Believers vs atheists debate go.

SO RANDOM AND ORIGINAL

>>715934810
There is zero proof for the existence of the god of the Bible.

we can all agree that op is a faget

>>715934855
IKR XDDDDDD

sparkling wiggles

>>715934810
Even atheists believe. They believe that a higher power does not exist. Therefore you have started a believer vs believer thread. Therefore, you are a faggot.

>>715934810
I would assert that atheists are believers too. They don't realize it, but they are.

>>715935263
/thread

I don't believe in atheists. AMA

>>715935431
I don't believe that a metaphysical deity exists. Does that not make me an atheist?

Agnostics blow both out of the water.

Atheists vs believers - both are retarded.

>>715935634
No, they're just pussies scared to commit to anything.

>>715935580
Makes you sound like one.
That's the first step.

>>715935634
Everyone is agnostic.

File: index.jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>715934810

Problem with atheists is most of them make it part of their identity as they spiral into blatant liberalism and progressiveness. I tried to deny this for so long until I realized most atheist become atheists because it's now the "in" thing among youth and their justifications for it are just as bad as theists are.

Talk to a young atheist and you'll find most of them are just as emotional about it as theists are.

OP is a faggot
the end

>>715936177
Meh. I've met just as many young atheist Randroids.

This is now a triggered atheist thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rCbqpq6d0

>>715935263
>>715935326
>>715935342
samefagging so hard

fuck both. We need a new religion that understands science, has the peace of mind that Buddhists have along with the personal moral; standards of Christians. Humanity cannot live on science. Most atheists couldn't even recite the basic mathematical equations that could eventually disprove the existence of God. Religion gives way to the spiritual consciousness and we need a newer version of it to survive.

File: wrong.png (73KB, 951x368px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 951x368px

>>715936873

>>715937943
>>715936873
samefag

No need to discus this. God created us. Everything started from Adam and Eve with apple.

>>715938162
Your beliefs are foolish and you are stupid for believing them. Shame on you for being so dishonest.

File: 1858458586.png (115KB, 500x314px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 500x314px

>>715934810
Yes guys lets have a religious warfare. This never went wrong no it's about people being too smart to believe in something not about your lack of persuit for true knowledge but arguing with people with other believes because I am smart and have nothing better to do than being a retarded cuck atheist or a troll acting to be religious.

>>715935734
>not accepting unprovable things makes you a pussy
Dude the sun is an egg. If you think otherwise you are a coward and your mom is disappointed.

>>715935580
Yes. That's literally the definition of atheism. Quit being embarrassed by the stigma attached to the label and just embrace it.

>>715939033
Dude, you are living in a simulated reality. Not the matrix, but not what you think you have perceived with science as an atheist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html

Science's view of the universe is less likely that we are living in a simulated reality. Note, a simulated reality (from our perspective) would actually be completely compatible with a religious paradigm. I.e. who created the simulation?

>>715936177
>Problem with atheists is most of them make it part of their identity as they spiral into blatant liberalism and progressiveness.

Not really. Most atheists (like me, for instance) never identify themselves or argue anywhere but on the internet - which makes us look more radical and preachy than we really are. I don't argue about atheism or preach it to anyone outside of conversations specifically about the topic on the internet. And there's a huge number of us who are NOT liberal and progressive. All you have to do is look at some of the more popular atheist YouTubers to figure that out.

>Talk to a young atheist and you'll find most of them are just as emotional about it as theists are.

I'm not a young atheist, I'm 33 (Jesus' age when he died, kek). But of course many of use become emotional when discussing the topic. When you look at all the issues that religion and theism cause across the globe, it's hard not to get a bit emotional about it.

>b-b-but can't we just let believers believe?

Sure - let's continue to do nothing about radical Islamic terrorism and the restricting, anti-scientific beliefs bleeding into our political system by conservative Christians. Let's just sit back and let it all happen.

>>715934810
>>715934855
>>715934922
>>715934981
>>715935106
>>715935132
>>715935263
>>715935326
>>715935342
>>715935431
>>715935580
>>715935634
>>715935734
>>715935760
>>715935945
>>715936177
>>715936239
>>715936442
>>715936623
>>715936703
>>715936873
>>715937366
>>715937943
>>715938066
>>715938162
>>715938650
>>715938983
>>715939033
>>715940241
>>715940723
>>715940805
samefag

>>715940723
Having made this point, I invite any atheists here to disprove this with science and fact.

>>715941156
Or for that matter, conclusively prove your own existence using the scientific method.

You laugh at those who believe in a being whose existence they cannot prove so I'd expect you should be able to meet this challenge.

>>715941156
You can't disprove simulation theory in the same way you can't disprove god or the multiverse of the existence of unicorns or dragons. So there's not argument to make.

>>715941336
*or the existence

>>715941336
Don't worry about what I believe.

Prove what you believe is more likely than the simulation scenario.

>>715941336
and you're putting Elon Musk on the level of believing in dragons? I'd expect you to have a little higher regard for someone with his pedigree.

Allah of the holy Quran and Bible exists and He will be on His throne whether you angry,lonely,little imbecils argue about it or not ;)

>>715941436
Prove that simulation theory is more likely than god and we can talk.

>>715935580
Why can't atheists define atheism?

File: 479.jpg (37KB, 536x322px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 536x322px

Not sure how anyone can believe in something that has no viable way of being proven. I guess people still listen to infowars so maybe I'm expecting to much from the average persons intelligence or what they care about.

>>715941336
>there's not argument to make.
That's also the same thing as a religion that might avoid considering certain unfathomable points. You can't pick and choose what you use the scientific method for unless you want to essentially be a member of the religion of science...not to be confused with Scientology.

>>715940856
KEK

>>715941747
Prove that you exist. Conclusively.

>>715941538
Your reading comprehension isn't that fantastic, is it?

I'm not putting those beliefs on the same level. I'm saying that it's equally impossible to disprove either belief given that science cannot technically "disprove" anything. If you were educated you would realize that your call to "disprove" something is impossible - but it's more likely that you do realize this and you're just a shitty troll.

>>715939033
You can't prove that the sun is an egg but you can't prove the opposite either. Therefore the logical position to take is that we don't know if the sun is an egg. If you're a retard that is. People who aren't retards know that the sun isn't an egg and that God doesn't exist

>>715934810
I'm on the fence on this one
Just because explain how Jesus made water into beer

>>715941893
Of all the ways to admit defeat, name calling is the least graceful.

I will dismiss your point as you probably don't exist and you are a fool for believing otherwise. I will reconsider this view if you can conclusively prove that you do in fact exist.

I didn't say that you needed to disprove anything. I challenged you to PROVE that what you believe (yes, believe) is more likely than the simulation reality theory.

>>715934810
Even athiests are believers, we just believe in nothing.

>>715942171
I don't exist, man. I'm an NPC in your simulated universe. What does it matter what I believe?

File: v0xrJ.gif (974KB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 500x208px

>>715942085
Anything is possible in a simulated reality. Come on, that was easy.

>>715942334
I dunno seems real to me

>>715942307
That means you don't believe in your thoughts or views either then, so that works.

>>715942435
Seems real? Not a very high standard for science.

>>715942171
>I didn't say that you needed to disprove anything.

Meanwhile, in >>715941156...

>Having made this point, I invite any atheists here to disprove this with science and fact.

Guys God is real, i cant prove it but what are the odds that we were put on this earth the only planet that could sustain life? There's to many holes in the theory of evolution, god created man in his image.

>>715942307
Surfing is a hobby. I don't surf, so is not-surfing my hobby?

How does magnets work?

>>715942313
>What does it matter what I believe?

In the context of this thread, it only matters to the extent that you want to debate the position of atheist over that of believing.

>>715942655
>Counting odds
>Observing proven facts

Pick one

>>715942558
I don't care for science I just live life with Jesus by my side

>>715942717
But we've already established that atheists and theists both hold beliefs. Everyone holds beliefs. So what's to debate?

>>715942655
God beliefs and evolution are not competing concepts. Evolution is observable, god is made-up nonsense for people who don't care about understanding how things work.

>>715942826
Excuse for not using brain

>>715942637
Fair enough but the point is that you should prove the scientific view is more valid that the simulated reality paradigm. But you got me, I did use the word disprove in that comment but it doesn't excuse you from the challenge.

>>715942892
How do you explain the finding of noahs arch?

>>715942826
I am a believer who is challenging the self-perceived intellectual superiority of atheists. I don't do this to promote my cause but to give them a dose of reality.

>>715942885
Science views their beliefs as fact. That is the debate.

>>715943046
Source? It's a boat. Who cares? Why don't you explain it, you're the one saying it happened.

>>715943111
try me

>>715942929
See

>>715943111

>>715943166
Science isn't a "they".

>>715943205

Start here.

>>715940723

>>715943280
The people for whom it is a religion are the "they" I allude to.

>>715942655
smarts monkeys that want to kill each other over stupid believes

>>715943289
It's just a theory built from theories. Nothing have been proven. It's the same as believing in this as believing in an old man in the north pole giving out gift and candies to kids

>>715942996
Now we're just going around in circles. I already answered your question indirectly. I can't "prove" that the scientific view (whatever you believe that is) is more valid than simulated reality. Because simulated reality theory exists, by definition, outside of the ability of science to test or prove. Same as the idea of a metaphysical god. Same as the idea that the entire universe was created 15 seconds ago and all of our memories were implanted in us at that exact moment. It's not testable or falsifiable. But that doesn't mean that it's true or valid.

>>715943343
Science isn't a religion though.

>>715943377
Do you believe that you exist? If so, prove it using the scientific method.

>>715943166
No they don't. Science is, by definition, open to change given new evidence. That's the heart of the scientific method. So you're completely incorrect on that assertion.

>>715943482
I don't need to believe I exist. Facts don't require belief.

>>715934810
Back to /r/atheism with this shit faggot

>>715943426
So all that any of us have are beliefs that cannot be proven. Science is just another religion in that sense.

>>715943447
It is.

>>715943166
>>715943111


Prove to me that the universe did not start last Thursday

>But I have memories from
All your memories was just planted there when the universe was created

>but I have things from the paste
that was part of the creation

>>715940856
>>715941836

samefag

>>715943642
>It is.
Oh okay, you've convinced me. I guess mathematics and geography is also a religion?

>>715943552
Science believes that it's views are fact unless/until such a time comes that a particular view is disprovable.

>>715943717
My girlfriend and I have been together for 6 years

>>715943948
>My girlfriend and I have been together for 6 years
Just an illusion created when then universe where created last Thursday

>>715943642
>Science is just another religion in that sense.

Incorrect. Religion, by definition, relies on faith. Faith is belief without evidence. While science holds beliefs, those beliefs are informed by testable, observable evidence and are open to change and revision given new evidence. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - and it's not insignificant.

>>715943580
Your existence is not a fact. More accurately put, your existence as you perceive it is not a fact. You could be an entity existing in a simulated reality. You could be dreaming right now. You cannot disprove either of these points and, to that extent, your belief in your own existence is no more valid than others' belief in God's existence.

>>715943642
Is aviation a religion? Do planes fly simply because we believe they can?

You can't prove god doesn't exist though
Plus my Nan says she's seen him when she was on cocaine once

>>715943717
I'm not the one asserting the supremacy of science so it's not my burden to prove anything. I'm a believer. Like you. You just have a different religion...science.

>>715943818
>Science believes that it's views are fact unless/until such a time comes that a particular view is disprovable.

Then they were never fact in the first place. Science recognizes this, which is why no scientist worth their salt will ever use the term "scientific fact." That term is what lay people use. So again, you're incorrect.

>>715944032
But if I am dreaming of within a "simulation" whatever that is, then that is what reality is.

>>715941747
i think modern religious people think he's both able but not willing because he thinks evil should exist in the world

>>715944177
But you see my point?

>>715943808
They are different categories of perception and observation. You are attempting to do an end-around since the scientific view is no more lofty or worthwhile than any other belief.

>>715944390
What are the different categories and why are they significant?

>>715944017
Science also relies on faith. It's based on observation and you have faith that your senses are accurate. You also have faith that, as a baseline parameter, we are not living in a simulated reality. Science gives those who worship it a false sense of superiority and that's why it's so uncomfortable for it's adherents to concede it's limitations. Which are significant.

Why do people think that religion and science are competing? There is no competition. One relies on observation, the other relies on ancient dogma and bronze age superstitions.

>>715944112
I'm the believer here in this debate. I assert that you have recognized that you cannot meet the challenge I presented and, as a fallback, have resorted to these hypothetical questions to muddy the waters.

>>715944669
the difference is that we do not have faith in that, we are actively developing experiments to determine with more accuracy whether that is or is not true. Faith is giving up, scientists do not give up.

>>715944669
Measurement is not a sense. Guessing the scale of something and actually measuring it are two different things.

>>715944185
Then you accept my premise that you cannot have confidence that you, in fact, exist. Your existence is a theory in progress. Right?

>>715944861
I disagree with your assertion.

>>715944256
this

>>715944861

>>715944522

this

>>715944861

>>715945083
where is your god now

File: 8e7.png (98KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x1024px

>>715940856
5/7 b8

>>715945083
Mines bigger. You can't prove it isn't.

>>715941887
I think, there for I am. Now what?

File: cat_g4_20.jpg (21KB, 243x350px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 243x350px

If trips God is real

>>715944669
See, now you're just philosophising down to the point of ridiculousness. You're using the same argument that someone would use who's trying to prove that no one really exists and we were all created 15 seconds ago with implanted memories and blah blah blah.

Of course science relies on the baseline assumption that we DO exist and there IS an objective reality. There's no way for it to work otherwise. But if you want to believe that we don't and everything is an illusion, you're free to hold that belief, although you have no more evidence for your assertion than any other unfalsifiable theory/belief.

I believe (yes, believe) that YOU are the one with a false sense of superiority. That's what your posts reek of - someone who is such an incredibly deep thinker - someone who's beliefs are so deep and profound, that they can point at science with a smug grin and think to themselves, "those fools, how wrong they have it - they don't see reality like I do! I'm so enlightened!"

That's you. You're no different - and probably worse - than the people you decry. You are incapable of confronting your own ignorance. Congratulations.

>>715944914
Sure you have faith. You have faith in your senses and your theories. I don't debate the point that you're willing to completely disavow what you believed yesterday as lunacy (which I will go ahead and confirm today in advance) but that isn't a measure of diligence. It's a confirmation that what you accept as reality is not set and, by your own definition, you know nothing. Anything / everything you think is true today is subject to change tomorrow depending on the weather, so to speak.

>>715944958
Measurement is an increment of senses. Decibels is an increment of the sense of hearing, for example. You are dodging the inevitability of your own demise.

>>715945019
>>715945408

>>715945053
Based on what scientific proof? It's unscientific to merely disagree arbitrarily.

>>715945397
if singles, god is a lie

>>715945322
Your ability to think is not proof. You could have the same sensation (of thinking) inside a dream or a simulated reality. Kant couldn't comprehend a possibility like simulated reality.

There are people with faith, and there are people who demand a logical reason to believe something. Which one you want to be is up to you. Everyone is agnostic because nobody actually knows.

>>715945777
well, shit.

File: jesus-christ.jpg (82KB, 800x1138px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x1138px

The rapture is coming soon enough if you can't see the signs that this is the end of times you may all ready be lost. You still have time to accept our father into your heart, find our Lord and saviour and confess all your seens.

>>715945433
Here's a question for you:

Say you're right, and we are living in a simulation. If that's true, what difference does it make? We are still beholden to this simulation. We still must live by the physical rules of this simulation - there's no way out of it. Science is still the best tool we have to discover what's true in this simulation. So what's your point? Please tell me what difference it makes if your assertion is true.

>>715945911
What is simulated reality and how could it be distinguished from "real" reality? Why is the distinction important? These are not hypothetical questions. Saying they are is a lousy dodge.

>>715946023
STFU with your fairy tales you idiot. It's embarrassing.

>>715935263
>belief vs faith
atheists don't have faith, they reason.
Faith, as a concept, is fucking stupid.
>imma believe this for no reason

Is a movie or video game a simulated reality?

>>715946031
I have to stop you right at the start. I didn't assert that we are living in a simulated reality. I stated that it is a possibility which is actually more scientifically likely than what is accepted in the scientific mainstream as of this moment in history.

>>715946265
Or better yet
>Imma believe this because I like it and it feels nice

File: 1478646162298.jpg (7KB, 199x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 199x225px

>>715945777
Kek

>>715946361
So what though. Answer the question.

>>715946190
You have misphrased me. I'm not experiencing discomfort. I'm solidly pointing out that YOU are no psychologically different, or more intelligent or profound, than scientists OR people with traditional religious beliefs.

In any event, I never said scientists have a higher intellectual standing than those with traditional religious beliefs (although on average, using the parameters of education and IQ, they do). I'm simply saying that using the scientific method is a better tool for understanding truth and reality than religion. And it is.

>>715934981
Yes, worn out and boring discussion.

>>715946361
>which is actually more scientifically likely than what is accepted in the scientific mainstream as of this moment in history.

Prove that. Prove that it's objectively more "scientifically likely" than what science says.

Also answer the question.

>>715946112
Google it and you can find plenty of videos on youtube. Think of it like this. You're familiar with video games and how they get more real every year. When the time comes when the characters in the game have AI and can have independent thought, are they not at that point beings? Or, since someone already referenced Kant, if an AI entity thinks couldn't they use that very principle to assert that "I think therefore I am." Inside the game, they are beings and the world they are in is "the world." They would not be aware of anything outside "the game" unless the developer of the game wanted them to.

And there are a multitude of reasons why an advanced civilization of some kind would want to run such simulations. In fact, millions of such simulations. Millions of parallel universes if you want to think of it as such. Here's just one...

"Is there a scenario in which mankind does not ultimately destroy itself?"

>>715946740
This
Especially because theism and science are not competing. They are not equally worthy of the same platform.

>>715946777
Okay but what does that have to do with religion?

>>715946777
Again, you're not answering the question. If the simulation is so perfect, how is it any different from "real" reality? Again, answer this >>715946031

>>715946402
Some people like listening to music on there phones, some people like listening to music off a cassette tape and some enjoy it off a record player. What's wrong with belife? Why does it scare you so much to think we enjoy the stories in the bible. We enjoy our God we don't bother you and your science bs, leave us to belie

>>715946560
Ok. I answer that your premise was wrong. I did not assert that we are living in a simulated reality.

I stated that it's a possibility more likely than what is accepted by those in the scientific mainstream.

>>715946611
I didn't suggest you said you were experiencing discomfort. That is MY observation of your situation. Then again, I also accept that observation potential is inherently flawed.

I also didn't say that YOU said scientists have higher intellectual standing. I suggested that science and those for whom it is a religion, it is the norm to laugh at those who believe in a God they cannot prove exists. And so forth.

>>715947167
I do not care. You are presenting this as a possibility worth examining. I don't care to examine it.

>>715946764
There is no need to be pushy. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm not the science guy. I'm here to point out some possibilities AND some considerations that are problematic to the scientific mainstream view of reality.

>>715946996
Everything. Here is one.

If we are existing in a simulated then ANYTHING is possible. That includes those things you might classify as miraculous, magical and things that are ridiculed in the scientific mainstream.

>>715947410
You are not a true atheist either.

>>715947157
Comparing a taste for music to how people view themselves and the world around them is pretty irresponsible. Nobody wants to ban abortion because a song told them to.

>>715947167
Ah, I see. well excuse the fuck out of me for assuming that someone who states that "simulated reality theory is more scientifically acceptable than what science itself says" believes that we are living in a simulated reality. How ignorant of me.

Look - I already get you. Your beliefs are not special, to be honest. They reek of a first year philosophy major who just got introduced to Descartes and is on a mission to prove him wrong.

Like I said in the beginning, there's no "proving" any of your assertions incorrect, as they are all unfalsifiable. You philosophise down to the point where no fruitful discussion can take place, because it all boils down to "do we even exist? Can you even prove reality is real?" If you assume that stance, then there is no baseline for discussion. So the whole conversation is pointless.

>>715947145
I never asserted that we're in a simulation, just that it is a possibility more likely than what the scientific mainstream believes. It's not incumbent upon me to further elaborate on that one possibility. I am not the one who claims to (albeit for now only) PROVE things via my process.

>>715947412
Good. Science is based upon examining so you are, in effect, abandoning the scientific mindset now with this comment.

>>715948037
I'm not a scientist. Do theists study every single religion?

>>715947867
Its not the song it's the quality of sound, but you probably never realised a record player sounds better than an mp3 on your phone. Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. I read Richard Dawkins and he dosent represent atheism properly real atheist don't care about debating and humiliation of anyone's religon. They just accept the fact there is no God.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at high school, and I’ve been involved in numerous /r/atheism frontpage posts, and I have over 300 confirmed facebook debate wins. I am trained in theology and I’m the top debater on this entire website. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of atheists across the Scandinavian peninsula and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can convince you that god doesn't exist in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare intellect. Not only am I extensively trained in debate, but I have access to the entire arsenal of my local library and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of this website, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, skytard.

>>715947915
>it is a possibility more likely than what the scientific mainstream believes.

I'm not seeing any evidence for that, honestly. Possible? Absolutely. MORE likely? Prove it.

>>715947874
It's not ignorant, just indicative that you didn't read my comments leading up to the one you alluded to.

I will, however, excuse the fuck out of you.

We are also, apparently, back at the point where it's appropriate for me to say that of all the ways to concede defeat name calling is the least graceful.

I gave a very simple challenge, since I was invited to. Prove that the views held by the scientific mainstream are valid as compared to the simulated reality paradigm.

You also can't assert that you get me...or that you believe you get me. As has already been argued on behalf of science your BELIEFS in this moment can totally change one second from now.

>>715934810
thats great. youre not even posting some bait to start this discussion anymore and it works just fine. well done, sir

>>715948250
I can only speak on my own behalf. I did study most, but not all, of the major world religions but that was decades ago in college.

Note, this was not the basis of me choosing or legitimizing my particular religion. It was an exercise in considering the views of others.

>>715948379
From the mouths of scientists.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix

>>715948893
And you could dismiss those particular scientists or Elon Musk, but the scientific method could probably be applied to "prove" they are smarter than you.

>>715948571
>I will, however, excuse the fuck out of you.

Many thanks ;)

>We are also, apparently, back at the point where it's appropriate for me to say that of all the ways to concede defeat name calling is the least graceful.

Yet so very satisfying to my baser psychological functioning. Thanks for allowing me to indulge ;)

>I gave a very simple challenge, since I was invited to. Prove that the views held by the scientific mainstream are valid as compared to the simulated reality paradigm.

And I've already addressed this countless times, and asked you to prove your assertion that simulated reality is MORE valid than the scientific mainstream view - to which you haven't.

>You also can't assert that you get me...or that you believe you get me.

Really? I can't assert that I BELIEVE something? Well color me surprised. I always thought that believing something was the only requirement for... well... believing something. You're blowing my mind, man! What's the name of your dealer? I need some of that shit!

>>715949026
And now, for the first time in an hour, I'll stop typing and have a cup of coffee.

I'm not mocking you science fans. Just presenting some possibilities. Take it as such.

>>715949142
Thanks for the discussion

>>715949106
>And I've already addressed this countless times

Really? I bet I could count them. See, science is all about hyperbole and self-aggrandizing.

Ah, just going for the aggravation factor on that one. Coffee time, friend.

>>715949106
>What's the name of your dealer? I need some of that shit!

Think I'm gonna get myself cut off for something that fucking dumb? lol

Ok...now it's coffee time dammit;)

>>715949232
I enjoy it. I'll be back in a minute if it's still going.

>>715948893
http://www.henrysturman.com/articles/simulation.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
https://www.inverse.com/article/16539-why-elon-musk-s-simulation-argument-fails
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-dont-live-in-a-simulation

I can post links too.

>>715949559
I didn't ask. But someone did ask me for the scientific case for simulated reality. Should I have posted the entire text of that story here in this thread instead?

>>715949466
>>715949323

Haha - love how riled up you're getting. Your tone is changing and you're even resorting to using emoji's like me! Has the troll become the trolled? Or is this all part of the simulation? Do I even exist? WHAT IS GOING ON?!

>>715949698
And you asked for the cases against it. Should I post the entire text of these links as well?

>>715949796
That was me having fun. I enjoy this stuff and don't try to perpetuate the idea that I'm above using profanity or humor. That's a stereotype and, in my case, inaccurate.

>>715947157
cause religion holds the world back. buying a record player instead of an mp3 holds the mp3 industry back because they don't have as much money pumped into it, but that encourages competition which is a good thing, religion is not a competition, it holds the world back.
>radical islam

>>715949915
I addressed this in an earlier comment. While I did word it that way in one of the comments, the point was for someone to prove that the beliefs of mainstream science were more valid...in any way....than the simulated reality paradigm (and it could be extrapolated from that point, any better than any set of religious beliefs).

>>715944115
Underrated.

Bend over and grab your ankles, here comes a normie opinion.
The internet makes everything so back and white in any sort of a debate or discussion. Plus most people come here just to one up each other and make the other guy mad.
I believe in science. It has given us many great things. like cars, LSD, chompa rice, computers, porn, and fucking giant tomatoes, on top millions of other things. That isn't saying that God didn't do it, because He did too. For example, I believe that Henry Ford did create the first best selling car (Model-T) and assembly line, however God could have given him the idea. God also, in my belief, did start life somehow. (Intelligent Design isn't my shindig, I haven't seen God to know whether or not He looks like us.) So, ultimately, God is responsible for all of our achievements indirectly, while not stealing any credit from us.
Science (and mathematics) thrives off of logic and proven formulas. These can change, but once proven they are hard to disprove. Logic doesn't always take into account emotional needs, and thus logic based thinking (like this thread) leads to emotional malnutrition.
Religion is baised off of Faith, an entirely different concept. By logical standards, a faith cannot be proven. You must believe to experience what you are being rewarded with, which is usually some sort of enlightenment, social guidelines, or a promise of the afterlife. Faith cannot use logic's factual and proven ideology ("factual and proven" as in that is how logical people see logic in their own eyes) to justify their beliefs, as it is faith, not logic. (Saying "I know I am going to heaven" breaks the rules of faith; you believe you are going to heaven. If you choose to stop believing or make a mistake you won't go to heaven.) Logic, in turn, fails to understand faith, an idea so mysterious it lacks proof that it exists. But those who believe seem to be enlightened and happy that they joined.

>>715934810
AGNOSTICISM IS THE WAY FORWARD FAGGOTS

>>715950970
Maybe, but we don't care.

>>715942085
Added hops and yeast.
Bazinga!

>>715950970
Everyone is agnostic

>>715950799
So, you don't (necessarily) believe that simulation theory is true. I assume you don't believe in a biblical god. You don't seem to accept the scientific view of the origin of the universe and nature of reality. So, what do you believe?

>>715950862
TL, DR,
Faithfags go to the middle east to blow themselves up or get fat off of church money. Usually low class and fails to be respected by most people.
Logicfags turn into Sheldon Cooper from the big bang theory. Except they don't get paid to act like themselves on TV and usually end up sad and alone.

One cannot exist with only faith or logic.>>715950862
Take both. You don't need to have an even amount, otherwise you'll end up as cancer.

>>715951134
Why doesn't anyone ever respond to this comment?

>>715942655
Dont you find it odd that 'God' made humans so intricate and complicated?
If he could do as he wanted, being all powerful and all that, why did he make it so that we needed oxygen to replenish our white blood cells through our bones and all that kind of stuff? You know, the stuff that's exactly how evolution would have done it, by improving on a theme through genetic mutation and survival of the fittest.

Theists always dodge this question when I put it to them, or answer it in a blind faith way, with no base in fact or reality.

>>715951275
I believe in God. I think it's very possible that all religions are man's attempt to know God but they all fall short to varying degrees. Some religions may be absolutely without merit, but it's not my place nor my desire to single them out one by one.

As for the simulated reality, I believe it's entirely possible for a given religion to exist inside this reality with the creator of the simulation being the "God" we are striving to know. That's a very brief summary but enough for this forum.

>>715951460
How would you like them to respond. I'm the guy making the points about simulated reality etc.

>>715951460
Depends on how you define agnosticism, or more importantly, "knowing."

There are millions of people who will claim that they "know" god exists - that it's not a matter of belief for them. By that definition, they are not agnostic, they are gnostic theists,

>>715951363

I agree with you on this. I'm this one...

>>715951695

>>715951460
Because I'm not.
It's a get-out for Theists to hit us with to try and half win an argument. I am 100% in no doubt whatsoever that there is no God, it's such a ludicrous thing to me. You may as well tell me a giant rabbit made us all.

>>715951695
If "god" is an advanced species who created a simulation, they cease to be god under the most widely accepted definition.

>>715952105
>it's such a ludicrous thing to me.

Is it ludicrous or just ludicrous to you?

>>715941300

Well, I could punch you in the face, and if you still dont think I am real you're Just retarded.

Same for God, if he smites me with lightning or whateber Ill know hes real.

>>715952166
I'm not advocating on behalf of any widespread accepted definition. Humans have a knack for embracing wrong ideas on a widespread basis.

>>715952252
Or you just got hit by lightning fuckbag

>>715934810
You're your own God. Without yourself you can't exist.

>>715952252
Why so mad? Don't you kind of laugh at those who believe in a God they can't prove exists?

Why shouldn't you be held to the same standard? Prove that you exist.

It's also very naive to presume that a supreme being would find it necessary to prove his existence to you...the creation, in that scenario?

>>715952252
Not to mention that if you did punch me in the face I'd just shrug it off and then kick your ass. Don't take belief as a sign of weakness, friend;)

>>715952247
To me.
Which makes me not Agnostic.
I can see how weak minded people can see it as a thing.

>>715952588
Cute, and true in a sense. A rhetorical sense that could be paraphrased as:

"I am, therefore I am."

Sorry Kant.

>>715952834
If by "a thing" you mean problematic, ok..but not to me. It would be different if you were asserting those points as the truth. You're not and I respect your privilege to think/believe whatever you want.

People believe in god because they are too childish to accept the alternative.

>>715953238
I'm not an active Atheist, I don't wake up and think about it. I am an Atheist only when asked theological questions. The rest of the time, I am just me, a guy that loves the world for what it is.

>>715953270
People don't believe in God because they're too arrogant to recognize their own limitations. Just like the people who knew the world was flat.

>>715953463
I didn't say anything about waking up thinking about it. I believe in God but I don't wake up thinking about that either.

So, if you want to answer, why is it you don't believe in God?

>>715953519
We have moved on from the world is flat and that there is a god.
You're still a relative flat earther when it comes to theism.

>>715953723
Why should I, there is not one shred of evidence.
There is nothing to even point to and say "How did he do that then?". I just don't see any evidence of god or a creationist world.

>>715953519
I would believe in god if there was evidence for his existence, there isn't.

>>715953774
We haven't moved on from "there is a God." You may have. We haven't. My view of God is probably more scientifically sophisticated than your view of no god though. You've merely replaced flat earth with the limited understanding of quantum physics, subatomic particles, parallel universes, etc.

>>715953963
So you are stating that in order for there to be a God there must be conclusive proof? Not only that...conclusive proof that you can comprehend??

>>715954103
Is there evidence that proves you're not dreaming right now?

>>715954340
I can read numbers on my phone, read the words your typing, tell the time, I know what dreaming feels like, yeah I'm not dreaming.

Religion is nothing but a construct of man to make up for the fact we don't understand our existence. We fear dying so we made up religion to fear it less. Death is less intimidating if you go to a paradise afterwards. I've accepted the fact that when we die there is nothing. I don't require any crutches in order to live happily.

due to constant moving of goal posts on the definition of a deity, the exitance of one is impossible to confirm or disprove. however the evidence of a deity being unnecessary mounts every day so Occam's Razor would consider deities as unnecessary complexities.
that aside, from a purely philosophical standpoint on theology, a being that meets the multiple definitions of a diety would either be illogical and could not exist in this universe, or would just be a highly advanced alien species. i argue that worshipping such a creature endager humanity to subservience to that creature ad it's species or face extinction. i can't find an argument i can support in good moral conscience that refutes my argument, that is why i am an antitheist, i believe theism is a philosophy that can potentially distroy the entir human race, and the evidence provided is strongly pointing to that conclusion.

>>715954256
No, I dont need anything, as there is no God.
I'm happy living with that fact, I just see no reason to think there is.

Also, you only believe in the god you do, because of the location you were born on the planet.
How lucky you landed in the right zone eh?

>>715954126
No we have moved on, we now understand that we are all made of stars.

>>715954526
You think you know what dreaming feels like but you can't prove it. How do you know that your "feeling" of what a dream feels like is something that's also inside a dream you're having. AND when did knowing how something FEELS suffice for a basis in belief from the scientific perspective. For many people their religious beliefs are rooted to a significant degree on what they FEEL.

>>715935263
To believe is to imply that you are willing to accept it's true without evidence. There is evidence that there isn't a God. Therefore i don't believe anything. I know. And if for some reason it turns out there is a God then i guess i'm just an idiot but until such time i'm happy knowing otherwise.

>>715954340
You can change the sensitive world of your dream if you try it. In real life, how hard you try to fly by yourself, you still can't.

>>715954955
It's not a fact until it's proven. You cannot prove your assertion that we live in a Godless universe any more than you can prove your own existence.

You also have no basis in fact for the remark about the location where I was born on the planet. You're grasping for straws.

>>715955115
Haha, no that's just another idea. It's always amusing to hear an observation about what we "understand." Like we once understood how beneficial leeches were for medical treatment .

>>715955125
No there are things about your environment that you can check to determine if you're dreaming.

Regardless, FEELing something does not mean it's true. It's probably not fucking magic, it's almost certainly your own brain activity.

>>715955372
That is an anecdotal observation and not a statement of fact. Again, if you're inside a dream right now everything you think you know is suspect.

>>715955125
Old guy from the thread jumping back in.

You keep resorting to that non-argument of bullshit philosophising. "How do we even know we exist?" - as if that is any evidence whatsoever for a god. It's not. Your beliefs are no more informed or valid than an atheists - so stop pretending they are.

>>715955478
> there are things about your environment that you can check to determine if you're dreaming.

Please provide some evidence in fact for this assertion. Your point about feeling something not meaning it true also discredits your initial point about not being inside a dream.

>>715955438
>It's not a fact until it's proven.
It's fact to me.
It's not proven that there is a god, in fact, everything points to there not being one.
Just coming up with the concept does not make it real to me.
It's not my job to disprove something that by design you cant prove or disprove.
As far as I can see, it's up to you to prove to me, not the other way around.
There are thousands of gods in all the religions, I dont believe in any of them, you only believe in one of them.
You dont believe in almost the same amount of gods as me. Do you spend any of your time worrying about those other gods? No? Me neither.

>>715955648
Anyone who tries lucid dreaming knows that there are checks you can do in your environment. Clocks are nonsense, reading is impossible.

Your dreaming exercise is a non sequitur. God isn't real, prove me wrong.

You're going to say that prove he is not real, but that's not how we determine what is real and not real. You really can't prove a negative outside of specific circumstances.

Prove that santa isn't real, prove elves aren't real, prove manticores aren't real, prove that goblins aren't real, prove that fairies aren't real, prove that the easter bunny isn't real. There is no evidence, because they're imaginary characters made up[ by people to explain their world and to manipulate other people.

You're a jackass, god isn't real, when you die you probably just lose consciousness permanently. Have fun taking godcock

File: 1482199026614.gif (897KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 800x430px

>>715955840
>It's fact to me.
thats not how facts work

You guys should first discuss about the concept of what a God is and make a consense. Only after that you can move the discussion to whether he/she exists or not.

>>715956213
I will decide what is factual to me.

You have decided to think it's factual that there's a god, how is my way different to yours?

>>715956213
And stop dodging my questions.

>>715956425
He's been doing that all thread. Get use to it.

File: 9da72aa93275a65e2e65c551a8ba2a6d8ce122007963550bb82ed391ad0a18f5.jpg (1MB, 3528x2449px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3528x2449px

>>715956342
>I will decide what is factual to me.
thats still not how facts work

>>715956704
to be fair, he is arguing with a godfag

>>715956704
You are going to state how facts work?
Then show me how you came to the conclusion that god exists, what facts did you come across on your journey for the truth?
Stop dodging.

>>715955609
I don't keep resorting to it. Nobody has provided a valid answer yet.

Here's the point. If a person chooses not to believe in God, fine. That's their deal.

If a person looks down their nose at people who do believe in a God they cannot prove exists, it should be incumbent upon such people to be able to prove their own existence. They should be able to prove their own existence by the same set of standards they'd ask or expect a believer to prove their beliefs in order not to be ridiculed.

I didn't say my beliefs are more informed. I actually conceded that my beliefs are just that...beliefs. If I didn't say it, I'm not pretending it either.

I do enjoy the discussion but don't necessarily want to trigger anyone. Unless, of course, they just want to be triggered lol.

>>715956682
Of course, they cant give straight answers as they know full well that faith in god is moronic when dissected, so they dont go there.

>>715955840
>It's fact to me.

You need say no more. That is the exact same standard as any religion so I'll let you go on that point.

>>715956213
>>715956342
>>715956704
>>715956886

One thing that IS a fact is that NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS the origins of existence so all this arguing is completely fucking pointless.

File: download.jpg (11KB, 235x214px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 235x214px

Well here's an atheist argument I can't beat.

In the bible God is eventually supposed to come back to earth and make heaven on earth. Then we all live together on earth.

Why would GOD leave out the other 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 estimated planets in our universe? Even if there are only 1,000 advanced civilizations out of all of them, why would GOD only appear on earth and leave all those other civilizations out?

And if there is only life on earth in the universe, why would GOD waste time making 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets with no life on them? That seems like an enormous waste of time and energy. So it's easy to argue that if GOD were real he wouldn't want to waste time doing that.

If there is a creator of this universe it isn't the GOD mentioned in any religion our planet has ever come up with.

File: e4c6a202efb6bb4b48e1bff276abbb43.jpg (38KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 390x470px

>>715956425
you pull your facts from youre ass theres no point in answering anything you ask you make your own reality as you go

>>715957152
Well quite, but that doesn't mean that we can just make shit up.

Why are so many people making all atheists look like anti-theists. I don't really mind religion unless it gets in the way of society going forward or is forced on the people by the government, i have more against religion on a moral level, it is really just a pussy way out of not figuring out what you feel is right and wrong and is a easy way out of not feeling guilty for doing something you feel is wrong when you can just pray to the big dude or dudes and you have nothing to worry about. I have even tried being christian but it was just pointless limitations on your life and enjoyment-if you actually tried living by the rules the old and or new testament put forth, actually, alot christians don't even follow god and jesus' words and instead follow these retarded assholes in the bible who think they have spoken to god and try to push their own beliefs. And islam is just fucking retarded to the root, budhism isn't that much of a religion since to really follow buddhas words you have to be agnostic or atheist but it is a religion i can get along with very well.

>>715957215
I merely asked if you worry about the gods you dont believe in.
It's no different to how I feel about the god you do.
I've also stated no 'facts' other than the fact that I don't believe in any god.

>>715956060
They don't know it. They perceive it.

I'm a believer and not in the business of proving.

You don't know what I'm going to say and for you to say that demonstrates non-scientific thinking on your behalf.

The notion of the logical impossibility of disproving, again, is a red herring on your behalf. I made a simple request when someone, maybe you, said "try me"

If you would like to provide a scientific argument that proves your own existence I would be interested in seeing it. But it's not necessary.

And I appreciate you calling me a jackass. I wasn't trying to trigger anyone but when it happens it's probably therapeutic. I've already stated several times that of all the ways to concede defeat name calling is least graceful yet you still do it. And I find humor in that.

>>715957152
True - but I will posit why the question is important by going all the way back to what I stated here >>715940805

>When you look at all the issues that religion and theism cause across the globe, it's hard not to get a bit emotional about it.

>b-b-but can't we just let believers believe?

Sure - let's continue to do nothing about radical Islamic terrorism and the restricting, anti-scientific beliefs bleeding into our political system by conservative Christians. Let's just sit back and let it all happen.

So in this sense - it's not a pointless argument. It has real consequences.

>>715957152
Unless we're arguing (in the philosophical sense i.e. debating) whether one paradigm of the universe is more valid than the others.

File: Screenshot_2016-12-20-17-20-11-1.png (170KB, 1080x937px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1080x937px

>>715956886
deities dont exist

>>715957196
>Why would GOD leave out the other 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 estimated planets

That's also not an argument against the existence of God. It may be an arguments against some world religions, or some interpretations of them.

I believe in a God, one God, who created everything in our universe. That includes any other life if it exists, which would seem likely although to this point in our history unproven by our science.

>>715957738
I know that.
As a fact.

>>715957738
That is your belief. One which you cannot prove.

Additionally, you cannot provide a more likely alternative.

>>715957451
why should i worry about anything there is no evidence of? i worry about shit that actually has a chance of happening.

>>715957841
It is ok for you to make that statement although it is a prime example of the blind spot in science's view of the universe.

>>715957889
believeing in something that cannot be proven or disproven is illogical nonsense

>>715957987
Exactly, which is why I don't believe in any god.
Like I said, you dont believe in almost the same amount of gods as me.
We are closer in our beliefs than you think.
Well you are closer to mine than I am to yours.

>>715957487
I suppose if you put it that way then it does matter.

>>715957584
In this sense it still doesn't fucking matter who's "more valid" than who. You're all still just shooting in a pitch-black endless void at a target the size of a gnat.

>>715958012
Yeah, I chose what I call factual when it comes to made up shit.
I know for a fact there is no tooth fairy, but some dick made that shit up.

>>715958279
the fact remains, "fact" has a solid definition

>>715957456
I'm not triggered, I'm just calling you a jackass for using an argument that could be used to justify belief in fairies and goblins. Such a moron.

>>715958381
Is it a fact there is no santa claus?

At some point in mankind's distant past it seems likely that there was a point when one of our remote ancestors looked up at the night sky and had the thought "what is that?" "where does that come from?" That individual asked, for the first time in our history, some of the fundamental questions of existence. In my opinion, that was the early seeds of religion. Mankind could NOT exist without answers to those fundamental questions.

Now people use science to the same end.

They cannot exist in a universe in which they cannot answer the fundamental questions.

Even as they acknowledge their science is imperfect and changing daily, it's enough to appease the discomfort of not having the answers.

Ironically, when a person follows the pattern I just described they have something very intimate in common with our remote ancestors as they created the beginnings of religion.

In my opinion, of course. I can't prove any of that. And I'm ok with that. Because nobody can prove anything in the big picture.

>>715958252
Only if you start with the presumption that anything can be proven.

I have given the most basic of challenges and it still hasn't been answered. If you'd like you can provide proof of your existence as you know it.

>>715958288
>it still doesn't fucking matter who's "more valid" than who

Long as we agree on that, I have no interest in debating belief vs atheism further. I suspect, however, we do not all agree on that.

>>715958757
I exist because I need to eat.

>>715958370
You know there's no tooth fairy but you do not know there is not a God. Perhaps you're being narrow in your definition of God, limiting him to what one religion would portray him as.

>>715934810
No debate is possible when no rational arguments are presented in one side. There is no proof of the supernatural (be it god, vampires, ghost, porn fairies, whatever you like...). When an actual proof is presented, then it could be debated.

Theists accept god by cultural tradition. Dumb people can be intelligent enough to realize the errors in other traditions, but still be unable to self-reflect and notice the hypocrisy of giving credit to your culture bullshit while denying others.

>>715934810
I believe in god based on Pascal's wager. I was raised christian, and realistically, I have nothing to lose by believing in God. That being said I do have a lot of differences in thought than normal christians. Pro choice, pro gay rights, so on and so forth.

>>715934810
Jews rule the world not the edgy fedoras fags

>>715958473
it's a fact there's thousands of fat grey bearded men that go around as a coca cola ad in December. thats about all the facts there are about santa.