Why do atheists use such stupid arguments to disprove God?
I heard this arguemnt of why God doesn't exist today, it was basically: >You can not prove God exists >You can not prove that a teapot that orbits the sun in space exists >A teapot in space does not exist >Therefore, God does not exist.
Why are atheists so illogical? He also said they don't have any proof that God doeasnt exist so why would you still believe he doesn't?
And look at what happens when you try and run an atheistic society
Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
It just results in immorality and killing because without God human life has no intrinsic value.
Premise 1: you have no good reason to believe in God (argument: give the atheist any purported reason, and he'll show you that it isn't a good one) Premise 2: if you don't have any good reason to believe something, then you shouldn't believe it (argument: basic rationality, plus the observation that "god makes me feel good" is an argument for the pragmatic benefit of theistic belief, not its justifiability)
>>597683665 There's no correlation between the two. More people were killed in the last century and a half due to the industrialization of warfare and progress in technology making deadlier weapons. Mankind has always murdered its own, going back to before antiquity. Furthermore, why do you think belief in your god makes people value human life more? Logically they would value it less, since death in your belief system is rewarded with eternal paradise in the afterlife. Atheists find death much more appalling than religious people.
Anyone that used that argument would be retarded. Something tells me that you misunderstood. The point is that there is as much reason to believe in the teapot as there is for God. They could both be true, but believing in either based on the science would be unjustified. That's not to say they don't exist.
>>597683779 The exact semantics of "atheism" are variable. I think it should be understood as simply not believing in God (you ask someone 'do you believe in god?' and they say 'no.' that's an atheist right? an agnostic says 'idk').
but for some atheism is the belief that there is no god. and presumably such an atheist can provide some reasons for justifying this belief, which aren't obviously bad reasons. e.g. i have good reason to believe in what physics says, and physics says the universe is causally closed; if god existed (as per the bible say) the universe couldn't be causally closed; i have good reason to believe logical entailments of what i have good reason to believe; therefore i have good reason to believe there's not a god. this is obviously a questionable argument, but it's not /obviously/ wrong.
>>597683959 You totally ignored what I just said to blather some typical idiotic religious shit-logic. We don't need to try to disprove something that has not a single shred of evidence for its existence. There is no trying to disprove your god, its not even a reasonable consideration that it might exist in the first place.
>>597682846 That's actually a very famous argument by Bertrand Russel, which really only packs a punch if you're already in the sort of progressive / open minded secular mindset, which is why it doesn't appeal to religious or even agnostically spiritual types like I imagine you are.
That being said, I also agree, that on it's own, this is a poor argument and not as thought provoking as one might think in support of atheism on its own, however in the context of other polemics and ideas it makes much more sense.
>>597684319 death is not a biological function; it's the realization of an inherent limit to biological function. and it's not obviously a "good thing" under natural selection either (it depends on what you think the units of selection are, for one).
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...
>>597684223 ...you seem to be under the impression that there are two groups: Atheists, who do not believe in your god, and everyone else, who does. But this is entirely wrong. The groups are: Atheists, who do not believe in your god, or any other gods, and people of your religion, who believe in your god, but not any of the other gods, and people of all the other religions, who believe in their god or gods, and not any of the other gods. Unless you believe in all of the gods, we are both atheists, to a greater and lesser extent.
>>597684230 Physics and all sciences are always based on faith because you never know what the result of an experiment will be (Which is why you perform the experiment in the first place and not just jot down what will happen).
You sir are retarded. Things that haven't met their burden of proof and spring into existence once we prove them. They are their to discover and therefore true whether we acknowledge them or not. If you're going to be an atheist, be good at it, don't be a shitlord internet atheist who doesn't know what he's on about.
>>597684562 The first premise was: I have good reason to believe in what physics says.
Why do I have such good reason? Here's one: all the buildings around us which don't fall down are built on the basis of physical theories. Ditto for all our technology. The theory makes predictions and the predictions come true.
The fact that physics is written in a textbook and has a structure of social authority is not the ONLY thing which licenses you to believe in physics.
>>597684604 what are you talking about? you form a hypothesis. prior to testing the hypothesis, you might not believe it at all---hence there is absolutely no issue about "faith" since you don't even believe it. then you run the experiment, it seems to confirm the hypothesis, so you apportion some credence to the hypothesis. your degree of belief in it goes up---and in a justifiable way.
>>597684562 No, we don't have "faith". We are educated. Physics has been proven, time and again. Science is constantly progressing, testing, experimenting, studying, researching, learning. It has no bias, it only cares about the truth. A scientist will gladly prove another scientist's theory wrong if he is able to. Faith and belief do not play into it. Religious morons, on the other hand, just sit around trying to prove each other right with faulty logic, which they don't understand the problems with because they've been taught their entire lives to think a certain way, to abhor learning, to be dumb and obedient.
>>597684391 >not a single shred of evidence for its existence The existence of the universe is proof that a sentient, timeless being created us. >>597684430 Well an inferior being dying is a good thing because it is what natural selection says. You said atheists are more appalled at death than theists but the list of deaths from atheist dictators is clear proof that youa re wrong. >>597684475 Hitler was not a true christian becuase he killed innocent people, the law clearly states thou shalt not kill. Therefore he wasn't a christian and also he needed to give an appearance of believing to win suppoirt from the masses.
>>597683004 first of all Hitler did nuffin wrong 'Muricans, Christians 99999999999999 gorillions indians plus dead
god has nothing with the value of life we made the hole thing to protect our self interest cause we are alive dumbass humans have to choose which form of life is sacred and get to kill the rest that's why no one is defending the tumors
>>597684870 Although we're on the same side, you should be more precise. Physics has not been "proven"; proof applies only to mathematics. Physics has been well-confirmed, but it could well turn out to be false. It does have bias and it does involve faith; for instance, in the trivial sense that you have faith that your peers at good institutions aren't making up the numbers (and that the people who replicate their experiments aren't making up numbers, or that peer reviewers are honest, etc).
we do ourselves no favors as atheists by pretending science is some monolithic timeless pristine perfect machine, entirely above the vagaries of any other human social institution. its results are compelling and justified nevertheless.
>>597684636 >They are their to discover and therefore true whether we acknowledge them or not. Yes, and? No one has ever discovered anything that would give a rational person reasonable cause to believe in the existence of any of the gods invented by humanity. Religion hasn't just failed to meet a burden of proof - it has failed to even have a spec, an ounce, of POTENTIAL evidence, that could even make this worth discussing.
>>597684968 This is your typical dumb atheist. They have no morals and can't even string a sentence together, yet they think they know better than billions of people throughout history who have almost all believed in God.
>>597684908 >The existence of the universe is proof that a sentient, timeless being created us. Boy, you just pulled that conclusion out of your ass.
>Hitler was not a true christian becuase he killed innocent people PFFFFFFFT. firstly, what does it matter if he was a "true" christian if his motivations were still at least partially inspired by christian dogma. Secondly, how cute that you think your defintion of christian is somehow superior to anyone else's. Hey asshole, how about when jesus said if you want to be perfect you need to sell all your possessions and live as he did. The fact that you have a computer with which to spew idiocy onto the internet shows you're not a true christian.
Why does ethier side care of this old and shitty argument care about what the other side thinks. how about this the next time you think to yourself I should go tell this guy why I hate his religion and why I feel like god is implausible, I shut the fuck up and keep it to my self. On the same hand do fucking talk shit about how lucky/enlightened you are to have god in your life and how everyone you know should accept Jesus as your savior. In all of current documented history all signs of religion have manifested as a means to 1 educate people 2 reinforce morals and social cues 3 to create communities in which every member serves a function. In all of these religions we have found similarities between Christianity seeing signs of crosses, angels, and the rebirth of the savior repeated over countless religions whether your polytheistic or monotheistic your religion serves a function in your life not everyone elses your lack of religion serves as a function to justify why you feel like you need no form of higher athourity aside form logic and science but rather than using both of these pursuits to better your selves people throw them at each other like fucking yugioh cards claiming that one is more valuable or stronger than the other. Do the world a favor and shut the fuck up and leave each other alone so that everyone else who is already doing that can move on with their lives and make to class on time because their will be no more giant circle jerks of people clogging the quad bicker about inane shit instead of going to class. btw atheist showing faith or veliving in anything is a sign of intelligence or lack their of. Its a sign of acceptance and comfort just like how you accept death and are comfortable with the laws of science and how they describe how the world you live in works
>>597684908 i didn't say atheists are more appalled at death than theists, that was someone else.
all i was suggesting is that you fundamentally misunderstand natural selection. there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" from the perspective of natural selection. an "inferior" being is just one with smaller propensity to propagate its genes. so the death of an inferior being is, i suppose, a bad thing from the perspective of the genes of that being; and i suppose it's a good thing from the perspective of its rivals, since it represents one less competitor. but there's no univocal standpoint of "natural selection" from which it is good or bad.
>>597684908 >Hitler was not a true christian becuase he killed innocent people, the law clearly states thou shalt not kill. Therefore he wasn't a christian and also he needed to give an appearance of believing to win suppoirt from the masses. WE HAVE A WINNER! It took about 10 minutes for someone (religious) in this thread to use the No True Scotsman fallacy. What a chucklefuck.
I have studied physics at Stanford. These are the courses I have taken, and passed with flying fucking carpets:
Classical mechanics Quantum mechanics Quantum entanglement Particle physics Special relativity General relativity Advanced quantum mechanics Advanced quantum entanglement (which is the field I am most interested in and will write my doctors paper on.)
String theory with Susskind, because why not.
There is very little proof, most of it are assumptions based on observation.
>>597682846 For the same reason many Religious people use stupid arguments to prove God. Intelligent and unintelligent people exist is both segment of belief, however the very nature of Atheism simply attracts the scientific community more, thus in general more logical people will follow Atheism. The opposite goes for Religion, it attracts people who are unsure of things and their place in the world, those who would rather follow a set of rules, or morals than have the difficult decision of choosing what path they take and dealing with the consequences. If an Atheist is fired, he/she thinks "Well shit now I need to try harder" while a Religious person would think "Well it must be God's plan for me." Because of this Atheists and Religious followers often come into conflict, not just because they follow differing ideologies but because the core of their personalities differ. Science is really a form of Religion, however those who follow Science would rather put their faith in something that can be proven, something they know is real, while Religious followers prefer being told what is real, even if it might not exist. Of course, these are generalizations, and like I said before, there are always exceptions to this. In reality the most advantageous ideology to subscribe to would be Agnosticism, like myself, because I am open to the possibility of God(s), but I don't have to waste every Sunday of my life going to Church and waste 10% of my income on donations to a Church.
>>597685208 First of all you sound really angry, in a way I think you're angry at God for the problems in your life. But also you are taking the Bible too literally, when Jesus says to drop everything and follow him he means you need to get go of all other faiths and believe in him alone. It's called a parable there are plenty more and not meant to be taken literally.
Religion was invented by man to explain things they could not understand at the time. I can't see how people can be so damn irrational and believe that 'their' god is the only real one. whereas if that very same person was born in India, they'd probably be Hindu. if they were born in Morocco, they'd probably be Muslim, and so on.
and above that, why can't people realise how fucked up it is to tell other people how to live their lives based on that. and are even willing to kill for it. goddamn man.
>>597682846 This is Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy which is about burden of proof. He said that if he claimed that a teapot too small to see was orbiting the sun it would be nonsense to expect people to believe in his teapot or to expect people to disprove it, yet ancient books and folklore insist that an invisible man that no one has met or can physically prove created everything and we are expected to blindly follow and accept this.
>>597685241 >>597685274 I looked up your "fallacy".. but with a scotsman you are talking about something that you either are or aren't based on where you live. But if you aren't following the word and loving God then you aren't a christian at all and so you can't try and blame God for what you do. As much as you want to blame God for what hitler did you will have to do better than that.
>>597685291 all your studies have been in speculative / cutting edge physics. roll back the bus for a bit and explain how well classical physics is supported. be honest fellow scientist, or go sit in the corner.
>>597685504 ok but at this point you should start asking yourself: what is the personal experience in question? what am i using it as evidence for? does it really justify what i'm using it to justify?
in my experience most people who use "personal experience" to justify anything religious generally misinterpret coincidences as "revealing some divine order" or whatever. almost certainly there's a better explanation for your personal experience than "it reveals divinity"
>>597685504 1. There is plenty of evidence, just none that transcends personal experience. In other words, completely subjective experiences which cannot be replicated, measured, observed or otherwise separated from falsehood or fabrication? Experiences which happened -after- the individual was raised in a culture and environment that impressed the belief system on them?
>2. Why are you stuck on the God's created by humanity? Because that's what we are discussing.
>>597685616 general relativity and quantum mechanics have been confirmed by several experiments (doesn't guarantee they are true); classical mechanics, though a useful approximation, it strictly speaking false (it has been disconfirmed).
>>597685607 >As much as you want to blame God for what hitler did you will have to do better than that. No one said that, you're just making shit up as religious people usually do.
Anon claimed Hitler was an atheist and that it supported the idea that atheists are more prone to killing. He was proven wrong with evidence that Hitler was, in fact, a Christian. Whether you think he acted like a Christian ought to act, according to you, doesn't change the fact that he believed in the same god as you, and was not an atheist.
>>597684562 Physics written in textbooks are based upon physical experiments that literally anyone can recreate at will.
Physics text books don't ask you to believe them - they lay out a framework that describes a system and take you through the processes using maths (fundamental logic). You can recreate that maths and recreate that experiment which consolidates the maths.
Anything that is not repeatable is not accepted by the physics community - the scientific method was based on fundamental principles which ensure and enshrine impartiality and rigour.
>>597685990 again i'm on your side but it's pretty ridiculous to say "literally anyone can recreate at will." you just expect me to build the LHC in my backyard? or build a PCR machine in my basement?
replication is a real thing but, as i stressed before, science requires a basic amount of trust---namely that other people are performing their experiments properly, did the things they reported, aren't fudging things, etc.
I agree. But that's the thing about personal experience, it is completely inaccessible to anyone that isn't having it themselves. The same reason that we can't accept it is the same reason that we can't reject it. There are some of the more trivial ones that are obviously false, but even those can be bound with some internal experience that would point to divinity. The external coincidences are just a prime mover for the internal experience.
>>597685392 Heey looky here, a christian that never read the bible.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Pretty clear he says sell your possessions. Isn't it convenient that you can just manipulate it to suit whatever makes you feel good?
And no, I'm not "angry at god", what I'm angry at is his fan club. Yahweh is a fictional character, the creation of people, just like every other god, people made it the fuck up to explain the world and give themselves authority.
I love it when you folks try to say atheists just want to sin or are just angry at god, as though you honestly think that's how people work. Do you think that people commit crimes because they don't like the idea of going to prison so they ignore the fact that police exist? Basic psychology escapes you.
>>597686097 wow you're an idiot. maybe read the wikipedia page on newton's laws. what i said is that, strictly speaking, f=ma is false; which it is, it's not universally applicable. i said nothing at ALL like "physics is unsubstantiated." in fact I had claimed that relativity and qm are well-confirmed.
are you mentally handicapped? do you have no reading comprehension whatsoever?
I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your little Banana thread up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don’t even fill in the captcha. Maybe you’re such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a 4chan pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. The “epic” Banana guy, isn’t it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it’s ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that’s right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she’s probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on 4chan posting about a fucking banana. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic Bananafag NEET. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can’t even try to talk with you because all you say is “I REALLY REALLY LIKE THIS PICTURE.” You’ve become a parody of your own self. And that’s all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he’s done a million times now. And that’s all you’ll ever be.
Atheist here, grew up in Christian household, couldn't comprehend the possibility of a "God," respect peoples faiths anyway, who the fuck cares? Just don't shove it down my fucking throat. cbf green text rn
>>597686375 >f=ma no. its true. universally. you rely on it daily. it does break down at the edges of our knowledge, sure, but that does not dismiss the fact that its fucking true. and reliable. dont over complicate it.
your first post sounded like religious apologetics.
>>597682846 That would be the argument of a gnostic atheist. Richard Dawkins for example is an Agnostic atheist, meaning he does not reject the idea that there is a higher being. But there's been shown no evidence what so ever for any god, so you might as well believe me when I say the flying spaghetti monster exists. Just read its gospel and you'll know it's the inspired word of our creator.
>>597686908 it sounds like religious apologetics only to a total retard such as yourself. as i quite clearly stated, it is a useful approximation, so obviously I agree that we "rely on it daily." and when i say "strictly speaking it's false" that's the same as saying "it breaks down"
generally speaking, laws of nature (f=ma is an example) are envisioned to hold for all of space and all of time. they are true only if they do, in fact, hold for all of space and time. f=ma does not, so it's not true. sorry if this "overcomplicates" things for you.
>>597682846 “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
I don't care you believe in god. Just because i don't doesn't mean i'm any better than you. The reason i don't believe is mainly because there are about a billion religions claiming to be the only true one. Taking this into account, the chance of ANY of these religions actually being right (in case of gods existance) is very unlikely. if there was a god, probably none of the current religions would be right. Why dedicate my life to religion if were all fucked in the end anyway? Therefor i prefer not to rely on this god that is or is not there. In the end i will see what death is all about, and if this lifestile will get me screwed, god is an asshole for having unrealistic expectations of me, and I don't even want to spend eternity worshipping him.
In the end my definition is kind of necessarily true. An atheist doesn't believe in any God. If a human has not yet conceived of a particular deity, it is impossible to believe in it ergo etc and so on and so forth.
>>597687184 Guys we don't need the pedantic arguing over these basically irrelevant issues making the thread that much more confusing for our religious friends here, they can't grasp the basics of scientific theory as is.
>>597687184 ok, so it wasnt you being a religious apologist. it was you just showing off your superior intellect and polishing your credentials like a true neckbeard... by telling a person who thinks there is a magic man listening to his nightly wishlist that the laws of physics are unsubstantiated. good plan einstein.
Religion will eventually not exist it is only a matter of time. Our technology is too advanced now with internet and everyone having a camera on their phone it is impossible to write a book about miraculous things without it being easily disproved. The religions already existing slowly dwindle as they make less and less sense and become more contradictory as time goes on.
I'm not anti-religion either just a prediction of mine.
Only people with little man syndrome And/or people that aren't comfortable with their belief, or lack there of would spend hours trying to convince others they're right, it's like when you buy a shitty headset and you go out of your way to convince everyone it's good
Atheist? Good for you, now stfu and go on with your own life
Religious? Good for you unless you're a Jew, now stfu and go on with your life
Agnostic? Kill yourself you self loving attentionwhore
>>597682846 Its not an argument. If someone used it as an argument, he didnt understand it. It goes this way: >You can not prove God exists (or exists not) >You can not prove that a teapot that orbits the sun in space exists (or that it does not exist) You do not believe the teapot to exist, so why do you believe god to exist?
Why do you believe one thing, but not the other? Whats the difference? You cant prove or disprove either. It is a trick question, used to make people think, not an argument to prove or disprove anything. If you understand it, you can learn a lot about logic and believe. And about yourself, and your relation to religion. If it make you swap from theis to atheist or vice versa is not important, important is that you think differently after.
On either side, you learn not to try to prove the unprovable. You might end up Theist "I belive, and i do not need a prove", or Atheist "I belive not, and i do not need prove", or any kind of agnostic " i dont know, but i think ..."
Anyway, Atheist and Theist are pretty simmilar, they have deep inner belive that does not need any proof. Actually, most Atheist are in fact hard agnostics, for they have usually an easy time to say "Well, ok, i cant disprove the 'god' hypothesis, but because of reasons i think i can savely ignore it and concentrate on other theories". Whereas most Theist are actually Theist, because the ignore the posibility of being wrong.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Look at all the smelly hippy's who get into Eckhardt Tolle and Deepak Chopra. They just bastardise science to turn that into religion. There will always be mysteries and so long is there is, there will be religion.
Yeah, let's all just agree to stop talking about the most interesting and important topic we have because we will never universally agree on the answer. If we had more motherfuckers like you, we'd still live on a flat earth because we can't all agree.
>>597684475 The jews today, though are the moneychangers in the temple. Because theyre at the head of all the international banks and forcefully attempting to make christianity seem laughable and islam an exterminable threat, all the while remaining orthodox.
>>597682846 They do it because by claiming god does not exist, their IQ automatically rises by 30 points. It's the easiest way to sound smart. Just look at all the atheist scientists, they're just like them.
>>597685713 Hitler was an atheist, he was heavily influenced by the works of Nietzsche and by the idea of the survival of the fittest. He actually wanted to eliminate Christianity, those speeches were an act of manipulation. I personally admire Nietzsche's work, I'm not attacking his philosophies but this is a fact.
If something has not satisfied it's burden of proof it is not assumed false. It is assumed unproven. There was a time when evolution had not met it's burden of proof, it didn't magically spring into existence when we hit some sort of critical mass of supporting evidence. The idea of God is the same.
>>597684319 The theory of natural selection isn't a moral doctrine, it's just an explanation of reality. We don't refuse to travel by plane just because the law of gravity says we belong on the ground.
Question people don't believe in god which in tern makes heaven nothing but a fantasy people say that you just rot in the group after you die but there is scientific evidence that ghosts exist? Care to explain what in the world happened to these dead fucks if theres nothing after we die?
>>597682846 Atheist here, and I agree that's a stupid argument. I think it should be more like this. Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god. Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun. Nobody believe in a teapot orbiting the sun, why do people believe in a god? Theism is just silly to me, if there's no evidence for something, it's stupid to think it's true..
I'm not an retard because it's cool. I'm not an retard because of religious extremism or oppression in some depraved corners of 4chan. I'm not an retard because I don't think faggotry can exist in a world within a universe. I'm not an retard because I think science can disprove the universe.
I'm an retard because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON SOLIPSISM.
If you propose the non-existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defence of its non-existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
Op The argument is known as Bertrand Russells teapot argument. Which if you read the real wording and not some edgemasters manipulation, you still see it also cannot disprove god, is paradoxical for a reason. Because true atheists must rely on the rules of FALSIFIABILITY( Karl popper). People who treat atheism as if it has ideological propose purport it as no different as a religion, which makes them no different then the religious ideologues they attempt to dislike and disprove.
>>597682846 If I tell you unicorns don't exist, I don't have too proof they don't. Thing only exist if it prooven that they do. As long as something has not been prooven to exist, you can't say it does. logic 101
>>597682846 So what was it like before you were born? Did you have to suffer through by just sitting, waiting in a dark room with nothing to do until your daddy decided to squirt his juice into your mother's womb and then BAM, you got tossed out of that dark room into your mommy's oven? No, ofc you didnt.
"When you die, you’re not going to have to put up with everlasting non-existence, because that’s not an experience. A lot of people are afraid that when they die, they’re going to be locked up in a dark room forever, and sort of undergo that.
Well try and imagine what it would be like to go to sleep and never wake up. Think about that…
It will pose the next question to you. What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep? That was when you were born…
You see, you can’t have an experience of nothing; nature abhors a vacuum."
The Russel's Teapot assertion you reference exists to draw a parallel between faith and evidence, and the disparity that is present between theists and non theists and their thought patterns.
God can be neither proven nor disproven, but many people take His existence as a given.
Similarly, Russel's Teapot can be neither proven nor disproven, but though the level of evidence is exactly the same, anyone who made the claim of the existence of the teapot, and then decried any method of verifying its existence, would rightly be though to be an idiot.
The long and short of it is if you don't have evidence - data that can be reviewed and interpreted reliably - then you shouldn't make a claim. There may be a God, but until you have hard evidence of Him, it is only logical and reasoned to function as if there isn't one, because when it comes to the existence of something, a negative is far more common than a positive.
>>597682846 Honestly that picture just shows that compared to the atheist, the christian is always looking for a reward from bible taught meekness, poverty, and altruistic behavior. We really can live with morals and ethics without a book that teaches that spitting on wounds is way of healing cuts. Wishful thinking is cop-out for reality.
>>597682846 I know the debate that you are referring to. I also know that you must be posting simply to bait. I find it difficult for an intelligent person to take a sound and logical argument and misinterpret it as much as you have described in your post.
>>597692128 The average (or mean) score is set at 100 with a standard deviation of 15 so that scores conform to a normal distribution curve. This means that 68 percent of scores fall within one standard deviation of the mean (that is, between 85 and 115), and 95 percent of scores fall within two standard deviations (between 70 and 130).
>>597692241 You can prove yourself to yourself, but you can't prove yourself to someone else.
Similarly, you can't prove things outside of yourself to yourself, principally because the human body is a shitty data taking machine that is prone to misunderstanding (ignorance), misinterpreting (illusions), and deliberately falsifying (this makes me sad so it can't be true) data.
>>597691341 you can't /thread your own posts retard. also, it's not up to you or me to decide if Hitler was a christian or not. that was up to Hitler, and he said he was a christian. why are you trying to say someone wasnt religious, if he obviously was?
do i say that i blame christianity for his deeds? no, that has nothing to do with what he did.
the fact that Stalin was atheist doesn't have anything to do with his POLITICAL actions either.
seriously, stop trying so hard. it makes you look retarded.
>>597682846 Here's the deal with religion and humanity.
It's about being on a team. If your team has been winning for centuries (e.g. Christianity) then you're bored and don't pay attention much to the blowout games (e.g. you don't go to church) but when something threatens your team (like banning bibles in school), suddenly everyone on the team cares and they stand up and get pissed.
>Hey that's my team, you can't do that shit to us!
Try and keep this in mind when dealing with any group of people.
except it isnt football, its alltogether more personal and involved. its worldviews, which people tend to defend to the death. even when members of the opposite team start throwing insults, which turn to sticks, which turn to bullets, which turn to backpack bombs, which turn to airliners...
>I can't defend my beliefs so I'll yell fedora at them.
This thread was started by a religious person challenging atheists. Why wouldn't you expect them to reply? Why would you complain when they do. I guess you just pine for the good old days when you could prevent us from answering by force.
>>597694964 Be sure to drink less alcohol and smoke less if you could, in his name(he suggested so in reference to his illness in a debate I don't care to look up). He was an awesome orator, hopefully even theists can appreciate that.
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.