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.
>>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....
>>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?
>>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.
>>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.
> 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.
>>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.
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.
>>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 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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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)
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 (:
>>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.
>>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 (:.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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 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...
>>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.
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.
>>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 (:.
>>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.
>>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 >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
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
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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 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
>>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
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.