athiesm vs religion. continued

Both are fucking stupid.

Religion has less angsty arrogant immaturity.

File: neverending.jpg (92KB, 736x1105px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 736x1105px

>>738135298
you're just this girl in disguise
it's the same thread

>>738135188
I told you that, by science time has point 0. and you are making philosophy out of this

In the book of Judus, Jesus pushed a kid off a roof.
Was taken out of bible because bible to help cull masses against violence.
If your guna read the bible.
Read the whole thing.

>>738135494
I dunno man, Muslims seem pretty angsty, arrogant, and immature to me.

>>738135579
Those books about Jesus as a bad fairy as a kid are fucking litttt

>>738135494
Both are stupid but you are one or another. You either believe that there is a God or you don't

>>738135652
Huh?

>>738135690
Someone could argue that you can believe in a god yet not have a religion. It's possible to not believe in a god and yet have a religion after all.

Atheism and Christianity is cringy as shit

All religion was made my sand people because they knew fuck all. Yahweh kills people and encourages slavery. The original ten commandments where all about false idols and one about boiling a goat in milk. In the bible it says how to investigate a murder, basically you get some old people to murder livestock and say it wasnt you.

>>738135954
Scientology wasn't made by sand people. It was made by a sci-fi author.

File: Meat Man.gif (266KB, 478x369px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 478x369px

It's just the total lack of evidence that gets me.
If I had never seen an apple or evidence that apples existed.
I would not believe existed.
I have never seen evidence dragons exist.
So I don't believe in dragons.
I have not seen evidence of god so I do not believe it exists.
Just seems foolish to run on feelings and what others tell you. People believe in ghosts and dragons. That does not make them real.

>>738135995
Really? Scientology is a cult, without arguement. Atleast muzzys can claim theh follow a religion

>>738135753
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

>>738136085
What's the difference?

>>738136044
You already said that.

All religious texts are part bedtime story, part history book, part protoscientific guidebook, and part whatever the editors of the time thought was necessary to keep certain people in check for one reason or another. Religious traditions based on these texts function as a way to make the community stronger to ensure its survival from within and without, create a consistent system of daily life to make everyone feel comfortable, entertain people for a short period of time, and maybe, just maybe, actually bring about some kind of positive change (this last one was a higher bullet point in the past).

While religious teachings shouldn't be entirely disregarded, today's religious followers are pitiful with regard to how many more hurdles they force themselves to jump over in order to rationalize holding onto what are obviously obsolete beliefs. They also do a great disserve to the positive aspects of religions by insisting that those aspects must ONLY be implemented in society within the context of the specific religion in which they're found. They make those positive aspects look bad much the same way tryhard edgelord fedorafags make atheism look bad to religious people.

Anyone giving money to these religious institutions are the worst offenders because they're doing so without being coerced and they are directly propping up these institutions which should otherwise be phased out to allow something better to take its place.

Also, politics are a new form of religion and that should be stated on a daily basis to prevent the type of government worship we see growing today. The people who engage in this are even worse than the dipshits freely giving money to religions.

>>738136112
Most people ik put it simply as 'the cult leaders know its bullshit and started with no intent or thought that it is real' sure you can argue jesus started it as a cult but given the trend of religions in early days id say they truly beleived it

>>738135856
Well it comes right to it you either have Theist religions (Religion where there is a God/Higher power) and Athiest Religions (Religion with no God/Higher power). Then you got some Nonreligious Athiests and Theists.

>>738136278
Is Mormonism a cult or a religion?

>>738136359
Its bullshit

>>738136287
If religion got rid of higher powers and after lifes and just presented it as a way of life, a group of teachings and examples on how to live, then id be for it.

>>738136359
How about we just leave it somewhere in the middle?

>>738136359
Dont most just consider themselves or a form of christian? Just someone broke off to make the retard group

>>738136463
K, I'll make some calls to see if they can change it so you can come too. I'm sure they'd love to have you.

>>738136044
I'm sure you have heard this before.

DNA is evidence of a creator or designer.

It is a language.

DNA can change shape to adjust to the enviroment.

This is a system that cannot just accidently appear. Rocks, water, and special material cannot write a language ever.

>>738136463
I'm sure there's a couple of Athiest Religions like that. Just be sure to pay the $50 entry fee

>>738136601
Im sure they would, ive got a tight asshole.

>>738136607
you are right, and DNA is not a language

>>738136112
The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of people that join.

>>738136650
What a rip off. I know a guy who for $5 will let you join aaand give you a pill which lets you enter the "REAL" reality

>>738136607
>DNA is evidence of a creator or designer.
False.
>It is a language.
No, it isn't.
>DNA can change shape to adjust to the environment.
Rocks are shaped by the wind.
>This is a system that cannot just accidently appear
Not designed does not mean accident. DNA is a consequence of physical laws.

>>738136359
>>738136473
The difference between "cult" and "religion" is merely the definition we give to each. Both are cut from the same cloth and lead to the same results. One is just more popular than the other, usually. Both are filled with hypocritical followers, both have leaders who take advantage of their flock, both can have some positive effects on everyone involved, and both usually lead to the society in which they are found being dragged down in a way that stalls real human progress.

>>738136607
>DNA is evidence of a creator or designer.
no
>It is a language.
no

>>738136708
It is a code and indeed can be interipeted. It is a representation of something else.

A building's blueprint is the building on paper while the building is the structure. Both represent the actual building.

I can look at your DNA and say this is <you>.

>>738136901
Thanks for the porn

>>738136920
ok, still not a language

>>738136607
>cannot just accidentally appear
Why Not?
Because its complicated?

>>738136980
My parents told me i just accidently appeared

>>738136980
no, language is always designed.

There are no examples of accidental languages.

>>738136920
Crystal structures represent crystals. That does not mean they were designed.

>>738136975
Then you don't understand what a language is.

>>738137174
except that every human language is accidental and not designed

>>738136607
The universe is infinitely complicated.
Have you ever heard of gravitational waves, dark mater, random mutation?
DNA doesn't just change to fit the environment.
It changes at random and those with useful random mutations spread more seed.
Iether because they live longer, have more sperm in their jiz or a whole host of other factor.
DNA is a string of molecules that reacts with other molecules.
DNA does not change because your DNA decides to be better.
DNA changes from parent to offspring through random mutation.

File: images (2).jpg (4KB, 177x177px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 177x177px

If you can't explain it.

>>738137219
kek

>>738137217
There is nothing that is a crystal blueprint though. Those crystal formations can be easily explained by enviromental reasons.

DNA cannot. The most simple form of life still requires a code to make it even work.

You can take all the material of life and put it all in place but it will not be alive ever, it needs the code. it needs the code to be on as well.

>>738137247
It is designed. At one point, someone turned sounds into recognizable letters that represent the spoken words.

>>738137502
All code that we have seen created was created by humans. Therefore, DNA must have been created by humans from another dimension.

File: IMG_4307.jpg (84KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1920x1080px

>>738136263

I like this guy.

The best part of this whole "language" argument going on is that regardless of whether DNA and other such systems governing our reality are emergent properties of some weird, uncaring universe or designed specifically by some kind of greater entity, it doesn't matter because we will probably never actually know that answer and we certainly have never gotten even a hint at what that answer could really be. Religions are still bullshit institutions that prey on the more easily led, less critical thinking idiots in society and no matter what good they do, there are a million better ways to do those same things without also having to play adult pretend.

>>738137393
DNA can change shape in the living species. When a virus infects an organism, the DNA will change to combat the virus.

Changes do occur from parents to offsprings yes and random changes do occur. No arguement there.

>>738137502
>There is nothing that is a crystal blueprint though
There is, the crystal structure. It will determine how the crystal forms.
>The most simple form of life still requires a code to make it even work.
The most simple form of life would be a replicating molecule. The "code" would be the life.
>You can take all the material of life and put it all in place but it will not be alive ever
I don't think you can actually justify this claim. If you take all the material of life and put it into the proper environment, I would expect a non-zero chance of life forming.

>>738137608
plausable point.

File: SERINUTSLY.jpg (86KB, 766x653px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 766x653px

>>738135298

check out Jordan Peterson on youtube

>>738135298
If you are religious, I envy your dedication and willingness being traits often possessed by driven people. Most atheists are in fact nihilists because they lack the attention of people and it leads them to a point of self realization and lack of empathy. I hate that the two are so often debated because I feel there is good philosophical discussion to be had regardless of theistic standpoint.

>>738137810
If doesn't matter then why are you in this thread?

>>738137654

God is only "omnipotent" to the extent that God could stop maintaining the Creation. But it appears that God took a set-it-and-forget-it approach and has left it up to us to make the world a better place.

For example, the Creation contains quantum randomness. This is necessary to give us free will.

FOSSILS FOSSILS FOSSILS
I WIN

>>738138175
This is some pretty good trolling, anon.

>>738137654
what if there is a reason that man cannot see?

>>738138175
>implying we can control quantum randomness
ayy lmao

>>738135298
atheism is a belief system therefore
>religion vs religion

thats just silly

Oldfag here. When did you guys realize it is pointless to debate this topic?

>>738135690
thats not true. you could just not give a shit since it has no barring on your life

>>738138346
The argument still holds. Either evil doesn't exist, or god lacks one or more of those traits.

>>738138416
High quality bait
I replied
But i know

>>738138416
it's lack of belief, so no.

>>738138416
What do all atheists necessarily believe?

File: awn6zGD_700b.jpg (72KB, 600x958px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x958px

>>738138507

you are a special kind of stupid.

your belief is to lack a belief in an omnipotent being that has been presented to you by man.

its a belief no matter how you want to argue it.

>>738138436
I was 12 and in church
The priest thought it would be a cool idea to question his child audience why people believe in God, etc
I had the answers
Drug abuse
Homelessness
Poverty
Arrogance
Ignorance
Hatred
Lust
Greed
These are the reasons people want a heaven or a hell
They kicked me out

>>738138620
no it's not. I lack belief in presented relgions, I'm not saying that there is no god.

>>738138709

you really should be looking up the definition before you write ignorance sir

its still a belief, and ideology, therefore its a religion.

>>738138698

How very christan of them.

>>738138869
look up definition of religion

>>738138436
you dont type like an oldfag

>>738138922
He returns only in summer

>>738138620
You just went full retard
We gave you the chance to say you were just trolling and you respond with another big shit post

You cannot "believe in no belief"
Go back to elementary school

We're not arguing we are explaining why you are wrong

>>738138918
'a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.'

that makes atheism fall into the definition of religion.

>>738139021
I find this very comical, you want it to be a troll so bad and yet you have no way of making a true rebuttal. so you lash out with name calling, how cute.

you have yet to make a valid explanation why I am wrong.
ProTip: You cant

>>738139025
By that definition, watching TV is a religion.

>>738138905
Christianity is full of fascism if you actually read the damn book
Or just Google about it since most religious people don't really know how to read well

>>738135298
Would love to see this on One Minute Melee/Death Battle.

>>738139025
what kind of retared definiton is this. My studies, job, family, those are also relgion by that definition.

>>738138471
Anon do you believe in a God, even in tge slightest?

Do any atheists or anti theists make exceptions for non-historic religions? For instance one of the major schools buddhism does not believe in a creator good. In fact the belief system involves a worldview very similar to the many world's quantum physics theory.

>>738138869
Weapons grade retarded

>>738139224
Sorry auto correct I meant non theistic religions not no historic

>>738138698
How did you mother feel about this?

>>738139310
if it's non theistic then it has nothing to do with atheism

>>738139177
have you ever heard the saying "I follow that show religiously" ?

>>738139200
underrated dubs

>>738139418
dafaq's your point

>>738139202
dont ask me, I dont write the definitions. I go by them.
you cant just make up your own definitions here to fuel your argument.
fact>emotions

Stop replying to this thread.
There is a reason why religion still exists and it's prime examples of stupidity like this idiot here >>738139025

>>738139255
I see you like to call people names, but its hard to have a conversation and make a valid rebuttal.

thats okay though, I dont blame you for your handicaps

>>738139483
comprehension on simple things is not your strong point I see.

>>738139376
Hah. Never thought about it that way. Does that mean that Mahayana Buddhism is an atheist religion?

>>738139505
no, but you chose wrong to go with.
>The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
with examples when you which one. So let me guess you chose definition you like to make you feel good?

>>738139669
is nihlism an atheist religion?

>>738139521

I find this post comical.

I am making the same argument that this thread is stupid and giving valid reasons as to why but people can not understand this.

so instead of having a conversation you lash out, but that is human nature to fear what they do not understand.

>>738139224
Well there are levels of bullshit, and atheistic religions would be less bullshit than theistic ones. I've yet to see a religion that wasn't bullshit, and in some ways the pseudoscience ones are more frustrating. At least the theistic ones are straightforward with their bullshit.

>>738139690
that is the first definition yes, there is also the one I posted as well.

This does not stop my argument from being valid.

>>738135298
I like how billions of people are basically worshipping fairy tales written by a bunch of mesopotamian scribes, no hate still

>>738139869
It does

>>738139914
first definition does not mean the second is non existent.
I know its a strange concept that has been around for quite some time

>>738139776
Mahayanna Buddhism says that anything that is proven false by science should be changed. Buddhism in general spends little time talking about the afterlife, and more about stopping suffering now. The methods of reducing suffering are about building concentration and compassion, while changing your perspective to be more flexible in dealing with the bad. What about that is bullshit.

>>738136044
this was me a year ago
I very suspicious as a young man

As an atheist I didn't know how to say we have meaning logically. I think having good belief is good for you. It makes the whole
of your being go in one direction and it feels good 'knowing' who you are and what your here for. It's like eating healthy food -
believing in things that you can't see is apart of who we are. I exploit that part to make me feel happy, make me a better man.
(Or at least feel like it)

File: doublesguy.jpg (12KB, 248x249px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 248x249px

God dubs!

File: wut.jpg (26KB, 372x154px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 372x154px

>>738135298

I just focus on the here-and-now. I focus on what is, as opposed to what was or might be.

I think we're all born as a sort of blank slate. Yes there are conditions to our birth such as timeliness, location, ethnicity/financial status of our families. But for most intents and purposes, we have literal control over what we as individuals do. Not in a "oh its illegal to do that so you can't do it" kind of sense. I mean in a "yes it is physically possible to try and do that thing, even if I don't succeed" sense. We are blank slates with a blank world, with which we are able to to make ourselves into whatever we want.

So the first thing we do is obviously decide what we want. We all have wants or needs, no matter how big or small, no matter how selfish or selfless. Often we want or need multiple things for different reasons and in varying amounts of desire, which is all fine.

Next we need the tools to achieve what we want. There are many tools for different types of desires but ultimately they all stem from the common and "progenitor" tool of Knowledge. With enough proper and relevant knowledge about your desires, you will know what other tools you'll need, and how/when to use them. Amassing this knowledge is often not easy, but is necessary to guarantee success.

Lastly is the execution. With he proper knowledge, this is increasingly straightforward. And by definition, impossible to fail. If you do fail that means one of 2 things. Either your knowledge was faulty or you don't actually desire it.

For example, of you believe the cause of failure was that you are physically incapable for whatever reason, that simply means your knowledge was faulty, not accounting for your physical capabilities and adjusting accordingly. If you intentionally failed, then I question how much you actually want whatever it is.

>What does this have to do with the God question?
Everything. That's just another desire you have. To find out if there is a God or not, or prove your opinion.

>>738140078

thats not the only one, look up "church apologizes to galileo"

>>738140078
Like I said, at least the theistic ones are more straightforward. You are leaving out a lot of shit.

>>738140072
Oh, you don't understand how discussion works. We were using the first definition of religion, only then the discussion has any sense at all. You used different that you know has nothing to do with the topic. That's Argumentum ad dictionary. I'm sorry if you dont understand what kind of mistake you made.

>>738140086
An atheist can give him or herself whatever meaning he or she wants. Meaning is subjective, and believing in a god doesn't change that.

>>738140241
>Church apologizes for making a scientific genius's life and master works illegal until 100 years after scientist dies.
Yep totally the same thing as writing inclusion and scientific respect into the tenets of buddhism from the start.

File: 4d4.jpg (17KB, 500x371px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x371px

>>738140322
both are valid definitions. I am showing that atheism is also a religion by its own definition.

now who is the one using a certain definition to make his own point?
you tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesnt even matter because you did exactly as I did but the difference is you were trolled softly.

>>738140257
I'm leaving out the shit that doesn't concern Buddhists. The afterlife stuff, the spiritual stuff is secondary to reduction of suffering. And most Buddhists understand that. You are trying to attribute Buddhism to the fairy tales that Buddhist don't even think about. It's like saying Christianity is all about getting swallowed by whales and eating apples. You obviously know little about practicing Buddhists. But enlighten me as to what I'm leaving out.

>>738138474
or he doesn't lack either of those traits but has a good reason for having things as they are

>>738140955
Sorry, that doesn't work. If he had both traits, evil wouldn't exist.

I love how these discussions come off as people who parrot Ben Shapiro arguing with people who parrot Amazing Atheist.

>>738141040
If Christian "evil" doesn't exist, then free choice cannot exist. If free choice doesn't exist, then faith cannot exist. If you read your Bible, god as a being consumes faith for power. God needs people to choose not to do evil so he can consume the faith they create.

>>738140676
Is the Eightfold Path not part of Buddhism now?

>>738140457
An atheist CAN give him or herself whatever meaning he or she wants but that actually makes things more difficult. If any meaning is just as good as any other, than how do you pick one. Maybe some can be this whimsical, but most will struggle to construct meaning out of nothing.

Believing in a god may not change the subjective nature of meaning, it gives someone meaning. After all if meaning is subjective, then there's no reason why it's necessarily incorrect to assign religious meaning.

Furthermore, we have to remember that we do exist within a society, and for a society to a society to function, we must have values as a society, which is impossible if everyone's a relativist. If you try to establish a moral code arbitrarily it will be just that, arbitrary, and it will hold no weight. By creating a supreme authority, it gives us substantial reason to follow society's moral code and operate among each other.

Religion hasn't existed for so long for no reason. There's no successful ancient society which existed without some sort of religious structure.

>>738141199
>If Christian "evil" doesn't exist, then free choice cannot exist.
Then god lacks the power to have free choice exist while evil does not exist, therefore god is not omnipotent.
>If you read your Bible, god as a being consumes faith for power.
>God needs people to choose not to do evil so he can consume the faith they create.
This made me kek.

>>738141213
What about the eight fold path is bullshit from a psychological or scientific perspective. Most modern psychology is oblivious to the fact it preaches the eight fold path. If you can name all eight aspects I'll give you a cookie.

>>738141306
> If you try to establish a moral code arbitrarily it will be just that, arbitrary, and it will hold no weight.
A moral code based on a god is just as arbitrary as any other.

>>738140559
Omfg you are retared eristic.

>>738141416
not if you believe in god, which is necessary for that reason

who cares if it's OBJECTIVELY arbitrary if we agree things only exist subjectively

people find reasons to believe what they want to believe

no point arguing it

>>738141340
>What about the eight fold path is bullshit from a psychological or scientific perspective.
Nigga you must be trolling.
>Most modern psychology is oblivious to the fact it preaches the eight fold path.
Bullshit.
>If you can name all eight aspects I'll give you a cookie.
I don't want your cookie.

>>738141319
Should prolly state I'm an ex Christian so my ideas are "different" than most. Logically speaking it is difficult to remove the draw of doing "evil" and still consider things free choice. If you limit the ability to think or act a certain way is it free choice? Think clockwork orange. Is Alex really given a choice after his treatments?

>>738141521
>not if you believe in god
Yes if you believe in god. Even if a god existed, a moral code based on it would still be arbitrary and subjective.

>>738141533
You are limiting yourself to the existing framework of reality. If God were all-powerful, it could make reality however it wished and such constraints would not have to exist.

>>738135298
Both are idiots.
Agnosticism is the only logical choice.

>>738141717
agnosticism is for pussies that can't make decitions

>>738141609
morality is objective
so is truth
If I don't believe that my morality is arbitrary
then it isn't
and the society can exist as a result

>>738141717
Daily reminder that agnosticism isn't some third option. You are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

>>738141528
So trying to create compassionate
>Views
>Intention
>Speech
>Actions
>Livelihood (jobs)
>Effort
>Mindfulness (dedication)
>Concentration
Won't make you feel better and suffer less? Lol now who's being irrational

>>738141788
kek

>>738141809
ty

>>738141788
I meant to say morality is subjective not objective shit

>>738141788
>morality is objective
It's not.
>so is truth
Nope.
>If I don't believe that my morality is arbitrary
then it isn't
Sorry, but no.
>and the society can exist as a result
Society demonstrably exists with subjective morality.

>>738141898
>>738141913
fuck my typo

>>738141698
The only logical way to remove "evil" is to remove the desire to do evil. If you take a desire away then you are limiting freedom of choice, meaning the faith juice isn't as pure, and God doesn't get as high off that shit.

>>738141913
my dog can fly, as a result society can exist.

Name one (1) single fact proving your side right.
And I said FACT, not hypothesis.

>>738141898
>>738141967
You can believe your subjective morality to not be arbitrary, but that doesn't make it so. You could believe truth to be such a way that makes it so, but your meaning of truth is itself still subjective.

>>738141913
In the Bible it is moral to rape a young girl then pay her family 30 silver pieces and marry her. Is that an objective morality or one that should alter through time.

>>738142083
who the fuck you are speaking to

>>738141786
>>738141809
No. While being fully aware that a sentient mystical being COULD exist, it's idiotic for me to devote my life to it just because of the lack of real evidence. It would also be foolish to completely deny its existence, as religion is so ingrained in our societies and the punishment for not following it seems a bit painful. So, to answer other anon, I guess I could be classified as agnostic christian, but the truth is I'm just playing it safe.

How to end a debate with an athiest:
>"it's just what i belive."
It is pointless to argue against blind faith.

>>738142151
>While being fully aware that a sentient mystical being COULD exist
You can be an atheist and think that a sentient mystical being could exist.
> it's idiotic for me to devote my life to it just because of the lack of real evidence
You can be a theist and not give a shit.
> It would also be foolish to completely deny its existence
Which is something that atheists need not do.

You either believe in a god (theist) or you don't (atheist).

>>738142151
atheism isn't ative claim that god doest exist. You are not playing it safe, god can be in reality Zeus, Odin, some pagan god, Lucifer etc. He can have other rules to let you go to some "heaven" that you think etc.

>>738142149
literally both side.
Because guess what, Christians can't prove that god exists, and atheists can't prove that he doesn't, arguing about it is like arguing over what is in a closed box you'll never get to open anyways, you're just losing your time.

>>738142339
I've continued on past that.
>"Why?"

>>738135298
there's actually a third option: it's called agnosticism, basically you just realise that the world is full of other shit to do than sit around wondering if there's a god or not.
Just get on with your lives faggots.

That's not to say I don't love laughing at dumb christians trying to prove that there is a god with bullshit reasoning that makes zero sense.

>>738135690
Atheists actively try to refute the existence of god, there is such a thing as a middle ground and ut's called agnosticism.
>>738135856
A buddhist might disagree.

>>738142107
>You can believe your subjective morality to not be arbitrary, but that doesn't make it so
it does, that's what subjective truth is
the subjectivity of truth is an "objective" concept and therefore not as true or real as what I personally believe to be true, so you can say my truth is subjective, but not to me it isn't, and that's more important, because reality is subjective

It is hard for some people to admit they are wrong, even more so that their pairents and grandparents were wrong.

>>738142478
Trying to prove a negative goes against scientific theory. The burden of proof lies on theists. Don't try to say atheists can't prove good doesn't exist because that doesn't matter. What's more important is no theist religion can prove good DOES exist. That's about as much damning evidence as I need..

>>738142542
>Atheists actively try to refute the existence of god
Many do not.
>there is such a thing as a middle ground and ut's called agnosticism.
Nope.

>>738142478
sorry but we can say what is more probable. If you say 50% god exist 50% god doesn't, the atesim wins with chistianity, hindisum etc. becouse every single relgion is in this 50%

>>738142521
it's not 3rd option

Grandma is not in heaven. She is in a box rotting.

>>738142542
>I'm a Buddhist and I agree that you can have a religion without a god. Buddhists don't believe in a creator god. We got here how science sez we got here.

>>738142594
>it does, that's what subjective truth is
Except that I can say that it doesn't.
>but not to me it isn't
Which is by definition subjective.
>because reality is subjective
Is it?

>>738142714
>Atheists actively try to refute the existence of god
>Many do not.
I would say "some do". Because atheism is lack of belief, it's not active claim but itself

>>738142714
>nope
what the fuck kind of response is that to an argument

>>738142749
>we can say what is more probable
So what, if tomorrow, everybody converts to hinduism, the hinduist gods were the right option all along ? And if the day after, everybody reconverts to atheism, was is a hoax ? You simply cannot prove that your vision of things is right. Nobody can.

>>738142973
because agnostism isn't 3rd option

>>738143026
Yes it is
>Birds are importand
>Yes ; Christianism
>No : Atheism
>I don't give a fuck : agnostism

File: 1498647430404.jpg (221KB, 1024x1222px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1024x1222px

Religion is better.

Atheism is death.

>>738142973
You didn't make an argument. You made an assertion. I reject your assertion and have already explained why in this thread.

You either believe in a god or you don't.

>>738142841
I meant in response to OPs post.
He was talking about religion OR atheism
I guess you could say agnosticism is a different form of atheism but that's more subjective

>>738142864
cold truth ma nigga

>>738143142
"Do you believe in a god?"
Yes: Theist.
No: Atheist
I don't give a fuck: Not what I asked you fucker.

>>738143006
no I didnt say that mayority rules.There is god o there isnt'. If you say that 50:50 then in that "there is" you have every single god that can be ut only one is real. if there's 10 relgions then each have 5% chance and atheism still have 50%. But that argument is non sense. Because thers no evidence that there is a god.

>>738142749
Your 50/50 ratio makes no sense, because your 50% is based on faith. If you based your ratio on facts it would look more like 99% for atheists 1% for theists.

>>738143197
The ultimate red pill.

>>738136920
That literally proves it's not a language.

>>738143255
>He still believes you have to pick a side
>He doesn't realise that neither side has any argument supported by facts or reason
Please get out of this website

>>738143146
>atheism is death
wat
explain ur point plz lik normal hooman and not like down-syndrome cuck thank vary much

>>738143142

"You are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist."

>>738143167
"You are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist."

>>738142926
we choose to believe different things and both be right. That's the point. A society can choose to be religious while another can choose not to be and they'll both be right. However, from a historical standpoint, the religious society tends to be more successful.

>is it?
The basic concept to the Primacy of Perception, which is a concept from Merleau-Ponty is what I'm about to very crudely describe so if you want to learn more about it that's who to look to.
Reality is based more on perception than the things which are themselves being perceived. Perception is subjective, and reality is primarily based on perception, so reality is subjective.
there's more to it than that but I don't want to be too lengthy about a tangential topic.

>>738143391
>He still believes you have to pick a side
Whether you "pick" a side is irrelevant. You're on one as long as logic works. Everything is either A or not A. You either believe in a god or you do not believe in a god.

>>738143323
no, god existance is true or not true. And every single god's existance is true or not

File: 18387210_1218469298281330_859377225_n.jpg (19KB, 640x671px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x671px

>>738135298
What argument is there? Either you believe in god or you don't. Whether or not god real is a real argument, not Atheism vs Religion.

>>738143391
How is not believing in something hat has literally been proven 0% of the time not believing facts?! The burden of proof to prove good exists is on theists. Atheists just have to apply logic to the "proof" that theists bring up which is usually not proof so much as emotional drivel.

>>738137589
Kek. Language is not the writings. People made sounds for things. Do you think someone sat down and purposefully and specifically made a list of what everything will be called? As if the words had a specific purpose before their application?

>>738143585
In first thread op was talking about something else. name is for short

>>738143525
True or not true does not imply a 50-50 chance. If I have a six sided die, but the die is weighted, there is not a 1 in 6 chance of any side being landed on.

>>738137873
Literally not. Humans would not have been humans without DNA.

>>738143699
no, im telling I will thow a die or i will not, that 50:50, then if true -> 1 in 6 chance

>>738143402
Religion is culture

Atheism is the willing submission of a person's mind to cling onto any random cause, which is actually meant to destroy them.

>>738143439
"agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist" -William L. Rowe

Why complicate it if the whole point is to just say that it's too much of a waste of time to think about god and religion?
And what do the different sides even mean?

>>738143525
Yes but factual evidence that God is true is like 1% and since there is little evidence it is true that cannot be disputed it's like 99% to 1%. Saying it's 50/50 makes it seem more like there's a chance. Atheists have to prove nothing. They just have to laugh at theists weak argument. That goes for all Gods.

>>738143836
you're describing apatheism

>>738143812
religion is submission to people that says they words come from god. You fucked it up.

>>738143783
I don't think you understand probability.

If I tell you I will throw a die or not, but I know that I'm actually not going to throw the die, there is a 0% probability that I will throw the die.

If the die is weighted, there is not a 1 in 6 chance.

>>738135298
Both are worse than cancer. All Heil reviewbrah

>>738143836
oh i see, you think atheism says that theres no posibility of god

>>738143895
both are very similar

>>738143967
well it is:
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist"

>>738143928
But claim is, if there is or isnt a god. If there is then which one.

>>738143899
And no one has authority over god and god can communicate through anyone.

When atheists adopt something to replace religion, they submit to their leaders.

>>738144059
no "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Oxford D nothing active

>>738143983
the main distinction is whether or not you think it would be impactful if there were or weren't a god

>>738144089
"WHEN" there's no need to, and that adoptetion has nothing to do with atheism itself

>>738144065
There either is a god or there is not a god. Like the weighted die, having a set number of options does not mean they are all equally likely. Saying there is a 50-50 chance is not justified.

The Abrahamic religions, of which the majority of the world are a part of, prohibit homosexuality, sex before marriage (or adultery as it was referred to in those days), because of the amount of disease it brought upon the lands, straight or gay, it didn't matter, it was banned. Only now are humans becoming more accepting of this behaviour, because modern medicine and well... condoms, almost guarantee that all disease can be dealt with, and even if it gets to a point of outbreak, we have quarantine now, the concept of quarantine wasn't around until after the Islamic Empire (Islammic Golden Era).

As you can see, religion was formed upon good morals, that frankly, still hold true to this day.

Homosexuality and even heterosexual intercourse, if not kept clean and to an "acceptable" number of sexual partners per person per capita, can result in disease.

Homosexuality, more so. Why? Because homosexuals are much fewer in numbers than heterosexual men and women. Homosexual men especially, have a proportionally larger number of STD infected population, than that of heterosexuals. Making the chance for contraction, ever increasing, not to mention the fact that the only "sex" homosexual men can have besides oral, is anal, where the skin around the anus is much weaker and breaks easily during intercourse, allowing fluids to mix.
Anal sex is a practice among heterosexual people too, however less so than homosexuals, and again, proportionally less STD's per population means less chance of contraction, even during unprotected sex or even anal sex in heterosexuals.

Another part of the reason that STDs are especially prominent among homosexual males is the general lack of condom usage. Condoms, for all the protection they offer against disease, are primarily thought of and used as contraceptive measures- a worry homosexual males are not occupied with, generally speaking.

>>738143812
I can see that, I am an atheist and I am often jealous of people with religion because it's something that's so comforting in the presence of complicated questions like what happens after death. Us atheists are just given the cold hard truth: when you die it's just over blackness for ever, how comforting to think that thats what's wait for us at the end of the tunnel :(

>>738144059
There you go. There's nothing about that which implies no possibility.

All praise to muhammad.

>>738144133
I'm sorry I don't see the difference in what I'm saying and what you're saying

>>738144289
truth, without purpose, is worthless

>>738144232
using chance is not justified and I told that. If we are speaking which one is more probale then atheism wins, because it doesnt make false active claims

>>738144133
oh, and btw nice dubs

>>738144284
Are you retared, rape's ok, abrtions ok, slavery is ok, killing is ok. Nice morals abraham

>>738138471
>>738142542
literally means "not theist," that's the only requirement to be an atheist.

If you don't give a shit you're atheist.

>>738137393
>>738133229 #
How does matter move in absolute zero to create a massive explosion from nothing?

Molicules cese to move at absolute zero.
And that is assuming there was matter there to begin with.

When faced with questions like this and the one here. That I'm replying to. Atheists will eventually use a multi dementional model to explain either the chances away or that matter seeped in from another dimension to start said Big Bang.

How is believing in that any different from the so called god of the gaps. Dawkins once was, asked
a similar question and he replied with aliens, also once again he was asked if there was any evedance of mutations in DNA creating new data and he had to say no.

So you have DNA that can be mixed around but no proof of mutations leading to new strands.

Mutations more often then not present worse attributes then non mutations.


I know science and math are tools that humans observed in nature, but religion of more aptly belief does not try to answer how but why this argument is stupid theists and science should be able to co exist the preform 2 vastly different functions.

>>738144284
Homosexual women have the lowest chance of contracting STDs, therefore lesbian sex is the most moral sex of all.

>>738144289
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58SfRphkKc
here

>>738144395
ty

The laws of physics: all powerful, eternal and everlasting, omnipresent.

Sound familiar to anyone?

I refuse to be drawn on the question of god until somebody properly discribes the terms.

>>738142432
I'm going to quote Flemeth on this one: "Shut one's arms too tight, or open one's arms too wide, either way, one's a fool."

>>738144838
atheist here but
> all powerful, eternal and everlasting, omnipresent
who you know this? I don't know any single physicist who would say that, and i'm studying physics

>>738144838
The laws of physics are just descriptions of what we observe to occur.

>>738145009
What higher power is there than the laws of physics?

>>738144893
If you can make decition then you are also a fool, still you are agnostic atheist or agnostic theist

>>738144893
Okay...

>>738145020
Indeed a programmer might even define it as a class and the material realization of that an object just saiyan

>>738145072
of course but we just assume for sake of reason that they are eternal, everlasting and omnipreset we don't know that for sure. We can't

>>738145072
The laws of physics aren't a "power"

>>738145254
they are "force"

>>738144613
this just kinda makes me more depressed
but thanks

The laws of physics have always been. The laws of physics will always be. The laws of physics always are.

>>738145218
> we just assume for sake of reason that they are eternal, everlasting and omnipreset
Not really. We recognize that there are singularities where the laws that we observe elsewhere do not apply.

>>738145335
Sounds exactly like god, right?

So big picture. Has religion done more good or bad for humanity? Is it still necessary, or even beneficial?

>>738145286
No, they aren't. They're a description.

>>738145306
kek, we are conected to everything we were made by atoms that come to existance in diying stars long long time ago, we exist as mix of genes and so many more mixes can exist, because they were not born, because they parent havent met. We choose what's really important to us, nothing is by definition. I think that's heartwarming and better then any belief.

>>738145443
Descriptions are prerequisites to definitions

>>738145364
really, and what are you talking about, big bang is outside of time so we dont care, and black hole works in term of phycis, we know why it works difrent and it makes sense Im talking about that, i can tell you than some where in the universe is a place in which are other laws of physics

>>738138869
High tier bait

>>738145443
they are, you dont know what is a force kek

>>738145892
I have a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. I know what forces are.

>>738145964
pics or it didn't happen

>>738145964
no you don't. Force is phycisal term, those are forces by definition.

>>738145964
Ok cool story bro
Pic time stamp phd that isn't freshly printed out of you mums ink jet

>>738145843
>what are you talking about
Better question: what are YOU talking about?

>>738145843
If the Big Bang gapped out side of time how did it expand?

V = s/t right?

>>738146092
*I can't tell you if there is a such a place, there may be

>>738135298
I'm a Muslim. Ama.

>>738146276
Fuck off

If science can't explain everything than it must be wrong, about everything else.

>>738146203
Big bang-> spacetime starts-> expantion, you understand?
also that's classical mechnic formula it has no use in talking about big bang.

>>738146360
when it wont be able then we will talk

>>738146306
Relax man. Tough day?

>>738146377
Very chicken egg how do you have a Bang before time or vice versa just also how do you create pressure to make the explosion with out one / movement

How does something with less input create more output there is nothing where is the fuel coming from?

>>738146886
GOD thats how.

>>738146986
He is magic.

>>738146886
>Very chicken egg how do you have a Bang before time or vice versa
there was no time and space, maybe multiverse, maybe cycle of deaths and births,
>how do you create pressure to make the explosion with out one / movement
there was no explosion,
>How does something with less input create more output there is nothing where is the fuel coming from?
what are you talking about amount of energy in the universe is still the same

File: 1499329326306.jpg (20KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 439x290px

>>738135298
Atheists go through stages.
>pissed off everything they've been told is bullshit
>arrogant, fedora cringe stage. Feeling superior to those who are sheeple.
>acceptance, or nihilistic.
Most people who have the balls to question religion, no longer give a shit about it. Because if they're half intelligent they question things that are actively killing and destroying.
If you're still pissed at religion, you're probably a faggot.
I'd urge you to try and objectively question government, the money system, and why Jews are pieces of shit.

>>738147177
If you're pissed at the money system, you're probably a faggot.

>>738147288
Kek, why defend it? Pissed you're an economic major, or defending it because you profit?

I find it hard to belive that there are any religious people on /b/. I mean isnt most of the content on /b/ against religious morals? Is all of this just bait and trolling?

>>738144554
>>738147125
Fucking called it "multi verse"

As for the universe has the same amount of enegery what is cold death of the universe? What is Thomas dynamics there is only so much fuel.

Anyway. Both are relevant and should be able to co exist. Science is for how belief is for why.

They are different questions that require different tools to solve

>>738147368
Defending it because we all profit.

>>738147607
Jesus hung out with hookers and thieves my dude.

>>738147177
>the money system
Do you mean capitalisim?

>>738147628
What is useory ?
Some one got a link to that nice cartoon with the guy and his dog Against the banking system?

>>738147850
>what is usury
Excessive interest. Moderate interest is good.

File: inequality.png (70KB, 595x439px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 595x439px

>>738147628
>all

>>738147612
>As for the universe has the same amount of enegery what is cold death of the universe?
You know that universe expands? And types of energies changes?

>>738147990
Yep. The poor of today are better off than the poor of millenia ago.

>>738147990
I have no issue with money but I want it backed by gold, I also want the land I own not to be taxed unless I am fucking EARNING from it.

>>738148158
Raise an army and start your own country.

>>738147991
Yes expaands in the way I pour milk on the counter expands no new milk is added from the carton

Enegery cannot be created or distorted it can only change its state but in the end it will be a bunch of icy dead stars no light no heat no life.

>>738148231
Wanna join faggot?

>>738148158
>I want it backed by gold
Gold is shit.

>>738148329
That is not the end bro. Even atomic bonds will be broken, due to the expantion of space.

File: 1493717721911.gif (272KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x800px

>>738147800
Capitalism is flawed. I really think it had potential when money had some intrinsic value, but combined with inflation, monopolies, social classes, and the waste it produces, it seems primitive. Best our species can do apparently. It stems from money though

>>738148372
Better then a number on a computer that means nothing and is crated at a whim right goy

File: 1484197005375.png (45KB, 532x557px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 532x557px

>>738148158
Property tax is fucking bullshit.

>>738148437
To what end. The process repeats on a smaller scale you still end up in the same place unless you believe that the universe will rubber band back on itself

>>738145435
Monothiesm is usually pretty good at getting cavemen off their asses and building civilization. So yeah, it has its benefits.

>>738148371
Sure. How much does it pay? Will i get to kill old people and kids?

>>738148329
indeed so what's problem with heart death? Universse want to reach maximum entropy. We don't know if it will happen, we think it will

>>738148457
No system is perfect.

Money never had "intrinsic" value. Even when we literally had commodity money, the commodities only had the value people gave to them.

>>738148562
Tell me about spend 39 years buy a house to rent the land for a few k a year for the rest of your life

>>738148437
how

>>738148458
It's actually worse than a number on a computer. Gold as money means no more than that number and just gets mined out of the ground and stockpiled.