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

Here's the problem with Theism, and Atheism. You're

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

Thread replies: 167
Thread images: 4

File: 1340771773444.jpg (79KB, 720x532px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1340771773444.jpg
79KB, 720x532px
Here's the problem with Theism, and Atheism. You're both wrong.

Both of you are narrow minded. Your concept of possibilities are limited. Your imaginations are restricted by your dogmatic worldview.

Neither one of you can possibly have the data you claim. A human can't conceive of the scale of the universe or of the possibilities of existence. Neither of you know what preceded our universe or what exists in dimensions we can't comprehend.

You're both just waving your limited mammal idea's around like a bunch of monkeys fighting over a banana.
>>
"You're both wrong"
You're wrong.
"Both of you are narrow minded. Your concept of possibilities are limited. Your imaginations are restricted by your dogmatic worldview."

"Neither one of you can possibly have the data you claim. A human can't conceive of the scale of the universe or of the possibilities of existence. Neither of you know what preceded our universe or what exists in dimensions we can't comprehend."

"You're both just waving your limited mammal idea's around like a bunch of monkeys fighting over a banana."
you provide no evidence to support your claims.
>>
>>719721784
>yall motherfuckers are narrow
>we can't conceive of the scale
>don't try guise, we can't
>guise srsly guise we can't
>guise you're narrow-minded
>guise?
>>
File: 1439173640584.gif (2MB, 500x227px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1439173640584.gif
2MB, 500x227px
>>719721944
notice me senpai
I'm talking about religion tho
....I'll be edgier next time senpai...
>>
>>719722065
>guise we're narrow
>guise, don't even try guise!
>guise! it doesn't matter if it's the scale of the universe or god
>guise, we're too stupid
>guise? can i has friends now?
>>
>>719721926

It's unprovable. That's my point. If you come up with any other answer than "I don't know" you're making claims you can't possibly prove or seriously claim to know.

Also, 99% of common religious thought in our culture is judeo christian. That's monotheism and linear. But there are so many more possibilities than that.

Everyone is taking their limited knowledge, framing it in their limited worldview, and proclaiming it the undisputed truth of the universe(s).

It's absurd.
>>
>>719722427
>guise, you can't prove it to the full expectations of my university teachers!
>guise, don't give me that "yet" shit!
>guise it's either now or never ok? we're too narrow
>guise... i'm serious.. stop trying... guiiiisseee....
>>
>>719722631
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.
>>
>>719722755
>guise, if i can't understand a simple sarcastic comment, you can't prove anything regarding theism!
>guise, my college teachers are smarter than anyone and they know everything ok?
>guise, we'll never reach the level of intelligence my teachers say we need
>guise? i'm not retarded... stop saying that... guise?
>>
>>719722930
That doesn't bother me. But why not discuss it with me rather than, well, I still don't know what point, if any, you're trying to make other than to mock me.
>>
>>719723126
>guise? it doesn't bother me, therefore i will disregard it to prove my point
>guise... i think i made a mistake
>guise i've attended hours and hours of agnosticism and you can't change my mind, guise
>guise you do not bother me
>but seriously guise, back to the topic which is the only thing worth my attention
>we can't know guise!
>guise don't even try to think, guise
>it's impossible guise, accept my teachers and their wisdom guise
>>
>>719723411
tl;dr for you >>719723126
you're behaving like a theist in the way that you believe we can't understand god, and that we should simply be content with the way things are now.
tl;dr #2 you're a retard. stop sucking your teach's cock. accept the fact that you'll never make a difference in the world and stop trying to sabotage those that may.
>>
>>719721784
>idea's
I'll be damned if I take theological advice form someone who can't even understand that the humble apostrophe doesn't mean "look out, here come's an 's".
>>
>>719723411

You really think you have me all figured out, don't you?

I don't what point you think I'm disregarding because I don't know what point you're trying to make.

It's too bad. You sound like maybe you have something interesting to say. It's too bad you don't know how to say it.

>>719723704
I never said anything about contentment. And I noticed you said god, singular.

I'm not a student and I've already made a difference in this world. But who do you think I'll sabotage with my idea?

>>719723903
I wasn't offering theological advice.
>>
>>719723903
i see what you did there
>>
Here's the problem with your argument. One is a positive claim, the other is simply a non-acceptance of the others positive claim.
>>
>>719724185

I disagree. When an atheist says there is not god, he's making just a definite of a statement as someone that says Allah is god, or whatever.

Neither the atheist or the theist can prove their claim.

If the atheist says "I'll believe it when I see it" or something like that, he's made no claim.

Do you see the difference?
>>
>>719724071
i mean... this is the third time you've missed it. just give up (irony?) and move on. you're too stupid to get it. maybe if i said the same thing over and over for a few years you might pick it up and then go talk about it in an imageboard.

the point isn't a singular god or all of the gods we've ever had, you little twat (:

no, you will never make a difference in the world, not because you can't, but because you're too stupid,

you'll sabotage any mentally fragile but intelligent young people that read your bullshit and believe it.
>>
>>719724515

I guess I was wrong. You don't have anything interesting to say.
>>
>>719724599
it's always nice to see i'm right about people.
>>
>>719724789
I think no matter what happened here you were always going to believe that.

Seems like I've touched a nerve though.
>>
>>719725068
yeah i'm the one who's telling people that they're wrong.
(: should've given it another 4 minutes to think about something better
>>
>>719724458

> he's making just a definite of a statement as someone that says Allah is god, or whatever.

I disagree, the "There is no god" "claim" cannot exist without you first making the "there is a god" claim, atheism does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in a response to someone making the other claim first.

If nobody ever claimed god was real there would be no such thing as atheism.

Apply your logic to literally any other situation.

"This man murdered a guy"

"No I didn't"

"PROVE YOU DIDN'T"

The "I'm innocent" claim does not exist without someone first claiming you are not.

"There is a dog fucking an elephant but invisibly in space"

"I doubt that"

"PROVE THERE ISN'T"

Again, the negative claim cannot exist without the positive claim first. The negative claim can hardly be called a "claim" at all then, it is more a rejection of your claim.

The literal only difference between the "Dog in space" and "God" claim is that a lot of people believe in god and so rejection of this belief has people saying you are making a "knowledge claim". You are in no way doing that, you are simply rejecting their knowledge claim due to a lack of evidence.

Your mode of logic is silly and does not apply anywhere else, you only think it can apply here because the god belief is so big. You cannot prove a negative and that is why they do not require proof, that is why positive claims require proof and if they cannot be proven rejection is the default stance. That is why you are wrong.
>>
>>719721784
Can I buy pot from you?
>>
>>719725207
Nobody makes the claim and the default is no belief in a claim that was never made... default is atheism.
>>
>>719725736
i'm pretty sure the default was not atheism. it may be now because we've reached the point where we can explain natural phenomenon (i hope that's the word. english is my second language)
>>
>>719724458
I've always been inclined to feel that agnosticism (the noncommittal mindset) is intellectually flawed. The cultural conviction of a falsehood doesn't give it credibility.

Just because the notion of a God is really old and believed by lots of people doesn't make it true.

Flatly rejecting a claim that there was never any proof for isn't an assertion of anything else in itself.
>>
>>719725149
You're timing replies?

>>719725207
I get your point, but your analogies don't do the question justice.

dogs fucking elephants in space is specific. We can all agree there are probably not any invisible mammals fucking in the vacuum of space.

But can we say there's not creatures of any kind anywhere in the entire universe and beyond fucking in the vacuum of space?

When someone says "There is NO god" they're excluding the possibility that something somewhere beyond their knowledge and imagination exists.

I'm saying that's a claim.

>>719725391
no

>>719725736
Ya sure, as a thought experiment. But irl, the claim is made. And both sides are making definitive statements about things beyond their knowledge.
>>
>>719725962
I must not be reading you right because that sounded a little circular. Can you dumb it down for me?
>>
>>719725963

> I'm saying that's a claim.

And I'm saying it's not and the analogies are precisely accurate.

> When someone says "There is NO god" they're excluding the possibility that something somewhere beyond their knowledge and imagination exists.

Simply refer to my last post, you actually ignored the logic. A NEGATIVE CLAIM DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF.

A rejection of a positive claim is not even a claim, it is merely a rejection of the actual claim. Atheism is not a claim, it is a rejection of your one. You simply ignored that.
>>
>>719725955

You're right. There were never any primitive atheist cultures. Every culture in antiquity had their mystical practices and beliefs.
>>
>>719725963
>You're timing replies?
it's not very hard to look at a post... you're even dumber than i thought, huh?
>>
>>719726298
you're right, those cultures didn't expand their knowledge before coming to that conclusion.
i'm definitely not talking about people and what they would have individually assumed without the influence of an intelligent community. you got me.
>>
>>719725955
It only becomes a claim if you're willing to play with the concept of an undefined god... otherwise it is the default either in the absence of a god claim or in rejecting the evidence, or lack thereof, for a god claim.
>>
>>719725955
I only mean default in the sense that, where a claim of god doesn't exist then people default to atheism... it's self-evident because there's no other option for them
>>
>>719726222
>Atheism is not a claim

Saying "I don't believe in god" is telling me something about yourself. Saying "no divinity exists" is a statement about the entirety or existence.

Not only do I think that's unnecessary to shunning all religious belief, I believe it's a step further.

Logic ladders aside, it sounds like an unprovable proclamation about the universe.

>>719726311
I'm surprised that you're doing it. It's kinda weird.

>>719726685
I'm not trying to "get" anybody. I just want to talk.

>>719726781
Exactly! "There is NO god" is exactly that: the undefined god. It's a proclamation about all of existence and beyond.
>>
>>719726781
i wasn't talking about the claim, just mentioning that the default in the human mind regarding a higher power might have not been atheism.
>>
You're an arrogant piece of shit who doesn't understand the words he is using, OP. It's not a false dilemma, everyone is either a theist(believes in god) or an atheist(does not believe in god). "But u can't know!" just means that you do NOT believe in god, and are therefore an atheist.
>>
>>719725962
Agnosticism can be laziness... possibilities don't equate to probabilities and acknowledging that you don't have all the information doesn't stop you from weighing the probability based on the information you do have.
>>
>>719726992
You sound upset.

>>719727074
The only people that say things like that to me are theists. Are you a theist?
>>
>>719726935
>>719726311
I'm surprised that you're doing it. It's kinda weird.
it's weird to be able to notice details? damn... it just keeps getting better.
>>719726685
I'm not trying to "get" anybody. I just want to talk.
of course :) why am i not surprised to see you focused on the one thing that had no relevance to our conversation now that i see who's behind that post.
>>
>>719726935
That's a straw man you've got there. He just told you atheism makes no claim about whether or not any god exists, and you go on to say that it does.

What you are describing is not atheism. No one can prove it one way or the other, and would not dare claim such. We tend not to invest our belief in things which lack any evidence, however.

Thus, it is reasonable to reject the claim that any god exists without sufficient evidence. That is what atheism is. We are not convinced.
>>
>>719726935
It's a statement that none of the proposed deities exist (these are all defined) and there's no reason to have belief in any that aren't claimed to (these have never been claimed, which is not to say they exist but are undefined).
>>
>>719727219
Most definitely not. There's no evidence for that claim and I'm not willing to imagine that there is or expand the claim to vague unclaimed/undefined deities. Simply commenting based on conversations I've had with "agnostics" who like the term because they're only 99% sure
>>
>>719727306
>That is what atheism is. We are not convinced.
hold on there. atheism is simply not believing in god, be it for whatever reason,going from not being convinced to simply not being exposed to religious theories.
>>
>>719727360
>None of the proposed deities exist.
That is quite an audacious statement. Proof?

>There's no reason to have belief in any that aren't claimed to [exist].
No. There's no reason to believe in any of them at all because there is no evidence to suggest their existence.
>>
>>719727592
This is a pretty useless distinction, seeing as how people who are not exposed are also, by definition, not convinced.
>>
>>719727231
ok

>>719727306
I have no intention to make a strawman argument, and I take your point.

I guess there are two kinds of atheists. Those, like yourself that say "I don't believe that shit". And the other kind that say "that shit doesn't exist".

Both types exist. And the "doesn't exist" crowd is pretty vocal. And they call themselves atheists too.

>>719727360
>none of the proposed

I guess clarity is needed because some atheists, some famous atheists, go beyond disbelieving proposed dieties. They make sweeping statements that far exceed your reasonable definition.

>>719727567
Sounds like you're critical of agnostics.
>>
>>719727675
Are you asking for proof of non-existence? That burden is on those who claim the existence. In the absence of evidence, the claim is rejected.
>>
Fuck you nigger
>>
>>719727744
yeah is it? if you can't see how that last statement of yours could be used against you, you're pretty narrow.
>people who are not exposed are also, by definition, not convinced.
there you go again.
>>
>>719727757
>ok
just can't refute if you don't have your teacher's monologues for reference huh? i'll leave you alone now.
>>
>>719728058
ok
>>
>>719727846
Correct me if you would, but I think you've misunderstood your position in the argument.

It is one thing to reject a claim without proof, and it is entirely another to claim the opposite.

Granted, we have no evidence of a god existing, but we also have no evidence of the contrary. I'm not sure what would qualify as such in either case, but for you to assert that you somehow know the answer to the question is ridiculous in itself. You do not know.
>>
>>719728092
thank me at least you low iq drone ):
>>
>>719728200
>>719728058
I'm not him, but I have no idea what you even fucking said. I'd be impressed if he could figure it out.

I think him saying "ok" is his way of politely disengaging with someone who is at a conversational level of a jar of mayonnaise.

Certainly, he owes you no thanks.
>>
>>719728200
You are, by far, the angriest guy in this thread.
>>
>>719721784
>Here's the problem with Theism, and Atheism. You're both wrong.
that's quite the accusation there, care to prove it?
>>
>>719721784
Yep. I hate people with beliefs. Belief and faith are a disease of the monkey species.
>>
>>719728360
do you usually walk up to people in the middle of a conversation matey? go watch a youtube vid, or something (:.
>>
>>719728367
The point is neither side can prove it. How stupid are you? Was grade school not easy for you?
>>
>>719728367
I think that problem has been addressed already. He seems to be taking more of an issue with the anti-theist position rather than a genuine atheist position
>>
>>719728365
you got me all figured out don't you? (:
>>
>>719724458
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is
>>
>>719721784
>Look at this high horse I found, it's got a fence on the saddle, look how high up I am when I sit on it and it's really good at staying in the middle.
>>
>>719728117
My position is:

No belief in proposed deities due to lack of evidence supporting the claims.

No belief in unproposed deities. I'm happy to wait for these to be proposed, and therefore defined, and then reject them for what I anticipate will be a lack of evidence (based on all deities proposed to date).

Having no proof of either existence or non-existence leaves us with a default belief of non-existence. This is both because there's no evidence for the claim of existence and in the absence of that evidence the balance of probabilities rests with non-existence.
>>
>>719728461
no? how do you know they won't be able to prove it though? oh... your claim that our concept of possibilities are limited. alright... good proof.
>>
>>719728450
Since this is an anonymous message board on the internet, I don't think your parallel really applies.

As a general practice, I want to try and help people clear up misconceptions and reach common ground.

I think the world needs more common ground, and that it's for lack of trying.
>>
>>719728491
It would be helpful to explain to us what the "actual" definition is, then. Let's have it.
>>
>>719728531
You're the one with the high horse claiming to have answers to questions far greater than yourself. You know nothing, no one knows anything, we're all going to die. Deal with it.
>>
>>719721784
It's not who has the answers, it's which one gets us the farthest.
>>
>>719728620
you don't think it applies, do you aspie? i'm serious. go watch pewdiepie. i hear he doesn't do let's plays anymore.
>>
>>719728360
Op here.

Thanks.

>>719728407
I don't know if I can prove it to your satisfaction but I've laid out my opinion in triplicate in this thread. I'm running out of new ways to say it.

>>719728407
why hate, as opposed to indifference or pity?

>>719728450
We weren't having a conversation.

>>719728469
This is true. I should have addressed this clearly in my original post.

>>719728487
It's not just me.

>>719728491
Possibly.

>>719728531
confusing metaphor
>>
>>719728686
look at all those answers he claimed to have. dear lord... how dare he?!
>>
>>719721784
If your not sitting on the fence about this then hit us with some knowledge op
>>
>>719728619
The concept of proof of a sentient god or whatever it is you desire is ridiculous. We're not even close to being able to prove sentience in any meaningful way, believing something that requires such evidence is autism. You fail at logic, but then again, faith and belief are inherently illogical.
>>
>>719728461
>>719728683
How stupid are you? I'll spell it out for you in this thread, despite it being all over the fucking internet, because I believe you might just be this dumb.

Atheism is not an active entity, it is not an active position. It is passive.

Atheism is not: "I don't believe in god.". That's antitheism (and it really isn't even antitheism, because that claim like you say, is unsubstantiated.)

Atheism is: a lack of theism. A lack of belief.

lack of belief =/= disbelief

It's also good to point out, one single atheist, someone you meet, someone you see on youtube, does not represent all atheists. Because atheism is not an active, structured, or dogmatic community (as a whole, yes I realize there are dogmatic atheist communities), because it has no doctrine, no code, no rhetoric.
>>
>>719728461
>>719728683
I am >>719728850 I apologize for the slurs, this shit just gets under my skin.
>>
>>719728850
A lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheism claims to know there is no god as a certainty.
>>
>>719728686
You're the one assuming that I as an atheist claim to know that a God doesn't exist.
I'd never claim to know that, but any assertion that can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
As an atheist, if someone came up with definitive empirical proof of some sort of god, I'd believe in that god.
>>
>>719728786
>>719728450 (You)
>We weren't having a conversation.
dictionaries have tons of answers. fuck... i hope you don't go off on that as well.
>>719728487
>It's not just me.
yeah... everyone cares about what i say. (i hope you can catch the irony in this one. it's especially delicious)
>>
>>719728839
A defined god would have some aspects that could be tested for, no? If those were to fail, you would reject that definition
>>
>>719728928
No, theism and atheism have to do with the belief in a deity(s). Agnosticism/Gnosticism have to do with knowledge. You can be agnostic about the teapot circling Saturn, and you can be Agnostic about a deity.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism are a spectrum, which every atheist and theist fall into. I happen to be an agnostic atheism, because I lack the knowledge of a god and do not believe in one. I don't claim that there is not one.
>>
>>719728590
The part where we disagree is your idea that having no proof either way should lead to a definite conclusion.

I think in practical terms, there is no reason why we should live our lives with the supposition that a god may exist, because, thus far, it has not been shown to affect us in any way.

There exists even no evidence that metaphysical entities could or should exist. There's absolutely no logical basis for any god.

However, I don't find it logically sound to then rule that existence out. It is, however, practically ruled out.

Do we agree, perhaps?
>>
>>719728786
Lemme help with the confusion then.
The high horse part is you acting superior to both atheists and theists. And the fence part is the proverbial agnostic position you seem to pride yourself on.
Combine the two and you have a high horse with a fence on its back.
>>
>>719728590
I think you're saying that undefined=0 and I disagree. I'm saying undefined can't equal 0 because 0 is a value. I'm saying undefined=null.

>>719728691
Is that a proverb of some kind?

>>719728814
I don't feel like I'm sitting on a fence about "god" just like I don't feel like I'm sitting on a fence about some math I don't know. I have no knowledge about it and I've moved past the point of being uncomfortable with that.

>>719728928
Apparently not all atheists, just the loud ones on tv.

>>719729017
I'm going to ignore you now.
>>
>>719728839
>We're not even close to being able to prove sentience in any meaningful way.
oh dear... here we go again. i hope you can understand it this time.
>guise, we will never reach that point! we simply can't. how do i know? i just know we're too limited, guise.
>You fail at logic, but then again, faith and belief are inherently illogical.
>assuming i'm religious
you gotta calm down a little. making assumptions is... illogical (:
>>
>>719729101
You need to simplify that man. It's the only way to convert the borderline believers. We must amass numbers.
>>
>>719729017
Not going off it just seemed like you had something to say
So go ahead
>>
>>719728903
I understand your frustration. I guess it was kind of vague what my position was, but I actually agree with you. I just think it's kind of a bad model to not explain what sort of fundamental problems exist with someone's viewpoints, and so I just wanted you to explain yourself.
>>
File: 1479426994616.gif (137KB, 340x340px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1479426994616.gif
137KB, 340x340px
>>719729231
>I'm going to ignore you now.
but... i've been with you for almost 2 hours now :( you can't do this to me. i'm the one who kept the thread from dying. you should be even more thankful now (:.
>>
>>719729229
That makes a little more sense.

I do think my opinion is more reasonable than a theist or militant atheist. You've got me there.

But I don't understand your implied criticism of agnosticism. Why do you consider that bad?
>>
>>719729269
i said "go off on"
take a little time to read.
in the likely case that you don't know what that means because you lack real human interaction go to urban dictionary.
>>
>>719729191
I think we come very close to agreement. I go so far as to say the probability of a deity being proposed and defined and then having evidence to support that claim is so infinitesimally small that I'll rule it out (i.e. practically based rather than logically). I think you're saying essentially the same?
>>
>>719729250
That is literally, and I use that word lightly and regretfully, impossible.

You can't convert anecdotal evidence. You can't convert the "lovey dovey God knows my purpose, God has my back" type of thinking. Egotism and intellectual disparity are just too prevalent.

Follow your works, do your research and engage in debate when warranted, but, personally, I tread lightly and take care not to be evangelical.
>>719729376
No I understand, I stood in the limbo and still do. I think the different terminology confuses people very easily. Atheism today HAS taken a different meaning, the one that you describe. The fedora tipping, god-hating, self-loathing cretins. But it's in the word, for Christ's sake.

latin prefix a- lacking, without
theism - a belief in a deity or deities

a-theism, without a belief in a deity or deities

lol
>>
>>719729561
Easy tiger
I just want to know what you believe I don't want to pick holes in it
>>
>>719729034
No. No it would not necessarily be testable.

Why would a god, if one existed, exist within the confines of human testing? Is that just based on hubris?

And even if this were so, why would we not have been able to detect it thus far?

I'd say you need to think about this some more.
>>
>>719729487
I don't consider agnosticism bad. I consider it a point in a coordinate system of belief.
Gnostic being knowing and agnostic being unknowing.
A gnostic theist claims to know that there is no god, an agnostic one claims to have no such knowledge, but finds a God existing very unlikely.
Same thing goes for gnostic and agnostic theists, one claims to know, the other doesn't, but they both believe.
>>
>>719729487
You don't understand anything that challenges you. This isn't the first time, either.
>>
>>719729592
We're not saying the same thing, but I understand where you're coming from. I'm also far more willing to be tolerant of our differences since you're not believing in fairy tales. Cheers.
>>
>>719729783
typo fix, that first theist was supposed to be atheist*
>>
>>719729697
no of course you wouldn't want to pick holes in it. i'm sure you get plenty of holes already (:
>>
>>719729826
God I love it when two autists fight about religion
Good debate guisseee lol
>>
anybody in this thread who enjoys this, go subscribe to cosmicskeptic on yt, hes dope
>>
>>719730039
shut the fuck up. i'm the guise dude of this thread.
>>
>>719729703
I don't think we're talking the same language.

Those making the claim have to define their claim as a first step. Once the god is defined, you look for aspects of the definition that can be tested for. If they aren't there, the definition fails and is rejected. You don't have to prove existence to reject the definition. That rejection wouldn't apply to all possible gods, just the one being defined. It would be on the claimant then to propose a new definition.
>>
>>719730039
I'm actually happy you found our exchange useful in some way. I'm actually not autistic, so I think I'll try and find a way to take that as a compliment. Thanks.
>>
>>719730223
joke is he just hasn't been diagnosed
>>
>>719730223
I think I would actually prefer to be an autistic savant, really. It gets thrown around a lot, and I don't think people realize without autistic, assburger scientists we wouldn't have half of the shit we have today.
>>
>>719730363
that's why he said he'd try and find a way to take it as a compliment you stupid twat.
>>
>>719729783
I see.

Are those terms inherently monotheistic? I was reading something the other day about the differences between monotheistic Christianity and the religions it replaced. Something about worldview really jumped out at me.

Don't quote me, but apparently pagan religions had a different concept of divinity entirely. They weren't separate from it. The trees were just as spiritual as a man and time wasn't always linear. There's more of course but it really surprised me at how narrow my own view of possibility was. I was raised a Christian and that narrow framework stayed with me into adulthood.
>>
>>719730154
I'll check that out.
>>
>>719730223
Yeah it was a joke
You guys a smart
I was entertained
>>
>>719730436
yeah no shit you fucking halfwit that's why I was agreeing with him and shitting on the people who throw around "autist"
>>
>>719730186

Your example is either paradoxical in some way, if not useless. Maybe I'm having a brain fart? I'm sorry, but feel free to try and explain it again.

Who has ever declared their god to be testable in any way? They've all been omniscient, invisible, anthropomorphic beings.
>>
>>719730583
>hurr i'm gonna tell him why he should take it as a compliment. i'm not redundant though! you're redundant for telling me i'm redundant.
(: you're pretty autistic huh? not savant tier though, don't flatter yourself.
>>
>>719730648
bitch, you have to broaden your theological horizons. plenty of gods weren't omniscient, invisible, nor anthropomorphic.
>>
>>719730648
Does their proposed god supposedly intervene in the universe at all? If so, there's likely to be some way to test for that proposed intervention. Non-interventionist deities would pose a problem here though...
>>
The greatest lies run linear to the truth
>>
>>719730462
I don't consider them inherently anything really, other than statements of belief or disbelief.
It doesn't really matter to me if people believe in polytheism or monotheism, if they have no proof of their beliefs, I'm not going to join them in those beliefs.
I do find pagan spirituality and their concepts of nonlinear time interesting as philosophical points of view. But that is just a personal interest of mine, it doesn't impact my atheist standpoint.
I was raised without religion, so I was encouraged to look at stuff from all the angles I could find and ask for proof when people made an active claim.
>>
>>719730694
maybe yuor retarted or i am

this board is an open discussion

while I quoted him in my post, I wasn't directing the words therein towards him, as if to tell him why he should take is at a compliment, me quoting him was as if to mimic looking at him in /actual/ life, while still talking outside of eachother

can you wrap your head around that? I wasn't talking to him, more so to an people like you. I was simply engaging him in my response.
>>
>>719730881
my dick runs linear to your face faggot
>>
>>719730880
the wonderful world of deism
>>
>>719730823

Op here. I feel this demonstrates my point in a way. The people that make these sweeping proclamations have limited their perspective.

>>719730969
I'm also intrigued by pagan spirituality, specifically germanic/norse. I have been since I was a kid but never had the inclination to really read up on it until lately.

>>719730881
woooooo
>>
>>719730993
>maybe yuor retarted or i am
you best be trolling, nigger.
>I wasn't talking to him, more so to an people like you.
>assuming 5 people who are smart enough to talk about religion and atheism don't know what savants are
not only are you stupid, but you're arrogant.
enlighten all those posters! don't let me stop you from spreading the light, my son!
>>
>>719730969
It's been a hard one to follow. Pagan beliefs were based on the mm trying to make sense of their perception of the world and nature around them. They had some astute observations. As stupid as that book can be, I dont entirely believe everything in the Bible is a lie. Just them trying to make sense of their perception of the world around them. Again. Dude is right, can't know the unknowable. Just grasp at straws
>>
>>719731264
>Op here. I feel this demonstrates my point in a way. The people that make these sweeping proclamations have limited their perspective.
>i don't know them nor have i ever heard about such gods, therefore they don't exist.
>implying there really aren't any gods who don't meet your criteria (:.
>>
Also, I'm too drunk to taste this chicken.
>>
>>719731264
Ah, ya, that's ironic because I'm making sweeping proclamations. I set myself up for that one. But I'm making proclamations about people, not about the entirety of existence and beyond. That's better, right?

>>719731356
I'm one toe deep into norse mythology and history and it is way more complicated than I conceived of.

Anyways, OP is out. It's been fun.
>>
>>719721784

You're exactly right OP. I too have been saying this for years. You're still an faggot though.
>>
>>719721784
You don't know the definition of "atheism".
>>
>>719731264
I actually started reading about norse mythology because I live in the area where it originated from.
Then I got into greek mythology and realized they are so similar that I couldn't believe in one over the other. It's the same with monotheistic religions, they have more stuff that makes them similar than dissimilar, so I wouldn't be able to choose one of those either.
This knowledge search basically ended with me becoming an agnostic atheist, because no religion had enough proof to convince me.
>>
>>719731504
In the past our world view was smaller now that we have answered those questions
The goal post on god was shifted
All we really did was make more questions
>>
>>719731504
>But I'm making proclamations about people, not about the entirety of existence and beyond.
the point saying something "better" is not to make yourself sound even more retarded, matey.
tl;dr no, that's not better.
>>
>>719731840
Christians look as this as the deceiving demons, since they were cast away before the telling of gods talke. They say all the religions are similar like that because of this. Hindu is considered one of the oldest religions, the first one lucifer and his fallen used to make the world turn from gods story of sacrifice love and blah blah. Studied theology m. Was too drunk 4 that too
>>
>>719732127
Cause demons got a head start. According to the Bible. Why these religions are older.
>>
I guess your life sucks? You feel an emptiness knowing that when you die you will probably disappear, is it? It's a serious question, I do not believe in god either, but I do not affirm that it can exist, I want to know that it feels to be an atheist, I always imagine some "being almighty" that can do justice in this world of shit
>>
>>719732234
It wouldn't feel different as it's a belief in nothing
Just because your open wouldn't change that
>>
>>719732127
I think it more likely that people tried to explain their surroundings and came up with different ideas because they weren't in a position to communicate with other places. All religions grow from the same need of looking for patterns that can explain things for us.
I'd believe people making up different shit over demons trying to fool us any day, because I've seen proof of people having different ideas, but I haven't seen any proof of demons.
>>
>>719732484
Oh no fam, I was just playing devils advocate for the Christians as they prolly don't have any representatives. I have no fucking idea what I believe, but I know I believe in science, and that we have only touched the tip of our understanding of the world and galaxy
>>
>>719732484
This stuff is ingrained in the human condition,it is dying but not in my life time
>>
>>719732706
We can agree there. All of the shit we don't know about the universe is part of why I like living. There is so much stuff left to explore, it's magnificent.
>>
>>719721784
yeah but if you don't believe what I believe, I don't care
>>
>>719732811
Pattern recognition is part of why we succeeded as a species. I can live with some people believing in silly shit, if the same pattern recognition skills enables others to make scientific breakthroughs that benefit us all.
>>
>>719732831
Yep
But it's talk like that that started all of this lol
>>
>>719722427
>>719726172

The only reason you're entertaining it as something potentially "provable" (any more than any other fiction) is because it has historic and cultural significance.

It's not provable. It never has been.

Your willingness to entertain it is intellectually dishonest.
>>
>>719732938
The trouble is we are slow learners
Hopefully we'll be around long enough
>>
>>719733028
Well that is why I love science. Whenever a scientist find out that they are wrong, they rejoice and start working on figuring out why it is wrong and looking for the right answer.
At least that is how it's supposed to be.
>>719733239
On a planetary scale, we've only been around for a blink of an eye. I'd posit that we've learned incredibly fast when you look at how long we've actually been around.
>>
>>719733372
I agree
I just hope we haven't crossed a line environmentally
I some times feel that our advances in science are making us more efficient at recking the place but I do love science
>>
>>719733689
Don't worry man, this planet will survive us. We might ruin our own basis of existence, but give our planet about 20000 years and no sign of us will remain. Other than radioactive waste dumps, but even those become harmless in time.
>>
>>719721784
you are right buddy. the human brain does not function as a truth seeking mechanism, but a greedy, filtered through a fear based bias, sexually framed computer that has the only underlying feature of prolonging the survival of its current species in its current environment. you did not see philosophical discussions on theistic before survival until the ripe old age of "im too old to do anything so i retire, mah kids will get me medication to live like a fucking human vampire for 20 years" we have come a long way from human migration during the last ice age, the agricultural revolution, and ultimately, the social structure we have existed in for most of our species existence, that is, highly spaced out hunter gathering groups dying at the age of 35 or below. early religions gave us hope, some sense of control, and a somewhat stable moral code that left at the earliest signs of any change or communication with other cave dwellers. we have nothing to do anymore, we are too successful as a species, and we don't adapt to this, we will lose our easy lives and live how we were designed to by thousands of generations, conquer the wild through blood and carnal sex
>>
>>719733793
I have kids I worry lol
It comes with the territory
>>
File: Ass we can!.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Ass we can!.jpg
18KB, 480x360px
>>719721784
>>Neither one of you can possibly have the data you claim

please show us your glorious master data then
>>
>>719733793
didnt see your post when i was typing mine fuck i wasted my energy
>>
>>719733951
Another world war should do it
>>
>>719733980
Oh I get that worry, I feel the same about my nephews. That is why I support things that can help us survive as a species, I'm just not worried about ruining the planet, we're not that powerful yet.
>>
>>719734334
True it will shake us off like fleas
>>
>>719722427
atheism is compatible with agnosticism
how many times do we have to say this
>>
>>719734332
gotta say im pretty proud of my species, if i remove my moral bias and any connections with being somewhat human for a second. we've done some great shit. we might even cheat the end of every dimension, when entropy reaches maximum(every subatomic particle is spread so far apart none of the 4 basic forces in the universe have any effect and might as well not exist) I believe that there is a chance of us being their predecessors. if they don't exist, then its all for nothing huh... I swear thats most naturalistic perspective that any human can have
>>
>>719734667
You mean like the people that had the knowledge to build the fourth dimension device in interstellar
Who knows what evolution holds
Non believers have imagination it's called science fiction
>>
>>719735091
What I like about science fiction is that it inspires people to actually invent the things that are considered sci-fi. Tablets being predicted in Star Trek is a good example.
>>
>>719735091
its pretty depressing when youre down always thinking about rutting bodies with other monkeys, "violence" like pftt nothing humans have ever done could compare to anything a pulsar does every second on average or hell a fucking supernova . average people dont understand there is no substantial difference between "alive" and dead things, its just a complexity issue. science is the only way to look past being human. when you get old and your children have grown and have their own kids seeing the actual scope of things is pretty easy
>>
>>719735091
tldr, once you understand the self, you understand the world and your place in it
>>
>>719735523
The only thing I see is to live and die
What happens in between those two is the complex part
>>
>>719735759
the only reason im going through university is to have a paper that says "hey this guy tried for 6 years" and then i can ask my own questions,maybe write a book to be able to afford my own lab. guess thats my goal, the best thing i can achieve lol
>>
>>719735759
had a relaxing time though thanks/b/rother
>>
>>719736007
Same to you my friend
Thread posts: 167
Thread images: 4



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