reason for existing.

Theism does not solve the mystery.

Also, science overwhelmingly shows that humans are descended from apes (though not from currently existing apes). Learn to science. (I recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins, and "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Most of Dawkins' and Coyne's atheism stuff is crap, though. Stick to their sciences stuff.)

Also, if God wants everyone to believe in him, why *wouldn't* he prove his existence?
>>
>>581969850
Empiricaly as well, nigger.
>>
>>581961574
>seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like religious people)
yea you are right,so what about it?
>>
look here you fucks, there is no proof of either, but do i go round believing that there is a solid gold hot dog burried in the deepest part of the ocean beacuse theres no proof that it ISNT, fuck no, thats fucking retarded, so why would i believe in some mystical dude up in the sky... i dont believe god exists because that would make me a stupid fuck
>>
>>581970595
>those passages of the Bible might have been badly translated (which is something I'm not shy of admiting)

The stuff in the Bible about hell has probably not been mistranslated. (But read up on the distinctions between hades and gehenna, etc.) It might, however, have been misunderstood by modern interpreters. There is substantial debate among scholars on Jesus' precise beliefs concerning hell, for example.

I recommend the book "Resurrecting Jesus" by Dale Allison.
>>
>>581968301
You're the kind of person that isn't doing atheists any favors. I would advise you, for the sake of tolerance, to not speak on behalf of us. Look at the conversations you're surrounded by in this thread. Eloquently verbalized responses laden with rational explanations.

And this is what you contribute. At least their comments didn't warrant much animosity due to the fact that they actually made solid fucking points.

I want you to recognize that you're part of the problem.
>>
>>581970682
It's funny how you're only replying to that part. Everyone uses the same arguments.
We ARE smarter than animals. But oh you may be right, people like you, believing we descend from apes.. perhaps some are as stupid as animals?
>>
Eric the god eating penguin might or might not exist. Anyways, it eats god. who might or might not exist. Thou shalt not confuse sport with harassment is not part of the ten commandments.
>>
>>581971151
agree but I cringe whenever I hear "you're part of the problem" because it's been so used by sjw for retarded shit
>>
Jesus H. Christ
None of you fags are religious. Those retards are too stupid to use a computer.
Take your shitty trolling back to facebook.
>>
>>581961574
which god is it?
>>
>>581971286
never said we weren't smarter than other animals. we totally are. however, that doesn't make us that special. why wouldn't cheetah's be the special ones? after all, they're the fastest mammals. why couldn't blue whales be the special ones for being the biggest?
>>
>>581971286
Dogs have a better ability to smell than humans. Obviously they are god's chosen creature. Their name is even god spelled backwards.
Checkmate, Christians. Or atheists. Or something.
>>
>>581970595

> always been bullshit to me
> to me

Interpretation is a hell of a thing, though. Before the rise of Protestantism, interpreting the bible was strictly off-limits. Who are you to decide whether it's okay to eat pork, or not wear tassles on the corners of your garments, or cut your hair with non-scissoring implements, or wear clothing made of two different fabrics? If there's a god, why bog people down in this minutiae if it doesn't matter? And if one rule is silly and we don't need to follow it because 'god wouldn't be that petty', then why not all of them? What makes one rule "better" and more worth following than another? From an ethics perspective, noone is going to say that sitting on a chair after a menstruating woman has sat in that chair is worse for society than murder, but these are the rules that God laid out for followers of the Abrahamic religions. Rules you're supposed to follow. The whole shebang is unnecessary - the rules and the god who made them.
>>
>>581966000
I wish Hogwarts existed :(
>>
>>581964632
there is only one god called allah and mohammed is his prophet.
>>
>>581971541
Because they are simply animals. Because there is a God. We are way different and better shaped.
>>
>>581965146
rules are not exactly data on a given environment.
technical is not strictly, directly scientific or research.
>>
>>581971987
>implying 98% of our DNA being the same as a chimp isn't enough to qualify as animals ourselves
>>
Remember this:
It's better to have lived a life believing in god and die to find out there is no god than to live a life as a disbeliever and find out there IS a god.
>>
>>581965238
that would introduce fairies and gnomes.
at least there's monotheism and absolutes in supernaturalism and not anything goes.
>>
Anyone here know what Solopsism? Shit tripped me out when I learnt about it. I think it's total bullshit though.
>>
>>581963769
There's evidence for gravity.

God you're thick.
>>
>>581971885
you mean that pedofag?
islam is the worlds worst current religion
if any religion deserves to die its islam
>>
>>581972115
Oh indeed, "science" has also proven that bananas have 50% of the same DNA as humans. So basically we can also be fruits or descend from trees?
>>
File: epic curious.jpg (138KB, 917x515px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
epic curious.jpg
138KB, 917x515px
>>581964446
We're nothing more than corrupt computer scripts in comparison to Him. The fact that He would die for us is fascinating. The fact that He would put up with our horrible nature in the hopes that there would be others who would try to truly know Him is what sets Him apart from us.
>>
>>581972139

> implying an all-knowing god won't see through your disingenuous charade

Better to be honest and live a good life, treating people well, and admitting to not believing, than to live in fear of a god you are only paying lip-service to in the hopes you won't be punished. Goodness born from cowardice is not goodness.
>>
>>581971286
Define smarter. Because arguably, we're, like agent Smith said, pretty much the cancer of this planet. No other creature fuck up it's living area like we do.
>>
>>581972347
wow you really don't understand anything do you? us having similar DNA with other organisms means we have common ancestry (i.e. ancient protists in the case of plants). it doesn't mean we descended from plants. if you're going to argue against evolution you should at least have a basic understanding of it.
>>
>>581970350
Yup that was irritating.

If you read the WIki page though, he accepts he is an atheist.
>>
>>581972347
> I don't understand science so there must be a god

Dude. Ok.
Let's imagine we don't have any science.
We don't know any of this DNA shit.
Nothing about evolution, the universe, nothing.
Your god would still be just as likely to exist as all of the other millions of gods people have believed in. They can't all exist. How do you know you aren't pissing off the real one by worshipping whatever one you worship?
>>
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. Of course you don't need to prove that He doesn't exist with certainty, you just need to give positive reasons in favor of atheism.
>>
You guys are worse than niggers when it comes to philosophy.
>>
File: joker.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
joker.jpg
1MB, 1920x1080px
>>581961574
How do you know when what if you done is not there?
>>
>>581972347
Yes you fucking idiot! We share some far away ancestor with trees! With everything if you go back enough. We are not fruit because the definition of fruit.
>>
>>581972718

Ants do. Interestingly, the biomass of ants on Earth is roughly equivalent to the biomass of humans. In a weird way, they are our biggest competitor.
>>
>>581972396
He wouldn't make a computer program with faulty scripts. Sorry, you fail.
>>
>>581970376
You are us. Do you not see that your perspective is the same as ours? You're the disbeliever just as much as we are. You've set up a convenient system of beliefs that point in a circle to support your own belief in a god. As an objective third party, could you not see the rationality behind both beliefs? So how do you decide which belief carries more legitimacy? I think the counter argument to Pascal's wager is something worth looking into. Many equally dissociated beliefs from science (many equally odd religions and belief systems from a perspective of rationalism, to say more explicitly) with at one point, a similar amount of legitimacy. Yet, you deny all of these despite having essentially the same flaws that your religion has.

In other more colorful words, you're basically a turtle due to the little argument you developed there to avoid having to analyze your own beliefs.

I'm sure it's nice to not have to consider that you might be wrong. It's us, not you. Amirite?
>>
>>581972396
That nigger apparently made everything, including our horrible nature.
Your god is a fucking retard.
>>
>>581963253
>>581963253
>>581963253
>>581963253
under-fucking-rated post

this is 12/10
>>
>>581970070
> believes in those things blindly
that is a blind assumption.

> game of logic
do you know what a "truth value" is?
>>
>>581961574
Do you believe in Santa?

Same thing.
>>
>>581973024
Jeez I wonder if they contribute as much as us in pollution, fucking resource exploiting, species getting extinct. Ants will eventually find they limits within their ecosystem or kill most of it until there's no resources. We're doing that on a bigger scale, killing everything until there's no habitable planet.
>>
>>581972950
agnostics are still either theists or atheists
>>
>>581973271
Of course I do you turd.
>>
File: 1413010711336.png (26KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1413010711336.png
26KB, 1600x1200px
>>
>>581973403
Incorrect. Agnostics say that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable. Atheists say God does not exist. The agnostics view is compatible with God existing, while the atheists view is not.
>>
>>581972139
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9WRG4e6m2s
>>
>>581961574
>implying i believe with 100% certainty that there is no god
False.
I simply believe that the is no god more so than that there is one.
>>
>>581973375

We're fucked, you don't need to convince me of that. It's more immoral than eating pork, but try telling that to a bible-belt redneck who rolls coal in his truck because Jesus dun gave him that right and ain't no a-rab gun take away his freedums.
>>
>>581973734
>implying you know dick about gnosis
a- without
theism - belief in a theos
if you are without belief in a theos
you are atheistic.

these synonyms are synonymous
>>
>>581961574
Do you believe in Santa?

Same thing.
>>
holy shit. people actually responded to this thread.

have you guys ever had this "wild smoked salmon" dip&spread from Costco? it's actually really good. i have it with Club crackers (original) sooo tasty. great snack!
>>
>>581973310
We do not believe in Santa because there is positive evidence that he doesn't exist. As theists, we need to give reasons for our disbelief in God, it's not enough to say that there is just no evidence. That would leave you with agnosticism at best.
>>
>>581971460
I avoid the sjw culture as much as possible. It tends to trigger my anger.

Okay just fucking with you but I do avoid it like the plague. I haven't heard them use the phrase though. Mea Culpa
>>
>>581973734
google "atheist definition"
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

> or lacks belief
We're in a semantic argument mate.
>>
>>581961931
/thread
>>
>>581974008
>We're in a semantic argument mate.
and he is on the losing end.

the definition of atheism presented by him is one created by christian theologians
>>
>>581963343
It's not valid if you look at life like a test.
>>
>>581966231

Science is what we call the pursuit of knowledge about all around us.
The fact we have amassed ANY knowledge at all is impressive given how fucktarded the human race is. But it's still proven, since we did collect enough knowledge to go from living in caves to being able to insult people that live in the other side of the planet within a few milliseconds.
>>
>>581974001
Show me the proof that Santa doesn't exist.
>>
>>581961574
There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I don't BELIEVE God exists, however, I do not KNOW that he exists or not. Therefore I am atheistic in my beliefs, and agnostic in my knowledge. Agnostic atheist.
>>
>>581974156
because santa is a code word for SATAN!!

satan is real, y'all
>>
>>581973654
What is common sense? What may be common sense to one group of people may not be common sense for another group of people. For example, it is common sense for white folk to continue their education after High School. Niggers do not se it as common sense. Science cannot disprove god. Not as he has been defined. It is just a fact.
>>
There are hundreds upon hundreds of different gods from different mythologies. None of them is more likely to exist than the other.

Why do you give special status to the Abrahamic deities? Why don't you offer similar respect to Thor? Could Loki exist? Well, if he does, then so do elves and magic. Are you keeping yourself open to the possibility that Cthulhu is real?
>>
>>581974131
>The fact we have amassed ANY knowledge at all is impressive given how fucktarded the human race is. But it's still proven, since we did collect enough knowledge to go from living in caves to being able to insult people that live in the other side of the planet within a few milliseconds.

this quote should be archived for posterity.

not on 4chan.

but encoded into the fabric of the interweb itself
>>
It's not that I'm 100% certain that there is no god, just that I'm reasonably sure the abrahamic religions are not true.
Case in point: Exodus

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that God came down before us all right now and commanded us to go to a particular place (let's say Japan), kill everyone there, found a nation in His name in this promised land, and from there spread worship of Him to the wbole world. Naturally, we'd do it because we were commanded by God himself, right?

Here's the problem, though:
Some time after this Exodus you will have a son, and some time later your mother will die. Will you teach your son to make bread and pottery the way you learned from your father, as he learned from his father, or will you teach him the japanese way of making pottery and bread? Will you bury your mother as your ancestors were buried, by the customs of your people, or will you give her a proper japanese funeral?

Because al archaeogical evidence shows that nothing changed in that Canaanite valley for three or four thousand years before the "exodus". Pre- and post-exodus graves are identical. Pre- and post-exodus pottery is identical. All evidence is that the israelites actually were that tribe of canaanites they claimed to have killed, not a culture of escaped slaves from Egypt.
Also the meticulously kept Egyptian historical records make no mention of a huge number of slaves escaping, or ever even having been there, much less one of those slaves being promoted past all Egyptian citizens to overseeing the entire kingdom and answering only to the Pharoah.
The work camps of the pgramid builders have been exavated, and the graves therein bear no resemblance to Canaanite/Israelite graves. They were the Kushiites (aka Nubians) who lived to the south of Egypt.
So if this bible claims to be god's word, either the author or god lied a lot about the origin of "god's chosen people".
>>
>>581972139
Okay Pascal. Go back to crying after I ask you which god.

The counter argument to Pascal's wager is one of the most compelling arguments against these beliefs, in my humble opinion.
>>
>>581974186
this guy.. used the actual, accurate definitions of agnostic and atheist.

i am amazed.

this is the first time i have seen this on /b/
>>
>>581974352
I am extremely hopeful that HP Lovecraft was actually a prophet.
>>
>>581974529
>being this dumb
jesus christ
>>
>>581973515
lol, you don't sound like you do at all.
>>
>>581973910
>>581974008
That is not how it is defined in philosophy.

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

>>581974156
There is no toy factory in the North Pole, and there are no new presents under anyone's tree on christmas morning. These are things that SHOULD be there if he existed, but are not in fact there. That counts as evidence against something:
If X existed, we would expect to find Y
We do not find Y
X does not exist
We can apply the same logic to form an argument against God. However, the absence of any evidence at all leaves you with agnosticism.
>>
>>581974648
>thought I was serious
>I'm the dumb one
>>
>>581974484
oh it's mentioned in about half of these threads, but no one really notices most of the time.
>>
>>581973734
Incorrect on him being incorrect.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism and theism goes to belief, agnosticism goes to knowledge

Not a difficult concept
>>
>>581974452
>not mocking leviticus
really, you aren't going to pick the book where the creator of the universe says that you shouldn't shave the "round of your beard" and also you should murder gay people and non-virgin brides?

also the creator of the universe says its perfectly ethical to beat your slave to death as long as he doesn't die the same day you beat him.

so that's fun
>>
>>581961574
>athiest
>i'm a nihilist
there is no answer for anything so stop trying
>>
>>581974657
How have I used the term incorectly, turd. I am your intellectual superior.
>>
File: 1415744851447.jpg (328KB, 530x4550px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1415744851447.jpg
328KB, 530x4550px
>>
>>581974849
I used that as an analogy because the difference is in the reaction from believers. Given that set of circumstances an Atheist will say "it's extremely unlikely that Santa exists", but a Christian would say, "we just don't understand Santa's ways. the workshop isn't on this physical realm, but rather the place where he creates his works. The gifts he bestows upon us are the joy and togetherness we experience on Christmas."
>>
>>581974849
>implying that bullshit concocted by theologians applies to what absence of theism actually is.
sorry, faggot
>>
>>581961574
>I have a question for Atheists.

*atheists

God is just a myth from the Middle East. That is how I know gOD doesn't real.

Analyze the literature using your STEM skills. It's 100% similar to other mythical bullshit.
>>
>>581975383
>implying you aren't going to hell for serving your biological needs

>>581975458
>100% similar
my dick is 100% similar to a mushroom. just saying
>>
>I have a question for theists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is a God when there is no proof that he does exist.

Believe and disbelieve everything. Nobody really knows if there is or isn't a God, it's all personal belief. Public schools are not a forum for personal beliefs, laws are no place for personal beliefs, services do not require personal beliefs to operate.

Society can go on without religion because morality is subjective, it varies depending on where you live.

Nobody is keeping you from believing in a God or Gods at home, in a place of worship, etc because those places are personal and private, designed for an exclusive group.

God will always be higher than what we can observe. He's no longer in the mountains because he lives in the clouds, but no now he lives in space. Wait a minute he's not even in our plane of existence, now he's beyond what we can reach. You will NEVER prove something like that. Cannot be disproven because you cannot disprove a negative, a rumor, a figure in a story.

With that said, it's pretty safe to assume that we will never know. Doesn't mean people should stop looking, but until tangible and credible evidence is found it should only hold personal merit, nothing beyond that. The world will keep on spinning and becoming more inclusive, the main world religions are not inclusive.
>>
>>581975592
>Believe and disbelieve everything.
so what are your thoughts on round earth theory?
or germ theory of disease?
disbelief?
>>
>>581975087
Incorrect on me being incorrect about him being incorrect.
In philosophy atheism is the view that there is no God. The key difference I think is that agnosticism (there might be a God or there might not) is compatible with God existing. Atheism is not.

>>581975384
Someone who says things like that have blind faith and it would be pointless to argue with them. Showing that it's extremely unlikely that God exists and forcing them to say things like that would be more than enough to justify our atheism. All I'm saying is that if no evidence is given for the truth of a proposition, it does not follow that the proposition is false. Beliefs, even for the absence of things, need to be justified.

>>581975398
>Implying you even know how to logic
Try again, feget.
>>
>>581975259
Actually Ilike that one, and often quote Leviticus 19:27 as the reason people can't tell me to shave and get a haircut. It's one of my favorite bible verses, right up there with Ezekiel 23:20.

Absurd as Leviticus may be, it's not disproveable. Exodus is.
>>
We're just bugs on a rock in a void. We made God, he didn't make us.
>>
>>581961793
Sigh, this should have ended the thread
>>
DEATH IS THE ONLY UNIVERSAL TRUE
>>
THis ThreaD::: Nigger/Nigger everyone loses
>>
>>581976030
We have the exact same proof against the monotheistic Christian Diety as we do against Santa.

We cannot accurately make predictions based on the stories. We do not have any physical evidence of its existence. Evidence we expect to find does not exist. Evidence of previous cultures sharing those stories that pre-dates Christianity... It's exactly the same type of evidence as the argument against Santa.
>>
>>581975371
you lack the prerequisites for understanding.
>>
>>581976792
Is a degree from the University of California suffucient?
>>
>>581977018
>suffucient
legit_as_fuck.exe
>>
>>581976792
In Philosophy, no less. Nigger.
>>
>>581976725
Except that Kris Kringle and Saint Nicholas were real people. One rode a sleigh, the other rode a reindeer (I forget which is which) and they both made gifts for the children in their towns. As both stories were similarly exggerated and embellished over time they were merged into one myth, kinda like YHWH and EL.
>>
>>581977083
yes, suffucient
>>
>>581977171
Did you just disagree with my analogy by using another analogy that proves my point?

Besides all of that, there are a lot of examples of things in the bible that have been disproven. For instance, the Earth is much older than 6000yrs.
>>
>>581977083
Problem?
That's the cromulent spelling.
>>
>>581961574

There is no 100% certainty as no experiment can prove nor disprove the existence of god(s).

But there are no clear hints that there is a god. There is a shitload of religions on earth, all of them claim to be right, and their beliefs are all different.
>>
Let's just get one thing out of the way: absolutely nothing is 100%. That's not how probability works. Scientific certainty is usually between 95% and 99.9999%
>>
File: philosophy degree.png (19KB, 504x497px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
philosophy degree.png
19KB, 504x497px
>>581977136
>thinking philosophy is useful
dude, at least go into cog sci.
that is an acceptable path for idiots like you

>not majoring in neuroscience, the literal (plausible) intersection of science and epistemology
>>
>>581977468
>disagree
No, I just noted that the origin of the Santa myth was real people and not previous myths.
>>
>>581976725
>We cannot accurately make predictions based on the stories.
You need to give an example of this. However, this would not be a reason for denying God. The predictability power of the bible has no bearing on the actual existence of the christian God.
>We do not have any physical evidence of its existence
God is by definition an immaterial, metaphysical being. If He exists, why would we expect any physical evidence of Him?
>Evidence we expect to find does not exist.
This is the right type of logic, but you must be much more specific.
>Evidence of previous cultures sharing those stories that pre-dates Christianity
Again, this has no effect on the truth value of the claim that God exists. You would have to show that those older stories have some sort of causal relation to christianity. That is, you have to show that those stories caused the creation of christianity.
>>
>>581977480
really? because google seems to think it doesn't exist (outside of thousands of webpages filled with typos) and i can't find a single literary source citing the word

neither in my etymology nor regular dictionaries.
>>
>>581977136
your declaration is the very height of irony

and no, even if true, it's not sufficient. they give anyone degrees these days.
>>
>>581961574

There are 2 different types of atheist in this regard, often referred to as weak or strong atheist, weak atheists don't believe there is no god, they simply lack a belief in god. Strong atheists assert that there is no god and carry the burden of proof.

The vast majority of modern atheists are weak atheists, they simply lack a belief in god, they do not assert he doesn't exist, they simply reject the claims of theists as irrational and not based in evidence or reason.
>>
>>581963253
>>581973263

I'm trying to figure out which of you two are more pants-on-head retarded.

The question was "How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist."

You claimed his reasoning is fallacious because, "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false."

And then some hive-minded fucktwat busts a nut congratulating you.

Not a single assertion was made proposing the existence of god, but that didn't stop you from spewing basic copy/pasta with pseudointellectual remarks.

>>581963834
>>581964024

The difference between the theory (colloquial, not scientific) of an intelligent designer and something you make up on the spot is that there have been innumerable cases brought up for the necessity of a designer (ranging from unusually stupid to philosophically reasonable).

Because of this, to then rationally claim with any certainty that there is no god would absolutely require legitimate evidence (scientific or philosophical).

In my opinion, the only rational conclusion regarding design is that there is currently no evidence to properly support either field, and to claim with any level of certainty otherwise without said proper evidence would definitively require faith.
>>
>>581977771
>No, I just noted that the origin of the Santa myth was real people and not previous myths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
>>
>>581977991
LOL try looking up "cromulent" and you'll get the joke.
>>
>>581978039
>You claimed his reasoning is fallacious because, "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false."
no
he claimed it fallacious because it assumes a false dichotomy where you either think its true or you think its false

when in reality there are 4 options.

way to criticize a post you clearly didn't comprehend, fucktard
>>
>>581977757
Philosophy degree from an elite university like Cal is legit. No shame here. Same type of students as the Ivy League.
>>
>>581978085
Okay, now find the historical YHVH. G'head, I'll wait.
>>
>>581974389

Thank you anon. That made my boring day at work a lot more awesome.
>>
File: cromulent.png (10KB, 512x104px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
cromulent.png
10KB, 512x104px
>>581978145
i already had, and i didn't. (do i win the prize for most confusing sentence of the thread?)
..wut am i missing?

>inb4 you have to look past the first thing you see on google
who has time for that kind of tedious research?
>>
>>581978314
>>581978314
...doesn't the historical tuthmosis suffice?

he is the one babbling about that nonsense anyways

>>581978310
>Philosophy degree ...is legit.
lol?
i am not quite sure whether to laugh or be concerned for your health...
Thread posts: 226
Thread images: 28




[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.