What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god /his/? Letas

There is no evidence for it.

>>1422284
Is --this-- thread again.

I don't hate Christianity but I can't stomach the following:

Infinite punishment for finite sin
Virtuous pagans like Plato and Aristotle are in hell, meanwhile king David (who, if we are to trust the bible, is a terrible person) is in heaven or Abraham's bosom or whatever, just not hell
Obvious influences from other religions while claiming to be exclusive revelation
Theology based entirely on Greek philosophy while maintaining that pagans were ignorant devil worshippers and the Church possesses the wholeness of truth
Preaches forgiveness of monsters like ISIS and the guy who did Nice
Love your enemies
Turn the other cheek
Neither Greek nor Jew

I do not believe in God because there is no adequate reason to believe in God.
The fractured mythologies of thousands of years of tribal Semitic desert-nomads all combined into a single canon is fascinating to study, but does not constitute an "adequate reason"

>>1422333
Is it about evidence? What sort of evidence would you need to start believing in god? Are you not first denying god's existence and then looking at the reality through that filter? i.e any evidence that a believer would find as evidence you would not find suffecient but would instead explain as simply a result of natural explainable causes.

>>1422284
I do believe in Al-Rahman.

No benevolent god would allow history and humanities to share a board.

>>1422349 (Me)
Oh and

Insisting that the bible is literally true despite science, archeology, saying the contrary (more of a Protestant thing)

>>1422349

>Neither Greek nor Jew

what's wrong with this in your opinion?

>>1422360
Not that anon, but "suffecient evidence" of God's existence would be jesus coming down and doing his multiplying fish act or something. I'm not going to take some abstract would-be-could-be shit as a reason to base my entire life over the worship of a diety.

>>1422368
Conducive to universalism and race-mixing.

File: whenaprotestanttalksshit.jpg (15KB, 359x250px)

15KB, 359x250px

I do believe in God and the Catholic Church.

Atheists are just edgy faggots but everybody already knew is a long time ago. The only thing dumber than following an organized religion is believing that abiogenesis can occur without a deity.

>>1422360
Do you deny Jupiter's existence and look at reality using that filter, resorting to naturalistic explanations for lightning and thunder?

>>1422382
>i am an idiot and proud of it

File: 1389771233324.jpg (56KB, 563x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 563x450px

>>1422382

>Deities are mandatory for abiogenesis

>>1422360
Its not assuming God is not real, but assuming a reductive methodology were you discard anything that does not appear necessary to what you are observing.

But even if we make a strong case for a God, what type of God would we be talking about, actus purus? that's more the God of Aristotle than the God of the bible

I kinda wish I believe, I just don't and I don't see that there's anything I can do about it

I have yet to be presented with a theistic religion which is both internally consistent and also consistent with what we have been able to learn about the universe.

Christianity (and particularly Reformed Christianity) comes the closest by far, but it still relies on claims about the world which are not consistent with how the world functions. If the Bible is true, then death did not enter the world until the fall of Adam. But we know by observing the evidence left behind in the earth that there was death before humanity.

There's also the fact that Christians tend to be really shitty people who construct for themselves a form of the religion which is entirely self-confirming rather than requiring of themselves the kinds of sacrifices that Christ demanded. It kind of runs contrary to Christ's promise that he would preserve for himself a faithful church that the gates of Hell could not prevail against.

I am willing to believe in a god, but have yet to encounter any claim for god that holds up.

>>1422393
Not an argument you retard

>>1422396
That's pretty much a given

>>1422407

t. Your Ass

>>1422378
Eh, I live in London and it's not that bad. Like 40% of my school year up until the upper 6th form was non white and they were the best days of my life.

I feel like people who hate race mixing have never experienced it, in general at least.

>>1422424

>I feel like people who hate race mixing have never experienced it, in general at least.

Go fuck yourself

Source: southern california

>>1422407
No matter how hard they try, scientists have and never will never be able to simulate the creation of life from nothing.

>>1422284
I hate my mom.

>>1422424
Go fuck yourself

Source: Brazil

File: 1404512167641.gif (11KB, 227x224px)

11KB, 227x224px

>>1422441

>conveniently re-purposed God of the Gaps argument

>>1422359
But what if we find a contemporary way of believing in god. One in tune with all that we know.
We can see the belief and understanding of god as an evolutiony process.
Sure some powerful structures aspoused a certain dogmatic belief but the idea of atheism was always around as well even in ancient thought.
First perhaps lets try to conceptualize faith in god through contemporary understanding and knowledge. If we accept that the bibl was written simply as a collection of stories borrowed from the popular oral stories of the middle east and modified to create a new moral understandings and changes in the way people thought of the world.
and of course we have to first understand the role of stories, especially those that are written down in ancient times. They were back then a sort of storage of cultural ideas, the beginning of a more complex analysis of the world exactly because they were written down, which allowed to start a certain written tradition. The bible was a cultural object that allowed to preserve and cement thought.
The very pretence of writers to write stories that are presenteds as truths of a god and of course these writing are a result of the surrounding culture is an interesting fact.
It is not that back then people knew less. I mean they did obviously know less but it was because there was less to know. Thre was no historical record or developed methodologies, it was impossible for them to exist back then.
So they back then had the ability to graspt and conceptuialize the world and much in it in a few books. For their time, in releative terms they knew as much as we know apropriate to our times.
They chose to look at natural phenomena and ascribe some divine intent to it and yet many things they did were seen as unrelated to god. Like doing mundane things. They acted and were able to predict certain things about their actiosn without even thinking about it.
Just like we look at sciences today.

>>1422430
You've already fucked yourselves.

Source: Rest of America

>>1422452
Go on and tell me about the infinite monkey shitting gold theory or whatever you fedoras are spouting these days

>>1422461
cont.
Just like scientific methodology today that we take for granted and that allowes us to predict certain things, to solve problems. IT is a form of truth as much the simple actions of ancient people were a form of truth.
But what is it today that is equivalent to their personifications of different forces or in general the conception of goals as given by some better intentioning being.
We can for example say that today we are almost prisoners of different systems that predict for us how are lives are to be lived. They are not personified and much harder ot grasp.
I dont now but i think it all deserved a lot of thought. I personally cannot yet conceptualize of god as something more than a cultural phenomena but it seems to me there is need to look deeper and dig into it.

File: 1468516259770.jpg (102KB, 430x627px)

102KB, 430x627px

>>1422465
>>1422461

Why is it so damn hard for you people to accept the fact that we don't know?

We don't. Fucking. Know. We're barely sentient offshoots of chimpanzees who achieved self-awareness through blind luck - it's little short of a miracle we even survived the Toba catastrophe. What makes you think we're capable of achieving even the tiniest glimpse of supreme cosmic truth? What makes you think we can understand the raw truth of reality, assuming such a thing even exists?

Stop it with this inane vanity and accept the fact that WE JUST DON'T FUCKING KNOW

>>1422430
>>1422445
Ah, but we in London are not poor cunts. The poor africans and whatnot in London actually have fairly decent standard of living and nor do we have ghettos/favelas. The problem you have isn't niggers or whatever is lurking in Brazil, it's the fact that they're so fucking poor and have been living in sums/ghettos for however long.

I lived in Lambeth, which is one of the most violent areas of London, and it really wasn't that bad. Compare that to Compton or whatever.

>>1422483
We've learned how to split atoms, how to simulate forward time travel, figured out about black holes, white holes, all this new incredible shit yet they are still uncertain about how abiogenesis occured or even if it has occured in this universe because of that whole infinite parallel universes theory.

>>1422333
Reality is evidence of a creator

>>1422502

>We've learned how to split atoms

Wow its fucking nothing

>how to simulate forward time travel

What

>figured out about black holes

No we haven't. In fact we haven't even come close.

>white holes

Are entirely hypothetical

Your interpretation of how much science has achieved is greatly over-inflated.

>>1422373
But the idea of worship of a deity has to be contemporaralized. Perhaps the idea of "devoting your lif to god" is anchrosnistic..
The whole idea of god as an actual person can be said to be anchronistic as well.
God in the bible from a contemporary perspective is a source of moral guidence, moral testing. God as the entity through which we present and strugle with questions.
You can even treat god as ourselves or our ideal selves posing questions to ourselves who exist in a non ideal reality.
Stories in the bible and god's tests in which we the readers are asked to ponder over differnt questions can be as ideal but not actual conceptions that allow us to think of an ideal us and an ideal world. To ponder about it and define it. but we must of course question the idea of some sort of personal devotion. We can treat the bbile as a bedrock of interpretation. an ancient source out of which our culture rose.
And you can say that there are many ancient texts but not many of them have the pretence of presenting themselves as books about a god with which we interact.
The very pretence of writing such a thing is important in itself becaue the pretence of a work changes the way we are asked to interpret and understand it and thus the role of ancient greek philosophical writings(as an example) is different.

>>1422483
>le were just insignificant monkeys u can't kno nuffn

Because the reality that's "out there" is the same one that's down here you mong

>>1422514
My apologies for not being a fucking fedoranerd. My point is that we've made incredible discoveries yet are still unsure about the creation of life. Also, no living creature is capable of living in space. What that means is that abiogenesis happened ON EARTH and not specifically when the universe first exploded and expanded(if we're assuming that theory is correct)

>>1422349
>>1422367
So nobody will address any of these points?

>>1422483
>matter literally self-organizes into life
>blind luck

pick one

>>1422504
The God is evidence of someone creating him.

>>1422391
Its an important question, of the idea of a pantheon of gods and what it means to us.
I am not very aquainted with ancient literature about the greek gods. IS there ancient greek literature written about their gods as actually existing as oppose to stories which do not pretned to be truthfull? as in mythologies..
I dont yet have specific thoghts about polytheism but it can be seen as another way of coneptualzing the divine.
Treating natural phenomena as endoubted with intent is an interesting ideas and perhaps we can do it as long as we update our interactions with things liek lighting to what we nkow of them. As in use all our modenr knowledge of the world when we interact or try to to interact with such "gods".
Its definately something to think about and what it would mean.
surely at a time when our own intentions are questioned and our free will is sometimes defined as theoratically determined or simply a complex natural process we can start ascribing intent to what we percieve as natural phenomena just interaction with it is done not by sacrifcing goats but through our contemporary knoweldge of these phenomena.
They sacrificed animals cause based on their knowledge it should have worked why should we not use our contemporary knoweldge jsut as they di dback then?

>>1422401
Perhaps the god we need whcih means we need to first understand what we need from a contemporary god.

>>1422541
A deity could've existed in one of the infinite parallel universes where that logic doesn't apply then created this universe for all we know

>>1422483
You can say we understand the truth of reality because we are part of reality ourselves and thus our grasping of reality is truth. There is no higher truth or other truth. So what we understand is as true as it comes from our perspective. And I dont see what not knowing means in your post. We dont know how X works so we should not try to understand or think about it? I dont understand your post DESU.

>>1422537
Well, try to thnk of the bible and interpretations of the bible within their political cultural context. The bible written by people who wrote certain things for certain purposes. We can try to understnd these pruposes and the idea of god togfether with it all. There is no need atcking the literal interpretations or even interpretations as honest ones, meaning interpretations that try to understand what "god" wants to say. We can question these assumptions and the different interpretive methodsa themselves because when someone interpreted the bible with his pressupositions he was influenced by his own pressupositions and the pressupositions of his culture and intellectual circle.
There is no need to struggle with dogmatic apologetics but isntead insepct the background to their work and their thought and interpret god and religon based on our contemporary understandings.

>>1422391
ONLY PLEBS ACTUALLY THOUGHT A BIG BEARDED SKY WAS HURLING LIGHTNING BOLTS

ZEUS WAS JUST A NAME FOR WHAT LIGHTNING AND STORMS AND ALL THAT SHIT REPRESENTED AND SYMBOLIZED IN THE GREEK CONDSCIOUSNESS; NAMELY THE DIVINE WRATH THAT AWAITED ANYONE WHO WOULD DEFY THE NATURAL ORDER

ENOUGH WITH THIS SHITTY FUCKING "LE GREEKS COULDNT FIGURE IT OUT THEY ACTUSLLY TUOUGHT IT WAS AN OLD MAN IN THE SKY XDDDDDDD" MIDDLE SCHOOL MEME. HOW FUCKING AUTISTIC ARE YOU THAT YOU THINK THE GREEK PANTHEON WAS BELIEVED TO ACTUALLY CAUSE EARTHQAUKES AND SHIT INSTESD OF JUST REALIZING DEITIES WERE JUST PERSONIFICATIONS OF INSCRUTABLE NATURAL FORCES

GOD FUCK

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1422349
I have some ideas on a few of these, take it how you will though:

>Plato and Aristotle
I'm not really sure how the imagery in the Divine Comedy factors into actual accepted belief, but if it's to be taken seriously virtuous souls who never were able to hear of Christianity or get the chance to be converted do technically reside in Hell, however it's on the very edge (before you would even pass the gates) and they don't experience suffering, they just live normally and they don't get to make it to Heaven.

>love thy neighbor/enemy, turn the other cheek
My best reasoning would be that all of us, even the worst sinners, are creations of God and to act violently or withhold forgiveness from any other human would be to spite the work of God. Alternately, God wants us to live as much like him/Jesus as we can, and forgiveness is one of God's main qualities.

>>1422568
That's not how logic works but you won't believe me.

>>1422605
Yes, no Greek at no time ever unironically believed in Zeus, they just understood it as a metaphor. Everyone living at all times believed in whichever is most convenient for your argument. That's why philosophers presenting alternate versions or interpretations of the gods and myths never encountered any resistance. Same with the age of the earth, nobody ever unironically believed the universe wasn't recent, that's why when more information about the age of the earth was presented everyone immediately accepted it without controversy.

>>1422739
Well if Christians can backpedal and claim that such and such bible passage is a metaphor everytime they feel they need to save face then why can't Pagans?
>Yahweh didn't literally come down from heaven to kill Moses and claim his baby's foreskin, that's like totally a metaphor dude, or an angel, or whatever, Jesus died for you XD

>>1422605
They were not metaphirical understandings though. It was somewhere on the edge of truth/fiction.
There were huge shrines built for the gods after all, you dont just do that for nothing.

>>1422761
Revisionism of any kind isn't good, which is specifically why I used both a Christian and pagan example.

>>1422284
I believe that some kind of deity exists but not the God of the Abrahamic religions. I find it difficult to accept that God with His infinite wisdom would doom all of humanity to disease and death because the first two humans disobeyed Him.

>>1422779
Oh my bad, I thought you were a Christian using double standards (that is an average Christian).

>>1422605
You do realize that Plato and aristotle wrote about their oppinions of the gods right?

>>1422815
Some ancient greek thinkers identified the universe as a god some thought there is one god that is unlike men in mind and body, i.e.e somthinh we cant imagine.
Some beleived in gods but not in the mythical gods with their human actions and shit...?The plebs probably thought zeus did hurl lightning on the earth though.

>>1422815
Wasn't there another philosopher whose position was that the gods and heroes of myth were just euphamisms for actual events? Nobody would need to say that if it was already the majority opinion in their circles.

>>1422837

In short, much like today there were many varied beliefs with the plebs believing in the simplest explanations.

>>1422483
Cringe.

>>1422284
Because I do not see immediate evidence, nor do I feel any inclination to believe in a religion for personal benefit or otherwise.

I'm fine with people having their religious beliefs, but I have no interest in the subject.

>>1422655
You only know how logic works within our reality and are attempting to apply that logic to something that theoretically exists outside of our reality

Why do the councils declare some denominations of christianity heretical over the smallest differences?

>>1422605
Why would they take their gods so seriously if they were just le metaphors for nature? Would you slaughter an ox for some abstract personification of lightning? Would you kill Christians for refusing to worship to the gods?

>>1422284
It's really more that I don't believe in revelation.

>>1422284
I believe in my god because it told me about itself. I don't believe in other gods because they have not contacted me.

>Theology
Spooky

>>1423793
Which god is that, kek?

>>1423810
Well god hasn't been born yet, so it hasn't named itself.

>>1422349
>Infinite punishment for finite sin
>Virtuous pagans like Plato and Aristotle are in hell, meanwhile king David (who, if we are to trust the bible, is a terrible person) is in heaven or Abraham's bosom or whatever, just not hell
Post-Calvin ideology; belongs in the trash.
>Obvious influences from other religions while claiming to be exclusive revelation
Cultural influence; needs to be kept separate from objective theology.
>Theology based entirely on Greek philosophy while maintaining that pagans were ignorant devil worshippers and the Church possesses the wholeness of truth
Literally wrong on most of that statement.
>Preaches forgiveness of monsters like ISIS and the guy who did Nice
Implying that evil is too powerful to be overcome by God's mercy and forgiveness. Despair.
>Love your enemies
>Turn the other cheek
"This is hard to do so it must be incorrect."
>Neither Greek nor Jew
Dude, come on.

>>1422349
this desu senpai

>>1422441

Science has literally created single cell life.

>>1422537
I've never seen evidence of archaeology dismissing the bible's claims. Also, you should read more theology, good Christians don't dismiss pagan achievement.

File: 1464822735616.jpg (24KB, 337x485px)

24KB, 337x485px

>>1422517
This is some hot blasphemy, my man.

>>1423348
Because the engine of nature is death and being willing to sacrifice livestock indicates that a society does not believe itself above the natural order of loss and gain, give and take.

It was believed to preserve and sanctify the natural order. Only plebs actually thought there was an old man in the sky wearing a toga with his mouth watering thinking about that sweet, sweet oxen fat

Come on guys use your Goddamn head. Some of you have the most cartoony fucking grasp of history and religion

Every now and then I'm like its a dumb story He doesn't exist. Then I snap out of it and I'm like yeah I'm real I'm here there's obviously something out there

>>1424881

Archeology dismisses things like the isreal slaves in Egypt, which is an extremely central piece for the old testament.

The bible has plenty if truths, but the foundations are works if fiction. Most likely because judaism stemmed from oral tradition for generations.

File: Långsökt.jpg (25KB, 350x260px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 350x260px

>>1422284
It does seem a bit...

>>1422284
I guess people don't exist if there is no God. I guess I didn't write this sentence either.

>>1424980
I saw a documentary showing evidence of the Israelite slaves if the current timeline is shifted back about 200 years. It was something about the nomenclature surrounding the "city of Ramses." Exodus Evidence or something, not sure if it's totally accurate.

>>1422483
That´s what quitters say! Are you a quitter anon?

>>1422483
But we do know? Miracles still happen people still believe

File: 1460164487678.png (62KB, 326x190px)

62KB, 326x190px

logic and reason
really makes you think

>>1422284
>What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god /his/? Letas talk theology philosophy.

Because I consider all religions the same as contemporary religious people consider mythology.

A Christian today is as likely to be right that Yahweh is real, that a Greek was that Zeus was real anno 2300 B.C.

>>1425053
as a Greek was*

>>1425053

Agreeing with this.

The only reason yahweh held on so well compared to other gods were the dietary restrictions.

Everything people can't eat is linked to something that was extremely lethal to people in the past. It displays itself as evidence to people that don't understand disease.

If the tablets found in what was once Sumer are correct, then every religion on earth is a fraud. The creation story in the bible is a condensed version that leaves out a lot. The tablets tell that we were bioengineered by a race from another planet to be slaves for mining gold to repair the atmosphere on their home world. About as believable as any other story of gods, and frankly makes more sense. Since civilization just sort of appeared out of nowhere, and evolution doesn't quite explain our being here, But we may never know for sure because religion is used to control the unwashed masses and academia is well . . . unreliable.

>>1425137

A lot of that is made up. The sumerian tablets basically describe a polytheistic genesis and say that the gods have given up on us ever since the flood.

>>1422284
The two main things that theists generally point to as requiring divine intervention are the creation of life and the creation of the universe itself, prior to the Big Bang. Anything else can pretty readily be explained within our current understanding of the laws of physics, or we can at least make a pretty good guess and are waiting for science to advance.

To preface my position, I do not operate under the assumption that consciousness is in some way divine, or indeed special. I consider consciousnesses, including mine, to be physical things, operating just like computers. A series of logic gates, organic rather than electronic in nature, which accept an input from various senses, apply a series of operations to that input, and produce an output in the form of a physical action - just as a computer driving a robotic body is fed data by its sensor suite and outputs physical action.

Taking this into account, one has to consider all that life is to be merely an ordered assortment of particles that attempts (generally) to order more particles in a similar fashion - thus, reproducing. Since evolutionary theory (which is backed up by archaeological evidence) shows that simple forms of life can over time produce more complex forms of life, one can extrapolate that life begins with the first pattern capable of replicating itself, no matter how simple. The smallest microbacteria, while small, still posess a riciculous amount of atoms arranged in a very particular way. his could be held as evidence for a God, by necessity of divine intervention. However, if we delve seriously into Hitchiker's Guide-esque arguments, we can consider that the universe, to quote that book, is BIG. Really big. As in, there are without a doubt, and by many orders of magnitude, more planets in the universe than there are atoms in that microbacterium.

1/?

>>1425228
Given enough time coupled with random motion, it is inevitable that life as we know it will arise anywhere where the necessary elements are present - Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen, primarily. The random assembling of particles - yes, by sheer luck - into the earliest form of life is something that does not necessarily require eons before it can occur. The likelihood that it has occurred at any point in time is simply a function of how much material is available for random motion to place together, and how much time has passed.

Since there is amount of material in the universe so vast that we might as well consider it infinite, I see no reason that life shouldn't spontaneously come to be at some point a few billion years after the Big Bang. It happened to happen here, and we happen to exist here as a result. Occam's Razor supports this, and I'll explain why after my next point - the Creation of the universe.

2/?

Humans, if we don't go extinct or regress technologically, will inevitably create or become gods.

When we reach the singularity, we will either merge with technology, or it will overtake us. Either way or successors will carry the torch of knowledge. This cycle will continue across millennia until we reach total control of the universe.

>>1425053
>implying the Greek pantheon existed (even in a prototypical form) that early,

Nice, you've proven you know literally nothing about history.

>>1425215
Most of what people hear about those tablets comes from Sitchins work. Not sure on the existence of a god of any kind but where can i find better info on those tablets that isn't bullshit? Anyway , probably won't know the truth in this life and if there is an afterlife or whatever i'll most likely be punished for my unbelief. If there isn't ,still wont know.

>>1425257
The most common argument is that something cannot arise from nothing, and that all action has a cause. However, I have s very simple argument to refute the necessity of a God putting things in motion, so to speak.

If we take the hardline Atheist view of the universe, we have no way to explain the universe's coming into being. It is an unresolved and possibly unresolvable entity. This is absolutely true, and I would be a fool to deny it. As science now stands, we have no way to explain it.

However, if we take the theistic standpoint that a divine entity created the universe, we still have an entity whose existence we cannot explain. Religions and theologians have various positions on how God came to be but the point is, no matter how you look at it, the existence of a being of infinite power that operates outside of all known laws of the universe is impossible to scientifically explain, at least at the point where science now stands.

Which one is more likely to be true?

Since I'm not a fedore-tipper out to destroy Christianity (a net force for good in the world, in my opinion) or any other religion in particular, we ignore all the rules, strictures, worship, divine words, prophets, and all other things that make a God less probable, and focus simply on the existence of a divine, creating entity.

Since saying "the universe popped into existence of its own accord"/"has always existed" is equally as hand-wavey an argument as saying the same of God, we can say that both take the experimental data into account equally well.

So we break out Occam's Razor: in explaining something, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. Thus, where two theories account for the experimental data equally well, the one which makes the fewest unfounded assumptions should be held as true.

3/?

>>1422284
I can't dredge up even a scrap of faith in a greater power.

>>1425308
No God:
-the universe spontaneously came to be; a pinprick of hyper-condensed matter

God:
-an intelligent being with infinite power spontaneously came to be.
-this intelligent being decided to create a pinprick of hyper-condensed matter that would become our universe

Thus, the argument for the existence of God makes a gigantic extra assumption, meaning that as science now stands, we should take as true the argument that a divine creator was not responsible for the universe.

>>1425322
Oops, forgot to add

4/4

i have never met him

The concept is unfalsifiable. This means that it refers to something that is either unknown, or complete nonsense

>>1425308
>the universe has always existed/created itself
>rational objective truth
>God has always existed
>irrational fantasy

Face it, materialism is just as unable to explain the universe as theism is. At least the idea of a transcendent creator - if you may liken it to an author's relationship to a book in that the author is not bound by the limitations of ink and paper - is logically consistent.

>>1425335

Rationality is based on what we can see.

It was completely rational in the past to think everything revolved around the Earth. Doesn't mean it was true.

Because even if there are philosophical arguments in favour of a God, there is no way that you could make an argument on which religion is actually true.

>>1425351
They're all true in their own way because they're all talking about the same reality, ffs.

Autism.

>>1425344
>implying materialism is the final, infallible truth

lul

>>1422367
>Insisting that the bible is literally true despite science, archeology, saying the contrary (more of a Protestant thing)


Insisting that the atheism is literally true despite science, archeology, saying the contrary (more of a fedoras thing)

>>1422284
1.Never saw god
2.Never felt god
3.Never heard god

>>1425375
>can't see it, it isn't there!!!!

Autism

>>1425277
For all you know he's an expert on the French Revolution

>>1425378
I haven't seen any evidence for autism, so I don't think it exists.

>>1425378
>you cant feel, see, touch or test in any way, but you want everyone to believe it
>not autism

>>1425372
>Insisting that the atheism is literally true despite science, archeology, saying the contrary


source?

>>1425391
Sounds like fiat currency.

get out of my board normie

>>1425399
can you not see or feel money?

>>1422533
>Also, no living creature is capable of living in space

false


>What that means is that abiogenesis happened ON EARTH

assumption

>not specifically when the universe first exploded and expanded

who the fuck is even saying that happened?

>>1425410
Yes you can, but the money only has value if people believe it has.
If i own a store and decide to not accept dollars, there's nothing you can do but try to get something i'm interesting in.

>>1425335
sorry if you misunderstood me friend, but I was saying that both are irrational positions to take. I was being a bit overly wordy I guess. Basically, I'm saying that the spontaneous coming-into-being of a deity and the spontaneous coming-into-being of the universe are equally absurd, and working with Occam's Razor from there.

>/his/ so full of materialistic philistines
wtf I hate /his/ now

>the universe unjust atoms brooooo it's over man we've got it all figured out
>what is matter then
>uhhhhhh

materialistcucks in a nutshell

>>1425428
money has value because people agreed that value it wasnt a thing for people to believe in before the people actaully created it
and by that logic btw, every religion is correct and we can create gods on our own and they will be real just because we believe in them, is that reeally what you mean?

>If i own a store and decide to not accept dollars, there's nothing you can do but try to get something i'm interesting in.


no, youll just go broke because you dont accept money and ill spend my money somewhere else

>>1425447

>the universe should pander to my every desire or else I get christriggered

Christcucks in a nutshell

>>1425467
>you're either a le epin enlightened materialist like me or a deluded christbabby

Read a book nigger

>>1425447
>what is matter then

Quarks interacting with the Higgs field.

>>1425432
Then you're an agnostic, I take it? Anyway, Occam's Razor isn't some kind of gold-standard truth test. Occam wasn't God, after all - he wasn't formulating a perfect test of truth when given partial evidence.

For example, say Bob is feeling tired today. What could Occam's Razor possibly say to that? Postulate that Bob was playing football - well that assumes more than that he was just doing sit-ups in his room. And that idea assumes more than that he went to bed too late last night. It falls apart when you don't have enough information, which can lead to absurd conclusions.

>>1422284
>What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god /his/?

If a single true God or gods exist, then why are there so many conflicting religions that claim theirs is the universal truth?

>>1425483
Yeah no shit retard, that doesn't answer a Goddamn thing

>>1425447
"What is matter?" is a rabbit hole of a question, and quantum physics is going further and further down it as we speak. It's a question that can only be answered by finding out what exactly particles make up an atom in its entirety (done!), and then finding out what makes up those particles (not quite done), and then finding out what makes up those, and so on, ad infinitum - as best we can tell. But in a very broad sense, matter is a specialised form of energy. What is energy?

>I dunno, a God must have made it!

No. See my argument above.
>>1425308
>>1425322
One inexplicable entity spontaneously existing is simpler than an inexplicable (and totally intangible, I might add) entity spontaneously existing and deciding to create the other entity.

>>1425492
Because you're an autist who can't synthesize conflicting information and understand different religions describe the same reality in their particularly culturally conditioned terminology

>>1425492
>if science is true why do scientists sometimes disagree on things

>>1425516
It answers a lot more than writing fan fiction.

>>1425532
>if science is true why do scientists sometimes disagree on things


good luck peer reviewing a religion

>>1425527
>ifferent religions describe the same reality in their particularly culturally conditioned terminology


is that why they contradict themselves constantly?

>>1425534
>guy randomly shows up in your kitchen
>who the fuck are you, what the fuck are you doing here
>I took the bus

Nah, both are non-answers

>>1425491
I consider myself an atheist, as I do not believe in any sort of divine influence and find much more insight in trying to think of "materialistic" (or mechanical, as I prefer to think of them) explanations for things. However, I'm not unwilling to consider the possibility of the divine objectively, and often take the stance that God exists for philosophical experiments. Plus, presented with hard, irrefutable proof of God's existence, I would immediately believe in Him. So I consider myself an open-minded atheist, but agnostic fits too I guess.

And yes it's true, Occam's Razor is the absolute last resort if you are trying to objectively decide between two competing theories; and by no means a conclusive gold standard, as you put it. However, it is a decent indicator and in many examples works pretty well. Knowing literally nothing about Bob and having only Occam's Razor to work with, I would assume that he did not get enough sleep the previous night. It's simpler than either of the two propositions in your post and, I would argue, far more likely to be the real reason. At the very least, it's the explanation that I would actually go with in real life if I met a person who was tired and knew nothing else about them.

>>1425517

>quantum physics is going further and further down it as we speak

Do you have any peer-reviewed sources that back this up?

>>1425563
>scientist sees dude in his kitchen
>I can smell whiskey on his breath, and this is a college town, he's probably from the nearby frat and thinks he's in his house
>deductive reasoning isn't perfect, but if I apply myself I can learn more about the world around me
>Christian goes sees dude in his kitchen
>oh well
>goes back to raping his kids

>>1425572
I'm almost certain you're trolling but here:

http://phys.org/physics-news/quantum-physics/

Plenty of articles citing peer-reviewed sources. Also note that in my post I was implying that it's unlikely that we will ever know the true nature of matter.

>>1425543

Religions aren't really contradicting. Most religious conflicts are ego-driven, and people only invoke religion or its material reduction as a means to unite people and sustain warfare. But the tenets of most religions are remarkably similar.

>>1425579
Nah, more like

>if I get his heartrate, blood pressure, T count, weight, height, eye color, etc. It'll tell me who this guy truly is as a person

File: 18ojv3wu5q3rojpg.jpg (31KB, 636x475px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 636x475px

>>1425597

>I was implying that it's unlikely that we will ever know the true nature of matter.

If material rationalism can't even rationally tell us what matter is (never mind everything else) then wouldn't it be an incommensurately more fanciful ideology than any religion past or present?

>>1425601
This is completely off-topic but "remarkably" is such a self-fulfilling term it's hilarious. By describing something as "remarkable," you are remarking on it, and thus causing it to be "remarkable" - something that can be remarked on.

I have no more to say, continue as you were.

>>1425601
>Religions aren't really contradicting


sure buddy zen budhism is literally the same thing as those little forest tent villages who think that they found the dude who is the second comming of jesus

>>1425614
You clearly don't spend time around scientists.

They're rarely if ever sure of things. Most fields think in terms of probabilistic rather than deterministic rules. This is even more true for psychology than any other field of science.

It's more like

>this guy has a fraternity ring
>he is currently rummaging through my refrigerator looking for more beer
>I live near a frat house that looks like my house
>my current hypothesis is that he got lost, but in order to confirm I'll have to wait until he sobers up and see if he remembers what he was doing
>I could have sworn I heard a little kid screaming over at Pastor Johnson's place

>>1425620
Theistic religions describe the realm of Being and the zenith of Being itself, the personal God

Stuff like Zen prefers not to concern itself with the dialectics of being/manifestation and aim directly for the Unconditioned, of which Being is an emanation

It's not that fucking hard

>>1425617
>>1425620

I mean remarkable in their basic premises:

1. The idea that man can transcend matter.

2. The idea of a qualitatively ineffable realm.

3. The idea of moral prescriptivism.

4. The idea of destiny and/or an Eschaton.

>>1425644
You're implying an outside the box view of the universe, as if there's an equivalent of whiskey breath for reality that will indicate what reality is "actually doing", instead of what science actually is: only an (albeit extremely effective) tool for describing the conditions WITHIN the system

>>1425652
yeah, i know they have differences, and it really isnt that hard, whats hard is to try to pretend that every religion is correct and dont contradicnt eachother in any way

>>1425655
>everything is made of atoms
>therefore everything is the same


ofocurse they have the same basic premises, the contradictions come when they try to answer these questions

>>1425658
Again, the alternative is simply fan fiction.

If it can be verified, and it's useful for predicting or understanding systems, it falls under the domain of science.

In the case of particle physics, people spent a lot of time with particle accelerators and cloud chambers, trying to produce excitations in fields and discover new particles from the tracks they leave in super-condensed fog.

I'm not even saying religion is bad, but science is literally defined as the domain of all that is predictive and testable.

>>1425615
No. Maybe I was a bit too broad (again). While I do mean what I implied, you must also note that while it may or may not be that the true nature of matter is indiscernible, science will always be working to bring us closer to that knowledge. Whether we attain it at any stage in human development or not is yet to be seen, but even if it's an impossibility, science can certainly bring us infinitely close.

And to riposte: while material rationalism may never be able to determine precisely what exactly matter is, theism may never be able to determine precisely what God is.

>>1425670

All of this is based on faith though. I trust the irony is not lost on you.

>>1425669
>the alternative is fan fiction

You really think the only truth is scientific truth? You can't be serious. The Buddha intuited the truths of neuroscience 2,500 years ago, Hindu philosophers intuited the nature of reality as an excitation of a primordial ground state of emptiness even farther back, the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth and Samsara understood reality as an isolated/closed system endlessly recycling its components thousands of years before the first law of thermodynamics was even formulated, like come the fuck on

>>1425691
>You really think the only truth is scientific truth

Well, yeah.

Something doesn't need to be true to be meaningful or valuable.

But science is the way you determine objective truth. That is its one and only job, and it is very good at it.

You could throw shit at the wall and get lucky, and find the truth through non-scientific methods, but if you're testing it, that's still empirical.

>>1425699
>science confirms intuited truths
>therefore science has a monopoly on truth

lmao

>>1425708
If you can't confirm if, you don't really know if it's true.

Could be.

But you can't know for sure. From your subjective perspective it's still a theory rather than a fact.

>>1422284
Because its not proven. Same reason you don't just believe every claim.
Especially not ones making humanity out to be superspecial snowflakes and the center of cosmic attention.

>>1422382
>The only thing dumber than following an organized religion is believing that abiogenesis can occur without a deity.

I don't know whether I should laugh till my sides hurt, or stare silently in awe given that this is among the strongest argument millions of Christian and Muslim theists have against natural evolution. Blows my fucking mind how densely stupid a person can be

>>1422365
/thread

>>1425715
And yes, even though the claim was of a deity, ONLY Christians and Muslims being it up ONLY because reality contradicts their scriptures and their forced to posit at least a deity

>>1425683
I would argue that not all of it is faith - quantum physics is quite literally constantly attaining more and more knowledge and understanding of the nature of matter all the time; and one can extrapolate that even if Ultimate knowledge of the nature of matter is impossible, left unmolested, science will bring us infinitely close. But you are right in that I believe that the universe came into being and continues to exist without the intervention of a deity. While this is supported by my rather simple thought experiments and arguments, it is quite possible wrong. However, I feel that I've proved it more probable than the existence of a deity adequately enough that I put my faith in an atheistic model of the universe. There is a definite irony there, and the fact that I recognise it is why I'm not a fedora-tipping idiot, but an open-minded, rational individual with a decent sense of humour.

>>1425714

>Especially not ones making humanity out to be superspecial snowflakes and the center of cosmic attention.

Material rationalism is far more comforting than most ideas of divinity though.

>>1422538

>non-sentient matter
>"self-organize"

pick one

>>1425730
How? This makes me curious. Religion provides a father or mother figure watching over and protecting you at all times, and an assurance that death is not the end. Material rationalism posits that no great entity cares about you and that after death comes nothing but nonexistence. True void. A terrifying concept.

File: 1468593978560.jpg (94KB, 522x579px)

94KB, 522x579px

>>1425714
Top kek, as if materialism isn't pure ego aggrandizement for fedoras

>we are so insignificant, there is nothing, all is but... atoms...
>only I alone... can stomach this dark truth...

I live in Sweden one of the most secular countries in the world and this is where you find the future of religion and it is not atheism.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god and it is a shit tier religion/non-religion. It fills the gap that religion used to fill, a reason and explanation for life, whether you explain it with science or some philosophy the common atheistic belief is that there is no god.
The future of religion is found in secularism, when religion is no longer needed. In Sweden most of us are secular protestants, we do not believe in god and neither do we need to explain the world through atheism or have the need to identify us as atheists. We simply find that religion or a non-religion like atheism is not needed to live. Why that is I am not sure maybe our society has developed away from such needs or maybe it is cause we have such a high living standard that we feel safe enough being just us, not worrying about things like the afterlife or divine punishment etc.

tldr atheism is for cucks still needing religion but do not believe in god while secularism is for true ubermensch who no longer need religion

>>1425750

Sorry, but what the fuck do christcucks like you even mean by "materialism"? Is that "all the outlooks on life that don't agree with my a priori conclusions?"

>>1422538
>carbon is common on earth
>organic molecules tend to form out of carbon in natural reactions
>if you take oil, add it a large body of water, and agitate, you get bubbles of fat that happen to look exactly like a cell membrane
>eventually amino acids (which occur in nature) form into RNA
>RNA is capable of controlling chemical reactions so that more little bubbles full of RNA are produced
>meanwhile, Christians were convinced that the earth was 6,000 years old

>>1425754
>living a life of modern comfort
>true ubermensch

Pick one

>>1425749

Materialism offers ultimate negative liberty and ultimate final freedom from consequence, and is the ego's favorite ideology.

>>1425757
Yeah you dumb nigger that's what self-organizing means. You can't have life without the potential for something called life to exist.

>>1425754
>i live in a country ith majority athiest citizens so i dont need to cal myself an atheist


how retarded can you be?

>>1425767
Okay, what part of the process is confusing you?

We know pretty well how carbon came about, how planets came about, how the sun came about.

Really, we have a nice handle on the last 14.6 billion years, and the only reason we don't know about earlier is because there isn't such a thing as earlier, because that's when time started in our universe.

>>1425749
>>1425750
Ah I see. Well yes. As a child I was told that when I died I would go to heaven. My dad is an atheist and my mother is some spiritual new age bullshit but they told me this because total non-existence is a difficult concept for a child. So in that sense, yes, it does feel nice for my ego to feel that I have outgrown something childish. By no means do I consider myself a stoic ubermensch for accepting that death is void though. It's not like I'm the only one, or that there's anything stoic at all about your average fedorafag. I just don't believe in the same concept of afterlife as those who believe in a deity.

File: 7016340_f248.jpg (18KB, 248x166px)

18KB, 248x166px

>>1425730
Is it? I don't think so. I don't know how you'd take comfort from the idea that our brains are so feeble by nature that you can only determine whats real to a finite certainty by countless experiment and tedious, laborious work. It's not declared true for comfort, it just so far yields the best/most reliable results in interacting with the world.

>>1425739
Water selforganises into round shapes without gravity. Is it now sentient? Are you retarded?

>>1425756
It means swinging the pendulum the whole opposite direction and calling yourself enlightened simply by virtue of the fact you reject the theistic/idealistic worldview

>>1425773
That carbon can even compose something called life in the first place. Are you autistic?

>>1425655

Hindus don't believe in an afterlife or that they transcend matter.

Just that they reincarnate and the world will eventually be full of nothing but peace.

>>1425779

You do the exact same thing by rejecting what you call the 'materialist' worldview, so you're hardly any better

>>1425782
The fact that carbon (together with many other atoms) can compose something called life is no stranger than the fact that hydrogen can compose something called a star.

>>1422284
There's no proof that any god exists. Why should I believe in the christian god when there's the same lack of proof for every god ever?
Even assuming that the universe was created by something, there's nothing linking it to one specific god or pantheon.

>>1425778
>>1425762

>>1425782

You haven't defined what you mean by "life", you fucking christcuck retard

>>1425782
Okay.

You see, carbon has an unusual ability among elements to bond with many other elements, and form extremely complex molecules.

If you combine it with water, which is a near universal solvent, has a fairly large liquid range, and excellent specific energy, you can get chemical reactions that can become complex enough to control their immediate environment and propagate the pattern.

I hope this helped.

>>1425794
No I actually base my worldview on study, introspection, and life experience, not a complete refusal to entertain any idea that le epin current year doesn't approve of anymore

>>1425749
>>1425762
Why the fuk would that give freedom of consequence?
You only get to live one life, ever. So anything you do matters, and how you spend your time matters, all the time.
And why would it be terrifying? What the fuck? I wasn't terrified before I was born, I won't be terrified after I die.

You dudes are makin son weird deductions from this. As far as I understand it, I'm a material rationalist (thought not claiming 100% certainty on anything), but neither fear nor freedom of consequence result from this.

Just because there is no Santa doesn't mean I'm sad that I won't get magic presents or scared that I will get coal. And just because there are no thetans doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with no consequences.

>>1425809
Hahaha oh my god.

I know this. I already know this. The fact that is the case is the issue, Jesus Christ.

>>1425799
No it isn't you dipshit life is immeasurably more complex than a shitton of hydrogen compressed by gravity to give off light and heat

>>1425814
>No I actually base my worldview on study, and life experience

Did you either see a god, or measure a god through some indirect but falsifiable means?

Because I think you were just scared to die like everyone else, and you believed what the adults told you.

>>1425768
Atheism=/= secularism
If you where to ask Swedish people if they where christian most of them would say yes, if you ask if they believe in god a lot who answered they where christian would say no.
Atheism is for people with autistic tendancies who feel the need to sperg around about how they feel smarter than others not believing in god.

>>1425814
You have to be able to entertain the idea in order to refute and reject it. The current year man has nothing to do with the shrinking gaps the "non-material" you're proposing can be shoved into.

>>1425778

It doesn't "self-organize" you fucking retard, that term implies a goal or some kind of sentience, yes. Water does not organize itself, the laws of physics cause water to organize. You're a fucking idiot.

>>1425814

No, your use of the words 'le epin' and your faggy fedora memes tell me that you got your worldview entirely from /pol/ memes and that you are in fact one of those DOOS FULT crusader larper faggots.

Now why don't you go hit one of your fellow noble Templars with your foam sword, faggot

>>1425750
Who was it that judged aggrandizement to be negative? Was it those who appeal constantly to an all powerful deity to smooth the whole course of nature toward their greed, and, finding no results, no earthly rewards, inventing their own - heaven, hell?
Or was it instead those who, seeking to aggrandize themselves, used their own means: so far the only successful self-aggrandizers?

>>1425825
>No it isn't you dipshit life is immeasurably more complex than a shitton of hydrogen compressed by gravity to give off light and heat
You should probably take a closer look at the exact mechanics. Stars are actually extremely complex.

>>1425762
Hmm. Definitely a different take on it to the post I responded to previously in >>1425774

Since I am personally fit, attractive, come from a wealthy family, not a NEET, and am generally enjoying life, I would say that death itself and the loss of earthly luxuries is a punishment to be avoided, but only insofar as such avoiding does not rob me of earthly luxuries. Further, I have a strong inclination towards the improvement of subsequent generations (which is probably largely thanks to the Christian-value-based society I was raised in, but is supported by my idea that life has the single distinguishing feature of self-replication), and consider going to my deathbed knowing that I improved man's lot in the universe to be the ultimate satisfaction. So I consider death itself to be consequence enough to take action to avoid it (thus avoiding nihilism), and derive enough satisfaction from the betterment of my species to be a decent human being throughout my life.

>>1425828

>Christians
>who don't believe in God

Then they're not fucking Christians, what the fuck are you on about you goddamn retard? Not even that guy.

>>1425831
>It doesn't "self-organize" you fucking retard, that term implies a goal or some kind of sentience, yes
Why would it do that? The properties of water molecules cause them to adopt particular structures. Self-organization, no agency.

>>1425845

>expecting anything other than an incoherent wordgame from an Aquinasfag

Fool me once etc.

>>1425825
>The fact that is the case is the issue

Okay, you see, atoms are actually composed of smaller "subatomic" particles made of protons and neutrons, which form a "nucleus."

A nucleus is then orbited by electrons.

The configuration of electron orbits that the Carbon atom has makes it very easy for carbon to share electrons with other atoms, thus "bonding" them. If it bonds to another atom, it forms a "molecule."

Because carbon can share so many of its electrons, it can bond with other elements to create extremely complex molecules that encode different proteins.

If a very complex carbon molecule, such as RNA or DNA, is enclosed in a "membrane" or a bubble of carbon that repels water thanks to the polarity of water, it can do such a good job of regulating its own environment that it can actually split, and form new systems, each one of which looks like the old system.

The conventional term for the carbon molecule, the membrane, and the protein encoding equipment is called a "cell."

Try and take notes, you'll be tested on this on Thursday.

>>1425827
The fact that you think this is about and can only ever be about whatever Sunday school caricature of the divine you got in your head tells me quite fucking clearly you're just some poser hipster
retard who has no grasp of anything that religion talks about. Read a book nigger.

>>1425832
Nigga I can talk circles around you about philosophy and religion, stop embarrassing yourself

>>1425845

The "properties of water molecules cause them to adopt particular structures" statement is wrong. The properties of those water molecules are decided by the laws of physics which also cause the organization.

My fucking point here is that water isn't in some sort of vacuum organizing itself, the laws of nature cause that organization. Therefore it is literally NOT "self-organization" but organization due to an external set of variables and laws.

>>1425841
Then you are a secular christian

>>1425853
lol you're legitimately fucking retarded and have no idea what I'm saying. Fuck off lab monkey

>>1425849
Actually his post made perfect sense and is exactly what I meant by self-organization: the jntrinsic properties of matter are responsible for life and consciousness and thus it wasn't "blind luck" when they're literally fucking coded into atoms. Learn to read and understand words dipshit

>>1425861

Secular:
>denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

Christianity:
>a fucking religion

Are you not seeing how these are contradictory you fucking idiot?

>>1425854
>Nigga I can talk circles around you about philosophy and religion, stop embarrassing yourself

Oh no, what will I do, fatty McChristcuck has arguments, I'm so scared.

Maybe you should argue yourself out of your mom's basement and get a job, you fat homo

>>1425858
Are you trying to say "the laws of physics" are like literal laws written outside the universe that everything consults on each updated "frame" of existence in order to know how to operate, and not summaries of the actual behaviour itself?

>>1425858
Hahaha what an autist, thanks for supporting my argument that life is literally coded into physical laws you dumb shit

>>1425814
You're confusing materialism with naturalism. Naturalism isn't a simple term: it means more than one thing. Yes, the secular world is naturalist. But that does not necessarily remove free will, souls, meaning, and the more formal assumptions about reality from the common mind.

>>1425873

No, what I'm trying to say is that the laws of physics exist and apply outside water molecules organizing into a round shape and are thus an external thing driving the organization, contradicting the idea of water being "self-organizing".

>>1425831
Thats not what self-organized means. And not what it implies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

"Self-organization is a process where some form of overall order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between smaller component parts of an initially disordered system. The process of self-organization can be spontaneous, and it is not necessarily controlled by any auxiliary agent outside of the system. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. "

Cheerio.

>>1425866
>"blind luck"
Oh, then you just misunderstood. It's not blind luck that allow phospholipids to self organize and RNA to self organize. It's blond luck getting self-organizing RNA into a self-organized lipid sphere. The co-occurrence of the pieces, not the individual pieces.

>>1425874

Nigger what

I am merely arguing against the idea that matter is "self-organizing".

>>1425866
Not the guy you've been having this argument with, I'm the one with the walls of text. I see your point - matter in many situations has a tendency to organisation, and this could be taken as evidence of divine interference. Interesting point, but I think it falls under the argument I posted above: It is takes less assumptions to say that this is simply how things are because they are because they are than that a god who exists because He does because He does decided to make things this way.

>>1425878
>external thing
Yes, this. What exactly do you mean by this? Again, you're treating "the laws of physics" like they are themselves some written thing the molecules simply consult, and not just a convenient list of knowledge humans have constructed in order to catalogue the characteristic behaviours of parts of the universe.

>>1425866
>it wasn't "blind luck" when they're literally fucking coded into atoms

The inability of other planets to form life was also a result of the intrinsic property of atoms. For example, the vast majority of the baryonic matter in our universe is superheated hydrogen, which is totally inhospitable to life or cognition.

For that matter, an asteroid could have sterilized our planet before life formed.

This would also be in keeping with the intrinsic property of atoms.

I think that if you grow a little bit more as a person, you'll realize that you don't need some sort of cosmic validation to value your own life, or to enjoy it.

>>1425892
Wait what? Dude I never said organized matter means God did it. I'm saying that matter behaves this way in the first place is indicative of some kind of intelligence or mind that is responsible for these properties in the first place.

>>1425900

leave it to fedoras to think everything is about ego validation, and not just a very simple observation of existing and being conscious in a universe that is supposed to be epin meaningless darkness


Every single one of you faggots is talking past me to the cartoons Christian strawman of the week. Stop.

my balls smell like apple juice and chili powder

>>1422284
Because all the evidence points to religions and "gods" being a man made fabrication, based on fear, and ignorance.

>>1425910
>and not just a very simple observation of existing and being conscious in a universe that is supposed to be epin meaningless darkness

It's supposed to be about 99.9999% unfeeling matter.

It is also very big.

Tell me more about how you derived the idea that abiogenesis was proof of a god, and it was based off of observation and reason rather than a deep seated psychological need.

Don't be afraid. It is possible to grow up, and still be happy.

>>1425868
Secular christianity is having christian values celebrating christian traditions yet not practising the religion itself or believing in god.
I just asked a grill at work if she identified as a christian and she did yet she did not believe in god.
That is the common Swedish religious identity and belief.
She also pointed out was not a atheist.
That would be secular christianity

>>1425910
>hey, people I'm taking past to respond t a caricature
>stop talking past me to talk to a caricature!

>>1425911
/thread

>>1425910
>epin meaningless darkness
You get completely refuted every time you start or "contribute" a thread like this. Why do you think this thread will be any different?

>>1425917
>it's supposed to be totally x, but here's some y, but don't ask me to explain it

Come on.

>>1425930
I've never been refuted once because all of your shit arguments are just repeating shit I already know

>>1422284
Too much effort

>>1425910
>Wait what? Dude I never said organized matter means God did it. I'm saying that matter behaves this way in the first place is indicative of some kind of intelligence or mind that is responsible for these properties in the first place.

I'm really not memeing here, but how is that different from saying a god/deity/divine being/grand intelligence did it?

>>1425939
Yes you do, you just say "you just don't get it" or some variation every time. For example, let's look at

>>1425932
The thread has already explained to you exactly how y came about exactly the way x came about, you just do not acknowledge it and repeat yourself. Same as every thread.

>>1425932
>it's supposed to be totally x

I understand that it's easier to fight a man made out of straw than argue with a man made out of flesh, but please at least try to address your opponents.

We both know that the assumption that life arose from natural processes isn't just compatible with the idea that life can exist in the universe, but requires it.

However, the idea that life can exist in the universe does not require a creator. I think we've already established the principles of nature that make it possible, and demonstrated a notable absence of evidence for divine intervention.

Don't worry, it gets better after high school.

>>1425946
Because the fedora conception of God is God literally sitting down to fit amino acids together, when the actually-graduated-highschool idea of the divine is that which makes life and consciousness possible in the very physical "'axioms" of reality, and it certainly doesn't have to be a being >>1425946

>>1425951
>he still thinks I'm talking about actual divine intervention in the universe itself

lol

>>1425948
You stupid fucking faggot I've explained at least a hundred separate fucking times that ANY MODEL OF EXISTENCE THAT POSITS REALITY AS AN IRRATIONAL QUANTUM FART IS INCOMPLETE UNTIL IT SATISFACTORILY ACCOUNTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SENTIENCE WITHIN ITS OWN PARADIGM

LE EPIN MEANINGLESS DARKNESS AND RATIONAL, THINKING CONSCIOUS BEINGS

DO

NOT

FUCKING

SQUARE

EITHER BLOW MY MIND AND EXPLAIN HOW WHAT IS ABSOLUTELT IRRSTIONAL, ACCIDENTAL AND DEAD CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE RATIONAL AND VOLITIONAL, OR ACCEPT MATTER IS A BIT MORE THAN THE CAT LADY PROFESSOR NIHILIST DRECK YOURE TRYING TO PEDDLE

FUCK

>>1424858
HAhahhaha no it hasn't you fool, nobody has ever created life.

Also, a human being successfully creating life is still biogenesis - abiogensis is life FROM INANIMATE, RANDOM forces.

A human creating life is no different from God creating life.

In order for life not to have been made, it would have had to have happened in the absence of will.

>>1425957
I see. Well I'm referring to the exact same kind of divine that you are, no fedora-tipping here, and would like to know your response to my saying it is refuted by:
>>1425308
>>1425322
Please stop insulting me unnecessarily as I am trying to have a "high level of discourse."

>>1425984
>he still thinks I'm talking about actual divine intervention in the universe itself

You know, if a sentient being changes the properties of physics to encourage life, that's intervention in the universe.

>
EITHER BLOW MY MIND AND EXPLAIN HOW WHAT IS ABSOLUTELT IRRSTIONAL, ACCIDENTAL AND DEAD CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE RATIONAL AND VOLITIONAL

We did.

Like 20 times.

It isn't our fault you can't read well.

>>1425984
Take a look at the computer you are writing these posts on. It accepts input and produces output. Take a look at yourself. You accept input and produce output. You are nothing more than an input-output machine. It is absolute folly to claim that there is a serious difference between a brain and a computer aside from level of complexity. Now consider how evolution shows the ability of a simple form of life to become more complex. Thus, all that is necessary for consciousness to eventually exist is the prior existence of the simplest form of life: the self-replicating pattern. I demonstrated earlier in the thread how this could come about through sheer randomness.
>>1425228
>>1425257

>>1425984
>ACCOUNTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SENTIENCE WITHIN ITS OWN PARADIGM
Simple. Sentience is an evolutionarily adaptive way for human brains to deal with their environment and complex social structures, doubling down on the niche hominids were already exploiting. Important to us. Assuming otherwise is like assuming that because octopus eyes are really well constructed we must account for octopus eyes in the fundamental structure of the universe, and "God" is whatever allows for octopus eyes.

>LE EPIN MEANINGLESS DARKNESS AND RATIONAL, THINKING CONSCIOUS BEINGS
This "dilemma" is mostly a product of you equating "without agency" with "irrational" for whatever reason, and assuming any meaning not somehow a fundamental part of the universe doesn't count. It is completely artificial.

>>1425986

You're right.

Syn3.0 is just made up.

>>1425987
Fine, since you're not memeing I'll stop being a dick to you.

"God" is not a being. Reality is self-caused. To say nothingness is anything, even absolute nothingness, is to say nothingness IS something (a contradiction in terms). Therefore, nothingness is the infinite, all-possibility, the Unconditioned, from which reality emerged spontaneously. Existence then evolves according to its own internal structure and its ruleset. Reality is the principle of itself, the case for itself. To ask "what is reality?" is to be very thing, the very principle, of what can ask that in the first place.

It's as simple as: Something exists. Whatever makes this Something possible cannot be more of this Something, it must be "nothing", yet this "nothing" is what this Something is grounded in, therefore it is both emptiness and fullness, everything and nothing. This background state is the Absolute, the structural coherency of the universe itself is the source "intelligence" for laws that allow for life and consciousness, and everything else is just details.

>>1425994
WITHIN ITS OWN PARADIGM. within its own fucking paradigm. "Here's a bunch of epin science that explains how life evolves according to built-in universal properties" is not in the paradigm of "life is nothing, everything's meaningless, it's all absurd chaos", it's the complete opposite of that paradigm you fucking mongoloid.

>>1426014
Man, you got my hopes up.

This is a synthetic genome, not a complete synthetic cell.

It doesn't count until you create the entire system, with the enzymes and the vesicles and the proteins.

>>1426045
>Here's a bunch of epin science that explains how life evolves according to built-in universal properties" is not in the paradigm of "life is nothing, everything's meaningless, it's all absurd chaos"

You know, the axioms "life is possible" and "life is special" aren't mutually inclusive. I don't think you can refute this either, so if you dodge the question, I'm going to keep bringing it up.

The universe was clearly created by a star that wanted more stars, because the conditions are perfect for stars.

>>1426045
>life is nothing, everything's meaningless, it's all absurd chaos",
You pulled this out of nothing, again, mostly because you seem to equate the lack of a deity with absurd chaos for whatever reason. You mixed up a bunch of philosophies lacking a god and decided that was the endpoint of science, for whatever reason.

>>1426017
Hmm. Seems that we're saying the same thing, except that you're going a step further and ascribing intelligence to the void whereas I say that reality is simply spontaneous. Interesting, but ultimately I would say that our positions are simply different and impossible to reconcile. Either one of us may be right, and it depends on what you believe. I follow what I consider to be the most probable theory by my own logic, but I may well be biased. Still, your position is interesting, and once the memeing was out of the way was interesting to think about.

>>1426059
Except if you understood the argument you'd get that "chaos making a bunch of random shit happen" is not the same as "chaos making rational beings that can understand themselves as chaos, reject chaos in their lives, and actively work towards the complete antithesis of chaos". We are talking about a fundamental difference between the supposedly original and absolute nature of existence and what this existence is spitting out. Difference of kind, not degree. How many Goddamn times do I have to explain this?

>>1426082
>bunch of random shit happen
>rational beings that can understand themselves as chaos, reject chaos in their lives, and actively work towards the complete antithesis of chaos

These axioms are not mutually exclusive.

Inert matter does not have a philosophy or a moral character.

Rational beings evolved because life evolved that was capable of responding to selection pressure, and selection pressure pushed it to develop nervous systems and problem solving abilities.

It is not impossible for a creator to exist within this system, but you haven't demonstrated any two true axioms which require a creator to reconcile.

File: 1461249622460.jpg (155KB, 960x850px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 960x850px

I think God is fundamentally related to metaphysics as a whole and on how you perceive the subject, much about whether you can accept it or not depends on your stance on metaphysics as a whole.
The vast majority of atheists fundamentally attack metaphysics in their attack on God, normally with a pseudo-metaphysical framework loosely based on scientific models.

>>1426082
Why do you equate a lack of agency with chaos?
Why do you think the ordered movement of molecules in a stars is random shit but the ordered movement of molecules in a brain to be fundamentally separate?
Why do you think a general chaos precludes local order?
Why do you equate chaos in a sense that is at least tangentially related to physics with the "chaos" that is relevant to everyday life when the two have little to nothing to do with each other?
Why do you think repeating yourself is the same as answering an argument?

>>1426069
I don't ascribe intelligence to this ground state, only what is responsible for the properties of matter (the Mind that determines and self-configures itself on a universal scale).

The view is perfectly compatible with science, and in fact the phenomenon of particles/antiparticles popping spontaneously out of the void is perfectly in line with what I'm saying: the unconditioned as infinite potential that actualizes itself wherever logical consistency permits it, composed of antithetical or opposite "energy charges" that add up to a total energy of 0. Everything is simultaneously, paradoxically, also nothing.

>>1426106
I don't reject a chaotic universe that creates pockets of life where conditions permit, I reject a universe that is absolutely nothing but chaos, random movement following. You either have something that accounts for structure and stability (or else we wouldn't be having this conversation) or you accept the notion there are no rules of behavior, which is. absurd. You can't have a chaos that's actually chaos and still talk about it, only an apparent chaos produced by stable and intelligible patterns of behavior

>>1426124
>I reject a universe that is absolutely nothing but chaos, random movement following.
Then it's a good thing nobody ever proposed this I'm the thread. You assume they do because you're talking past them.

>>1425919
ok, so youre retarded by pol standarts because of the immigrants and now youre retarded by everyone elses standarts because of this shit, congratulations you have a chieved the imposible, literally everyone sees you as a retard nation

>>1422284
EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THERE IS NO DENYING YOUR EXISTENCE

>>1426516
We are seen as a pretty great country by both people and statistics and no matter how retarded some folks sees us it won't be as retarded as your post.

Also please tell me about your country
From your post it is obvious that your country must have a very low literacy.

File: IMG_0947.jpg (233KB, 1000x1820px)

233KB, 1000x1820px

Why should I? I don't really have any reason to believe. Just plain seems unlikely, just how I don't expect to suddenly drift off the ground and into the air. Doesn't seem likely.

I could just as well ask you why you believe in God, or hell, ask you why you don't believe in some other God.

It's like you have a box, and every religion has it's own fancyfull explanation for what's in the box with out any way of seeing or proving what's in the box, they've all just been told it's like that by someone who likely didn't have any fucking idea what was in the box either. All I can know is that I have no idea what's in the box, and thus no reason to subscribe to one of the myriad of explanations that all seem equally unlikely.

>>1422538
If we didn't evolve the way we did, we wouldn't look back and try to find why we exist because we wouldn't fucking exist.

Survivorship bias

File: aqinas.jpg (2MB, 2700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x6826px

>>1426959
>Why should I? I don't really have any reason to believe. Just plain seems unlikely, just how I don't expect to suddenly drift off the ground and into the air. Doesn't seem likely.

Because its a logical necessity

>>1427068
Sure if we blindly assume an Aristotelian universe

>>1426964
>what am I
>if you weren't here, you wouldn't be able to ask the question!!

what kinda babydick brainlet shit is this

>>1426959
>no one knows what's in the box

sounds good bud

>>1425845
If I push you off a cliff do you self-organize into a bloody pulp on the ground?

Physical properties cause water to organize, no 'self' involved. Water does not have a 'self'.

>>1422284
>What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god /his/?

I do not have faith. I spent years saying all this justifications and rationalizations ("Hell it's stupid bla bla bla") when it all just boils down to that single element. I lack faith.

Throw that neurotic baggage of justifications and explanations and so on and so on and so on out and I'm happier. Simplicity in some things is nice.

>>1425896
What exactly makes it convenient?

Isn't what you just said the absolute most hypocritical thing that has ever been uttered by a human on the face of the earth, given that you yourself are arguing from the standpoint of "god must have done it."

Isn't THAT the most convenient list of "knowledge" there could possibly be?

>>1427231
We call functions "self-referring" all the time, and they have no "self" either. It just means that it [it] does it to [it].

>>1422284
There are many perfectly good reasons to believe in something called God with certain "ultimate" properties. This is the logical consequence of certain philosophical views.

What I can't stand is how as soon as anyone realises this, they immediately run back to their childhood religion. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

>A specific rabbi had magic powers!
>That's crazy!
>No it's not crazy, look here's an argument for an Original Cause and Source of Morality
>oh so that rabbi really did have magic powers!

no evidence.

>>1422360
I require evidence to believe in anything

>>1422504
That is affirming the consequent. There is no logic in your statement.

If A then B
B, therefore A

That is what you are implying. It is not logical.

>>1422284
>What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god /his/? Letas talk theology philosophy.
Your question is a loaded one.

What are the reasons to believe in god? That would be better phrased, and yes the two are different. As for the answer, none at all.

>>1427199
>Sure if we blindly assume an Aristotelian universe

Its not blindly assumed its very well worked out. Indeed most people blindly reject it for fear of its consequences

>>1427612
We've had this discussion so many times. Radoactive decay refutes it, lacking a trigger and therefore a "self-caused cause" the argument says is impossible.

>>1427634
>Radoactive decay refutes it, lacking a trigger and therefore a "self-caused cause" the argument says is impossible.

Whats the difference between something that lacks a cause and something we do not know the cause of?

>>1427746
Because the cause we don't know about would be at least produce fluctuations that would be statistically detectable,
as oposed to the actual randomness we observe.

>>1427781
>Because the cause we don't know about would be at least produce fluctuations that would be statistically detectable,
as oposed to the actual randomness we observe.

But doesnt that presuppose that our current methods of detection are perfect/incapable of improvement?

>>1427787
Not really. I'm not saying we would he able to specifically identify the trigger, but if such a trigger existed we would be able to detect in the patterns of decay that "something" was causing fluctuations of activity vs a lack of activity. Besides, the physics itself implies that the behaviour of the unstable nuclei is actually random.

The cosmological argument only still works if you ignore all of the physics advances since then.

>>1427794
>Not really. I'm not saying we would he able to specifically identify the trigger, but if such a trigger existed we would be able to detect in the patterns of decay that "something" was causing fluctuations of activity vs a lack of activity. Besides, the physics itself implies that the behaviour of the unstable nuclei is actually random.

But that runs into the same issue, of assuming in >>1427787 how do you tell the difference between no patterns and us simply being unable to perceive them?

>>1425277
Well, I did write one number too much I now realize.

It was supposed to be 300 B.C.

>>1422284
Believing in god would be limiting to my lifestyle of masturbating and spending all day on the computer.

>>1427942
Because there would be unexplainable anomalies. We wouldn't even need to percieve or not percieve patterns, there should just be a spike, any spike in any direction, that wouldn't be predicted by the current understanding. The methods are extremely sensitive and the physics are well documented.

Besides, why not turn it around? We think we see "patterns" of every effect having a cause, but couldn't this just be a local illusion and the reality is that there is none. If you start using this logic to salvage Aquinas in the face of evidence you open yourself up to a lot more.

>>1424858
Hahaha! Wait, you're fucking serious? Hahahah!

I can't understand how anyone can believe in any religion given multiple mutually exclusive religions exist with exactly the same amount of claim to truth

after all this logically means all of them are wrong

Fear of death.

>>1422404
>inb4 zoroastrianism

>>1428230
>after all this logically means all of them are wrong
No it doesn't. It's even worse than that. It means one of them could be right but people who have the right religion just got lucky.

That would indeed be the stupidest fucking universe imaginable, but that wouldn't really surprise me at this point.

>>1426908
ill gladly sacrifice apostrophes for knowing what words actually mean, i mean fucking seriously do you have do you have anarchist democrats there too? what about an adult baby?

>>1427270
But [water] didn't organize [water], chemical occurrences did.

>>1428484
What?

>>1422284
Didn't grow up with religion in my house and since then I've found no compelling reason to believe in god and quite a few compelling reasons to not believe in god.

>>1428507
you said that looking at my post you can say that my country is illiterate and thats probly because i dont use apostrophes and dont spell check and i wont start to bother doing that on a 4chan bait thread


and im also saying that being a christian who doesnt believe in gos is the same as being and adult baby, or and authoritarian anarchist it doesnt exist and the words are the opposites of each other, which makes it a pretty retarded concept if you ask me (or anyone with a full set of chromosomes)

>>1429444

How does someone learn to spell authoritarian anarchist and chromosome but struggle so much with simple words?

>>1423247
>You only know how logic works within our reality
Yo I'm gonna let you finish, but logic as we define it is absolute and works the same in any reality. You can say like the little moron that you are that some other reality doesn't have to adhere our logic, but "how logic works" is the same everywhere, everytime. As defined.

File: ghostly disappointment.png (2KB, 126x108px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 126x108px

>>1422284
I haven't been offered a consistent theory.

Search your heart. This is the entirety of relevant reasoning.

>>1429507
how does someone achieve mental gymnastics like this, i even told you in the post you actually answered i dont spell check and i dont use apostrophes because that would take way more effort htan i want to put in in a bait thread


btw, i really admire your skills of avoiding what i actually said and sticking to petty shit i already said i dont care about, i guess ill just take that as you agreeing to my earlier points points

>>1430430

I'm a different anon. I didn't answer your question because it wasn't directed towards me.

I'm legitimately curious about where you're from and what your primary dialect is.

>>1430438
>I'm a different anon. I'm an even worse shitposter than anyone else in this thread.
well played ser

well

played

>>1430464

I'll just assume suburban Chicago area then.

>>1430438
the dude who answered you wasnt me im from lithuania and i already told you why my spelling sometimes sucks

>>1422284
Idk why people wouldn't want to believe there is a thing out there that created them and loves them and one day everything will perfect. It's a little sad honestly

>>1431043

Probably because for many it's religious equivalent in believing that your father will stop beating you some day and you'll both suddenly have a close relationship.

Damn, my thread exploded. So happy.

Haven't witnessed any scientifically proven evidence of miracles or any supernatural force. That, and how anyone reading into a history of religion will realize that all of them are derived from mythology, stories and legends with very human roots and desires.

>>1432096
That does not mean its wrong.

>>1422284
Because I have no use for god or the philosophical baggage that comes with a personal god.

Just to be clear, I’m not a professional ‘quote maker’. I’m just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.

‘In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

>>1432112
mmh...really makes me think
I am now a #logicmissile

>>1432098
It would technically count out most religions that survived to the modern day though, many of them monotheistic. We'd have to go farther back than is possible in the historical record.

It turns out a single monk in 350 AD in a remote southeast asian village figured out the One True Religion but he died suddenly the next day before he could tell anyone.

All other religions are wrong and we are all going to hell except for that one guy. What a shame. Oh well, that's how the Universe works!

>>1432124
I dont see why you have to go back. Different religions can be an attempt to do the same thing. The better ones remained and the one you are born into is the one you should be concerned with as its is YOUR historical heritage.
There is no first religion or first idea. Its a constant process and part of humans from before they were human.

>>1432139
>>>reddit

>>1432142
>the one you are born into is the one you should be concerned with as its is YOUR historical heritage.
What a provincial concept, we have worldwide communication and the wealth of almost all human knowledge available instantaneously, no reason to ignore it just because of the fate of your birth.

>>1422284
The idea of deities in and of itself doesn't make much sense to me. Deities are these beings which somehow have a stream of consciousness, even though they have no physical body, intelligence, even though they have no brain, and (if you're not a deist) are able to act upon the world even though they have no physical nature. To add to that, everyone takes it as fact that they have volition, a mind, emotions, and similar characteristics without really proving it, and these characteristics just so happen to be ones that are particular to humans and other animals. It seems much more intuitive to me that humans made deities. Einstein put how I feel best:
>"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

Now, an impersonal "god" makes more sense to me, but can you really call it a "god" in the traditional sense?

File: haile selassie.jpg (13KB, 236x306px)

13KB, 236x306px

>>1422424
Go fuck yourself.
Source: Ethiopia

>>1432096
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1951475.html

I don't see a reason to and the idea has always seemed vaguely absurd to me.

>>1435198

>mine finds perfect opportunity to profit off of a dream
>denies religion his entire life but gets to chill in heaven

Okay.

No evidene. It's not logical. I like freedom.

>>1435274
Lolz they're a lot more examples than this and I'm sure a Harvard neurosurgeon doesn't need any more profit

>>1435341

Neurosurgeons make bank, but they also tend to live in expensive areas.

There are also numerous cases of people having NDE and never leaving the room or experiencing nothing at all. As well as people saying they have met an avatar of Vishna.

>>1435354
Of coarse they're aren't. God isn't going to appear to or heal everyone. As for Vishnu it was probably a demon impersonating another God just as I'm sure a lot of nde experiences are

>>1435384

Or maybe Yahweh is a demon and the others are true.

>>1435406
If they are true why don't they appear more often? Over 50% of the healings and miracles I've heard of all come from the Christian God not Muhammad or Santa Claus

>>1435436

>miracles and healing

Fake propaganda

>>1435450
To who? We don't need to prove anything to anyone especially in a time now where people have abandoned God.

>>1435463

>abandoned

Vasy majority have never even heard of the guy.

File: 1460667197488.jpg (102KB, 911x615px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 911x615px

Problem of evil. I could accept a non-creator God like the Gnostics, but I don't see why I should.