To the religous, what would a world without god look like? To

File: IMAGINE NO RELIGION.jpg (124KB, 790x745px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 790x745px

>>1654528
>To the religous, what would a world without god look like?

>>1654528
If by God you mean the Abrahamic God, a world with him in it would probably look like something out of the Old Testament. He'd be getting mad and doing shit constantly. Real unexplainable shit, like people constantly turning into pillars of salt, plagues that only killed first-born sons, and fire reigning down from the heavens.

Not lame
>uhh this natural disaster happened because GOD WAS PUNISHING THE GAYS
type bullshit.

>>1654528
If there was a God, there would be no world.

>>1654528

>implying there ever was/ still is a god

So long as the individual exists, the world will be better off/ worse off.

People claim that things change, but it's still the same shit with a different smell.

There is still war, there is still hate, people who feel dissatisfied with the luxuries they have, and there is still- in a sense, idleness, and we engage in daily rituals to make us feel somewhat accepted or satisfied.

A world, with or without God, would be the same.

>>1654528
>To the religous, what would a world without god look like?

It wouldn't exist.

>>1654742
I found the Taoist

>>1654774
Ok,, but pretend it did
Science has thought of several alternatives, so assume that happened, what would result.

>>1654701
So you're saying there is no god?
got it

>>1654528
>To the non religious, what would a world with God look like?
The world we live in.

File: 1451024578821.jpg (29KB, 317x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 317x357px

>>1655252
care to elaborate?

With Yahweh? Well, he would've probably still disappeared once people became more literate and especially when print/photography came out.

That's just the way he rolls I guess

File: 7709994_f260.jpg (24KB, 260x261px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 260x261px

>a world without God
Probably like it did back in the late pliocene/early pleistocene epoch.

>>1654528
Exactly the same

>>1654831
Thats like asking someone to think of a square circle, it's impossible.

>>1655362
But nobody in the world is able to conceive of a square circle. There are plenty of people walking around who conceive a world without god.

>>1655344
Why would humans be unable to evolve intelligence?
>>1655345
from which perspective?

>>1655371
If God does exist then they don't actually concieve of a world without God, they only deny his existence and not literally reject it.

>>1654528
Pretty sure in a world without God humans would be dead by now. Just because we don't have anybody watching our backs or making sure another cataclysmic level event from occurring. (Like what wiped out the dinosaurs)

Sans that, more homos/pedophiles/goatfuckers/etc, Romans prob would've lasted longer, either more or less science, MUCH more philosophical bullshit, way less religions, a lack of feeling the need for a higher purpose, etc.

Less music, and creativity in general. Less depression, less not knowing who you are, more or less traditions, probably aliens being a thing, much more confidence, more might makes right. Much more morally bad stuff. In general people would feel bad less about existential stuff, be also be more mean.

And much more to come, also, more stupid people. (atheism is linked to autism, and proverbs has a lot to say about people who don't know god and being foolish.)

>>1655687
>>1655362
God has nothing to do with the contradiction in terms of squaring a circle, you dipshit. The lack of imagination christfags have is astounding.

>>1655697
>atheism is linked to autism
If you knew the first thing about autism or religiosity, you'd know this is because autists are socially retarded, and your sky friend lives in the social part of your brain.

>>1655746
Not a "christfag," not everyone who belives in God is a "christfag."

Way to not give an argument at all btw. Just make an assertion, slap an insult in the middle, and hope nobody calls you out.

Anyway, I don't expect to actually convince any atheists that they actually have some sort of "innate beliefe in God," its like trying to convince a vegan eating meat is good and natural for humans to do. It's not possible, you have to realize it on your own.

>>1654528
>what would a world without god look like?
Non-existent

>>1655767
>not everyone who belives in God is a "christfag."
That's where you're wrong, buddy.

>Way to not give an argument at all btw.
The argument is that you made a categorical error. Squaring a circle is a contradiction in definitions. Existence without your sky friend is something that is described by multiple sets of metaphysics and theories, and I didn't see you dismantling a single one of them.

>Anyway, I don't expect to actually convince any atheists
The only thing you need is evidence, buddy. Don't be this defeatist.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 480x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x600px

>>1655746

File: ur mum.png (8KB, 300x500px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x500px

>>1655789

>>1655783
>Existence without your sky friend
Is also a contradiction in terms

>>1655783
>That's where you're wrong, buddy.
I'm not, lol. Unless you are defining christfag as "anyone who beleievs in God"

>Squaring a circle is a contradiction in definitions.
So is God not existing

>the only thing you need is evidence, buddy. Don't be this defeatist
I have evidence, but its not physical evidence as you cannot have physical evidence for a non-physical being so atheists always reject it because they can't understand a non-physical world. Its literally impossible to convince certain people based on how their brains work.

>>1655801
>I'm not, lol. Unless you are defining christfag as "anyone who beleievs in God"
No, it's actually every moron who believes in God.

>I have evidence, but its not physical evidence
I have non-physical evidence that your God is actually evil and made this universe as a prank bro.

>>1655798
>>1655801
>So is God not existing
Is this where you're going to play that retarded word game we all know?

>>1655806
>>>/r/atheism

>>1655808
>>>/x/

>>1655773
See
>>1654831

>>1655810
Why don't you go there, since atheism is basically ghost hunter flat earther tardism

>>1655806
>first reply
So, what about the ones who aren't morons?
>Non-physical evidence
You better not cite your own life.
>last response
eh. Have fun. To me God is a fact of life, gives me peace, helps me think, makes me feel good, etc. I'd engage in this debate myself but it'd be like explaining color to a blind person.
Also, I'm
>>1655697
and it's just mild forms of autism last I checked.

>>1655816
See >>1655362

>>1655817
How blind are you that you can't see how easily I can go "no u" and it make a point?

File: british guy smiling.gif (2MB, 230x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x250px

>>1655817
>telling someone who doesn't believe in supernatural to go to /x/
Now this is really getting pathetic. That's the thing with you christfags, one never knows what you'll say next.

>>1655821
Are Christians incapable of pretend or thought experiments?
Like I said, imagine a reality where the universe was created through natural circumstances. What would result?

>>1655818
>So, what about the ones who aren't morons?
You don't belong to that set, sorry.

>You better not cite your own life.
I'll cite whatever you cite, except in the exact opposite way. And then I'll wait for some valid and sound syllogism - which is not going to come - as to why your bald assertions are right and mine are wrong.

>To me God is a fact of life
So it's just, like, your opinion man? Where's that evidence you said you had? Give me a laugh here, don't leave me hanging.

>>1654528
>IMAGINE

>>1655823
Seriously, if atheism is true then ghosts are real. There is no rational reason not to believe in ghosts.

>>1655827
What would a square circle look like?

>>1655836
>Seriously, if atheism is true then ghosts are real.
Please, go on.

>There is no rational reason not to believe in ghosts.
There's no evidence for them.

>>1655806
You seem a bit angry with me, maybe you should try to calm down first? This isn't that big of a deal.

>I have non-physical evidence that your God is actually evil and made this universe as a prank bro.

Share it m8, I'd love to hear your argument

>Is this where you're going to play that retarded word game we all know

Sigh...

God not existing is a contradiction because by certain metaphysical definitions of God, God is synonymous with being. This is meant in the sense that God exists *more* than anything else than anything else that exists. Therefore it is believed that all things that exist are derived from God, as all things that exist are derived from God's existence.

So a hypothetical that asks what a world would be like without God is like asking what a world without existence would be like. Its impossible to answer.

File: 1448235230979.jpg (122KB, 719x348px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 719x348px

>>1655836
>Seriously, if atheism is true then ghosts are real.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND EXPECT US TO UNDERSTAND

>>1655838
>what would a violation of the law of identity look like
Ask a trinitarian.

File: 2000_sami.png (52KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 2000x2000px

>>1655838
???

>>1655844
>Please, go on.
Without God nothing will stop the souls of the dead from haunting the wicked
>There's no evidence for them.
Atheism is hostile to evidence. It's all about "muh feels" and "gibsmedat". At it's core Atheism is a child in green angst rebellion against parents.

>>1655858
Thats an oval, it has to be a circle. If I were you I would be cautious of potential sea bear attacks

>>1655846
>You seem a bit angry with me
Disgust and befuddlement is more accurate

>Share it m8, I'd love to hear your argument
You first. You did bring up having evidence first, didn't you, there?
>>1655801
>I have evidence
>I have evidence
>I have evidence

> by certain metaphysical definitions of God, God is synonymous with being
"Being" is not the interesting aspect of God, nor what people talk about. We can just ascribe the same quality to the universe itself. But then you know that, don't you.

>>1655864
Here's your (You). Had me going for two posts there, good job.

>>1655870
>no argument
The truth of God prevails yet again!

File: 1427943995111.jpg (44KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 250x250px

>>1655864
>Without God nothing will stop the souls of the dead from haunting the wicked
That is assuming souls exist
They don't btw

>>1655830
>don't belong
Ad hominen.
>I'll cite whatever you cite
Fair enough. I did notice how hypocritical it was to say don't site your own life, then talked about mine.
>that evidence
I didn't say anything about evidence, are you thinking of that other guy? I think he said something of evidence.

File: 2000_sami.png (39KB, 1757x2400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1757x2400px

>>1655865
No
This is an ovel
Learn your shapes!

>>1655875
Prove it

>>1655881
Interestingly enough, it's on you to prove they DO exist.

>>1655878
>Ad hominen.
See, this is what I'm talking about. If you weren't a grade A moron, you'd know the only issue with ad hominems is ARGUMENTATION ad hominem, and I committed no such thing. You clown.

>Fair enough.
So you're just admitting that you have nothing and whatever you say can be said to make an exact opposite point?

> I did notice how hypocritical it was to say don't site your own life, then talked about mine.
I didn't talk about your "life" because I don't presume to know what kind of non-evidence you'll try to throw at me.

>I didn't say anything about evidence, are you thinking of that other guy?
Follow the quote chain, asshat. Either it's you or it's someone else, but if it's in the same quote chain and you busted in on it, it's on you to actually know how the conversation went.

>>1655881
I can't prove a negative.

>>1655866
>"Being" is not the interesting aspect of God
Yes it is, because that's what God is. Are you familiar with the bible verse in which God is asked who is and his response is "I am who I am," thats actualy a poor translation. A better translation of God's answer is "I am that which is."

>nor what people talk about
because when people think of God, they only think of him in the Christian definition, and not the metaphysical. Most atheists have only dealt with shitty christian definitions of God (this is not to say that all christian definitions of God are shitty), which is why many of them become atheists.

>You first. You did bring up having evidence first, didn't you, there?

I did bring up evidence, I stated a metaphysical argument for God and you rejected it. You didn't even consider it evidence, just as I assumed you would.

>>1655887
>>1655889
So if you can't provide evidence against it than doesn't that mean disbelieving in it is irrational?

>>1655898
>I am who I am
In my bible it says I AM THAT I AM

>>1655898
>Yes it is, because that's what God is. Are you familiar with the bible verse in which God is asked who is and his response is "I am who I am," thats actualy a poor translation. A better translation of God's answer is "I am that which is."
You don't seem to follow what I'm saying. Let's play a little game to see if you have the mental chops for this.

Agree or disagree with this statement:
-Mere existence fully describes God as it is believed in by Humans.

>I did bring up evidence, I stated a metaphysical argument for God and you rejected it.
What evidence, defining him into existence?

File: 1460918514515.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>1655901
>So if you can't provide evidence against it than doesn't that mean disbelieving in it is irrational?
Νο?
Its far more irrational to believe in something that you have no proof for.

>>1655907
>Mere existence fully describes God as it is believed in by Humans.
Mere existence fully explains God as it is believed in by Humans.

>>1655916
Do you have anything to say that isn't word soup?

>>1655910
You're not a skeptic if you were you would be asking if existence was an illusion created by a demon to trick you into thinking you exist

>>1655920
?

>>1655879
What you posted was not a circle. For a circle to be a circle, all points on its circumference must be equidistant from the center. What you posted was an oval.

>>1655929
A square is a circle under certain distance metrics. I'm a little rusty on this and can't remember the exact metric used, if there's anybody here who took calc more recently than me, maybe they can help.

>>1655925
You did not answer the question, only changed one word to make the sentence completely nonsensical.

>>1655888
>more ad hominen
You see, you can't keep acting like this is a debate and then say it isn't. If this isn't a debate about God and if he exists, quit asking for evidence, and go do something else.
>Admitting
Eh, basically I thought about baiting and trolling you, but I knew better. Although I don't seem to know better than to hit an already bothered bee hive.
>you didn't talk about my life
Yeah, I talked about my life, right AFTER I said don't talk about yours. That's what I was saying, and it was hypocritical.
>chain
I did, I just figured I'd hop in. That was pm me telling you "I'm not him." You needn't be so on edge all the time.

Anyways, if you really wanna know and talk about God, why don't you attend a church or something?

>>1655916
2 corinthians 4:4
John 12:40
I just keep commenting because it seems I triggered the kid in the first place. I need to sleep soon for physics/math classes in the morning, but a quick question, what are you to accomplish here? Don't you think he's proven himself to be a pig before a pearl? I myself would say the best way to show God to others is through displaying his attributes. errr, nevermind. If I'm correct here you're the one that said you aren't a christfag.

>>1655907
You are pretty condescending and rude despite me beig very respectful this whole time.

>Agree or disagree with this statement:
-Mere existence fully describes God as it is believed in by Humans.
Depends on the human. But God can be defined as "an essence of pure being." Therefore, other things must derive their essence from him as nothing can be derived from something lesser than itself.

>What evidence, defining him into existence?
Yes actually. By definition, God is necessary.

>>1654528

>To the non religious, what would a world with God look like?

Question 1: Which God?

File: TCCircle.b.gif (9KB, 295x290px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 295x290px

>>1655943
>>1655929
I remembered it. A circle using Manhattan distance is a square.

File: 1456797708847.png (26KB, 175x282px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 175x282px

>>1655929
Proves me wrong for trying to out dumb the faithful

>>1655943
>A square is a circle under certain distance metrics. I'm a little rusty on this and can't remember the exact metric used, if there's anybody here who took calc more recently than me, maybe they can help.
You are literally missing the entire point of my argument by trying to prove that there can be a square circle. Who cares? If their can be then its not a contradiction and it is completely irrelevan to my point. My point was "its impossible to concive of a contradiction"

>>1655945
>You see, you can't keep acting like this is a debate and then say it isn't.
Why don't you go actually look at the definition of "ad hominem", you ass clown? Or are you the same clown who couldn't get what it is a month ago?

>Eh, basically I thought about baiting and trolling you, but I knew better.
No, actually, it doesn't seem you did. Fuck off.

>>1655924
Existence could be a floating brain hallucinating everything ever.
That is unlikely though, and when I die I doubt existence will cease.
I go for what is most likely

>>1655951
The true God

>>1655969
Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala?

I'm an atheist. If there were a omnibenevolent God, there would just be heaven.

>>1655974
Maybe this is heaven, prove its not

>>1655969
prashansa krshna?

>>1655977
If this is heaven why am I suicidal?

>>1655948
> But God can be defined as "an essence of pure being."
Anything can be defined as anything. You don't seem to understand that terms have baggage associated with them. If you use the word "God", you better use it at least in vague terms that correspond to the baggage, otherwise you're being disingenuous. The term "God" INVARIABLY includes conscience and agency, which is NOT merely "pure being".

If you're simply talking about existence and calling it "God", I struggle to see any point to this other than clinging to some cultural association with god-beliefs and the fear of being shunned by your social circle, which actually DOES believe in the magical man in the sky.

>Yes actually. By definition, God is necessary.
By definition, anything that is defined as existing is necessary. Look at this hocus pocus now - The universe is necessary because it is pure existence!

Now you can get back to the thought experiment posed by the OP, quit being a retard, and actually engage in it.

File: 19380.jpg (18KB, 220x350px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x350px

>>1655977
lol. Maybe this is heaven--the best of all possible worlds.

>>1655985
Because of your fedora

>>1655963
I'm not missing anything, the fact of the matter is that I squared your circle and you can fuck off until you come back with a less tired and trotted out way to argue for skydaddies.

>>1655997
But I'm religious
Just severely depressed

>>1655989
>The term "God" INVARIABLY includes conscience and agency,
Correct. The more something exists, the more aware it is of its own existence.

>which is NOT merely "pure being".
Are you sure? You seem to be confident that you understand the nature of "pure being," when in fact you probably view it as something simialr to your own consciousness, when it is actually far beyond that.

>If you're simply talking about existence and calling it "God"
Again, I think you aren't really grasping what I mean by pure being, its not soemthing thats easy to comprehend, some would even say its impossible.

>>1656000
You did miss the point, asshole. And now I am mad at you because you completely ignored what I said. If a square circle can exist then it is not a contradiction. Prove a contradiction and then we will talk. Protip: [spoiler]you can't[/spoiler]

>>1655985
Idk but that technically doesn't prove this isn't heaven. What I meant by "this world might be heaven" is that "this world might be the best possible world that can be created." I personally think that this isn't heaven but haven't gotten around to actually proving heaven exists. Anyway, I hope you feel better anon

File: 1445197624811.jpg (156KB, 692x743px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 692x743px

>>1656051
>>1655362
>>1655821
You guys
Tell me what the fuck a square circle has to do with anything?
How does that have anything to do with god existing?
Are you just telling yourselves that so you don't HAVE to think about it? Because it is possible, you are just pretending it isn't. Trust me I have done it multiple times.

>>1656061
Did you read my post? It has nothing to do with God existing, my argument is this:

1. Its impossible to concive of a contradiction
2. God not existing is a contradiction by definition, note that this is NOT by your typical christian definition of God
3. OPs post is silly because its asking people to think of a contradiction

>>1656051
>Correct. The more something exists, the more aware it is of its own existence.
Is this "statements pulled out of ass general"? Mere existence is not the only fucking prerequisite for awareness. A rock can exist in as many dimensions and for as long as you like, if there's no information processing then there's no awareness.

>Are you sure? You seem to be confident that you understand the nature of "pure being,"
Considering I know what the term "pure" and "being" mean, I basically view it as simply being. However you can redefine it as you like and think you have a point that way.

>Again, I think you aren't really grasping what I mean by pure being, its not soemthing thats easy to comprehend, some would even say its impossible.
Are YOU grasping what you mean by it, or are you, again, just throwing word soup at me?


>You did miss the point, asshole.
No, I didn't. I showed that there's a flaw in your terminology, just as there is with calling your skydaddy "pure being" and thinking that this is some proof of existence. Without even knowing what the term means, for fuck's sake this is retarded.

>>1656072
>God not existing is a contradiction by definition
May I ask how?
Because that is in no way self evident.

>>1656076
I was right all along then, because you cannot concive of things existing more or less than what you observe with your five senses, and therefore my arguemnt will never convince you of God's existence.

A rock is purely matter and energy, it does not have a sould like you and me and therefore actually exists less than we do.

Similarly, we exist less than God.

And also, that point where I was saying you did miss the point wasn't een in response to the same argument.

>>1656082
Holy crap not again, I just spent the entire thread explaining this and I assume you will come to the exact same conclusion as the other anon(which is that I am crazy or stupid) if I explain it again.

>>1656105
Tell me in 5 sentences or less

>>1656109
God is pure being, therefore other beings are derived from God. Since all things are derived from God, nothing else exists without God. Therefore asking me to think of a world without God is the same as asking me to think of a world that does not exist. This arguemnt only makes sense though if you already beleive in God beforehand

>>1656118
>Since all things are derived from God,
That's the question I wanted the awnser for and you didn't give it to me.
Why and how are all thing from god?

File: neanderthal-burial_sq-04f54e73df05056fd42768c9e134059e85ebc2a4.jpg (2MB, 2141x2141px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2141x2141px

>>1655635
Not intelligence, just organization.

>>1656130
Because nothing can create something greater than itself. What I mean by this is that all things must be brought into existence by something that exists more than it. For example, a human can make bread but bread cannot make humans. Or maybe a better example is you cannot take apart the peices of a bread and make it into a bigger loaf of bread. Therefore there must exist something that "exists" the most (in other terms, has the most being) for other things to derive their existence from.That is what we call God. The being that exists the most.

Now I know what you are thinking, "who created God then?" Well, God has always been. I can explain how God has always been as well but that would take a lot longer.

>>1656146
Oh I forgot an important distinction: just becuase everything is dervied from God does not mean that everything is derived directly from God.

>>1656146
>Because nothing can create something greater than itself.
Well that's wrong
A human can make another human, it's call birth.
Bread is made from yeast, not humans, yeast is much simpler than the grain that's inflaring it.
A seed can make a tree, if you understand evolution as fact, then thats all about thing making things better than themselves through natural selection.
A simple collection of hydrogen atoms colliding can pull planets like earth together and make it birth life.

>>1656158
You are misunderstanding my use of the word "greater." I mean it in the sense that a matter cannot create souls.

Of course matter cna create other matter

>>1656164
But souls don't exist.

>>1656174
And if you really believe souls or God don't exist then of course you won't understand my argument either

>>1656177
Then define a soul.
What is a soul.
How can you prove souls exist?

>>1656179
I'm way too exhausted now, I have been debating with people itt for over two hours and I feel like my arguments are meaningless since I can't convince anyone. Not because they are wrong, but because atheists and theists will literally fight until the end of earth to get their points across and will still disagree by the end.

The argument for the existence of souls is also completely different from the arguemnt for God and will take like another hour

>>1656196
See ya then.
Hope I made ya think

>>1656097
>i was right all along
Good to know you're abandoning point by point argumentation because you can't directly respond to even half of what I'm saying.

>can't conceive
Yes I can, you're just not giving me WHAT to conceive. You're talking in unspecific vagueries at best.

>souls
Literally no reason to believe they exist. Other than wishful thinking.

>>1656203
Thank you for at least not being disrespectful like (some) people in this thread.

>>1656207
Hey man I have to go to sleep, its 2am here and I can hardly think, but it was interesting talking to you. I only ask that you try to at least respect other peoples beliefs next time instead of calling them "disgusting" or whatever.

>>1656223
>it's 2pm for the christfag
how unexcepted, it was a dumb american all along

>>1656289
Case and point: you're a huge dick. It doesn't matter what your arguemnt is, continue to act like this and nobody will ever care what you have to say.

Goodbye

>>1654528
That's like asking me what a car would look like without those responsible for its invention. It's an absurd question that must be left at: nothing because it would not exist.

>>1656292
emotion =\= argument

fuck off buttblasted christfaggot burger

>>1656294
???
That shows how uncreative you are. Maybe the "car" wouldn't exist but I'm sure SOME form of automobile would or could have. Like one with three wheels, or 6. Infact, there were multiple inventers of the automobile

>>1656294

A car doesn't reproduce itself. Your comparison makes zero sense

File: manhunt-toad.jpg (44KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 420x420px

>>1656321
Yes, my countrymen are incredibly autistic. Sorry for what they did to you, Mr. European.

I hope one day we can sort out our differences when Trump becomes president.

>>1654701
Hitler wasn't an atheist. The SS had to swear to god when they took the oath of entry. The oath involved talking shit about atheists.

>>1654528
Without god? A structured universe that grows from a simple set of fundamental laws.

With god? A structured universe that grows from a simple set of fundamental laws, but sometimes those laws mean nothing because a jelly god thought that tower you built was too big so fuck you you son of a bitch. E=m whatever the fuck I want it to be BITCH!?

>>1656141
This one is interesting, but the organization from religion actually started pretty late into our cultural history. It serves more to unite and organize empires than it does to organize a village or city. It's kind of like a banner to tell strangers that you're following the same general rules they are.

The issue is though, the question isn't without religion, false religions happen all the time. It's without god. So people could have organized under religions for gods that weren't real, just like they do now. Unless you believe every single god ever is real.

>>1656164
A few questions about souls:

1. Does your soul move on and retain you in entirety. Intelligence, personality, etc...

2. If it does, what is the purpose of the brain? If it doesn't then what's the point of afterlife shenanigans?

3. Does the soul represent you at your time of death?

4. With things like syphilis and dimentia, that fundamentally alter the function of the brain permanently, is the soul then crazy?

5. Can the soul mimic the entire functionality of the body?

6. What is the point of a double body?

7. Why can we find no evidence of it? We can observe a lot of crazy shit about our universe but not souls.

>>1656556
He was a godless anti-Christ Islam-admiring occultist.

>>1655801
Don't you realise the difference between what is mathematically correct and what's down to belief? The circle is right there in front of you, unlike God, who has so many depictions, so many faces, and nothing concrete to support his existence. Atheists sincerely wouldn't exist if there were undoubtably proof of God existing.
If you genuinely can't imagine the world existing without God, thus meaning you believe God to be the only reason for existence, I feel sorry for you. Were you just brought up this way or what?

>>1655818
In short, your sky friend makes you feel good since you wouldn't like to face a world with no meaning.

>>1655836
what the FUCK

>>1655846
So you're one of those faggots who knows that God most likely isn't real, so instead of using your intuition and direction, you go in for the "God is synonymous with being" shite that's more metaphorical than anything.

>>1655864
What if I told you...the soul isn't real?

>>1654528
The world wouldn't even even exist

>>1655881
Prove they exist, please.

>>1657027
We've talked about this
>>1655827

>To the religous, what would a world without god look like?

same as it does now. being religious does not make you impervious to the sociosymbolic effects of the enlightenment. a religious person is just a nonreligious person that goes to church. there is no "religious worldview" left in the west, there's just "religious identity" like any other personal idiosyncrasy: she's vegan, he's gay, they're baptists. the most rabid fundamentalist first has to implicitly admit the sociosymbolic primacy of science before he can lobby for the replacement of "godless" science of evolution with the "godly" science of creationism. authentic belief is no longer an option.

>>1654528
>World without God
Nothing, considering he's the one that shaped everything into being.

>World without God, ignoring the above
Something very primal and animalistic. Creatures ruled by instincts, no evolutionary path towards thought we'd consider human. Worlds forged in the fires of suns, life springing up in highly rare occurrences, first resembling prokaryotes, then moving forward.

It would be a complex system somewhat like a machine, things ruled by their behaviors and needs. Some might say we're just like that, but humanity is just a bit too "off" to call the same as beasts, we make all sorts of bad decisions that run counter to our programming.

>>1657381
You literally just discribed how earth works besides "humans are special"
Animals make bad dicisions all the time, many of them end up dying is all.

>>1656985
No I was not, I was raised in a liberal home and my mother is an atheist. Did you read my argument? My assertion is that it is actually inpossible to full-on reject the existence of God, and that atheists are simply deniers of truth. God can not be seen, heard, or felt under normal conditions because he is not a physical entitity.

>>1656586
I'm sorry, but the nature of souls is really not my specialty.

>>1657019
God is the most real thing in this universe my friend. My "metaphores" are actually "metaphysics," maybe you should do some research in ancient philosophy before making rediculous claims

>>1654831
Scientific alternatives, not metaphysical alternatives. If you're a theist then you think God is the first cause, and that an acausal universe is impossible. Some of the actually smart atheist philosophers (not internet Fedoras/New Atheists) have tried to provide a metaphysical basis for reality without a first cause, but theists find these arguments lacking.