Why aren't you atheist?

Because I'm not anything. All of this is fake.

>>1834853
sorry im in the cult of penis

I don't hate God.

Why do you think you're an atheist?

>>1834853

Because I have seen God with my own eyes. I would post a picture, but this is a blue board.

>>1834853
Because I prefer my brain un-pick axe-ified.

Can you prove that God isn't real?

>>1834865
Atheists don't either
>>1834889
lol
>>1834901
What?
>>1834927
Burden of proof is on you

>>1834954

>Burden of proof is on you

[citation needed]

>>1834971
"God exists" is a positive claim, burden of proof is on you ;)

>>1834981
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

Here you go

>>1834986
>Fifth way: things happen consistently, therefore intelligence

Lel. Nah.

>>1834981

>"God exists" is a positive claim, burden of proof is on you ;)

[citation needed]

Agnostic, bothers me you cant prove it either way.

>>1834867
Not OP, but while I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no god, I do dismiss the claim that there is a god as unreasonable.

This position is typically referred to as atheism. One might argue that this is a form of agnosticism, but arguing over what to label it does not do anything worthwhile.

>>1834988
Did you even read what it said?
Otherwise you're strawmanning.

>>1835003
Yeah

>>1834986
Some of these depend upon axioms that I would not agree upon and none of them explain the final leap to how the things, such as a first cause, are God as understood by Christians or even as an intelligent being.

>>1835002
/thread

>>1834997
Is "[citation needed]" not itself a claim? If it is a claim, would it not need justification itself to be taken seriously?

>>1834954
>Burden of proof is on you

So you couldn't come up with anything?

I've transcended the "atheist/agnostic/theist" trichotomy.

>>1835082
No you didn't special snowflake

>>1834927

>>1834954
>Burden of proof is on you

This is probably why. So much projection in atheism, the culture was just annoying.

>>1835089
I've also transcended the "true/false" dichotomy, so whether or not I have, in fact, "truly" transcended the "atheist/agnostic/theist" trichotomy is irrelevant.

>>1834986
How the fuck can someone be so retarded?
Do you actually believe any those shit tier claims are proof? What sort of a Christfag cuck are you?

>>1834986
Radioactive decay occurs without an "actual" external trigger. Uncaused events may be impossible in a universe operating under classical mechanics, but we do not live there.

>>1834853
I have faith that a deity exists.

>>1834853
because im not a communist

File: 1447403735895.png (334KB, 499x481px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 499x481px

>>1834853
>why arent you atheist?
>posts a jew

>>1834927
NTG, but the state of the world precludes an omniscient, benign, and omnipotent deity.

Now, there could exist one that is some combination of any of the two of the above, or just a very powerful being short of any or all of the above. However, the lack of any evidence of interference with the line of cause and effect, does rather suggest that if any such power exists, it's been hands off since at least the dawn of time, or is doing its damndest to make it appear as such.

...and, if one is to assume design, this place looks like it was designed by a bureaucratic committee holding of none of the three, with a total inability to agree on anything, beyond a few core mechanical principles, which they seem to have slaved themselves to.

But, toss logic out the window, and anything goes. I'm god, you're god, Butterfly Dash is god, who the fuck knows, at that point may as well just join the UU and say, "Your guess is as good as mine."

>>1835104
Probably more of an accomplishment to enter the true/false dichotomy, than to transcend it - which is, sadly, more or less the default human condition.

>>1835001
This. By declaring no religious beliefs on the grounds of what is and isn't scientically possible, Atheists are in fact following a dogma akin to the religions they profess to have no association with. Agnostics on the other hand, by claiming it is impossible to determine the existance or lack of existance of a "God(s)" at this time, are taking the higher ground. An agnostic see's no reason to scoff at a person who believes in a God or Gods, and should instead be very curious as to the nature of religions; how they originate, their astrological associations and so on.

TLDR: Atheist = turbo autists/babies first idependent thought

Agnostic = transcended autist/old man at peace

>>1834853
I look at creation and it humbles me to be honest. The symmetry of it all, down to the very atoms of physical reality. It's so well established and here I am able to witness, with full knowledge I myself did not make any of this. I'm a baby mechanic in comparison, I could melt some metal down sure, make some gears and figure out mechanisms, but the mechanisms of life it self....beyond me.

Then you have the engineering perspective of the emotional spectrum. The concept of love, I didn't make that either, it exists as an option for me to choose as the concept of love. The concept of love, along with everything else around me, was pre-made in advance for me, for us.

The humility that brings, I try to never forget that even though I get baited into self contentedness at moments, I will fight tooth and nail if I'm forced to, to remember the humility that the vastness of all things produces.

As for God, I'm fully comfortable in believing that there is something out there that not only knows more than I will ever know, see further than I will ever see, but I'm comfortable in believing He also knows exactly what He's doing...even in my moments of darkness and confusion, where I'm plagued to my bones with questions that stem from hidden subtle fears, which become over-bearing fears when they're discovered and their subtle nature becomes emphasized and no longer subtle.

I'm not offended that I'm not the center of it all, even though sometimes I might wish I was, but when I see the problems and burden of being perceived remotely authoritative, on even the most petty or random or pointless concept or topic, the pressure to be correct because if not, I may have mislead or lied to, all due to the vast amount that's out there that I don't know....It's okay if I'm not the center of it all.

>>1835002
I get you don't want to be labeled with just another "ism", but that is kind of why Agnostic(ism) sprung up in the first place. Some intelligent people got tired of playing the "defend your ism" game and choose the path of "fuck it, arguing is pointless either way". Atheism is the argument for the non-existance of God(s), it doesn't leave that up in the air.

Alternatively, you can just say I'm a non-brainwashed human open to the possibility of things not yet proven by conventional wisdom, but that may get you a few odd glances/hat tips.

>>1834853
>why aren't you atheist
because I'd rather not be depressed

>>1836033
dumb theist

>>1834986
Pretty much no contemporary philosopher takes Aquinas arguments seriously

>>1835917
>it is impossible to determine the existance or lack of existance of a "God(s)" at this time

Prove this statement

File: trotsky 2.jpg (204KB, 600x828px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 600x828px

>>1834853

>Why aren't you atheist?
>Posts a jew

???

>>1835917
for the last time, agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive
gnostic<>agnostic
theist<>atheist

>>1834853

Why would I deny the source of my existence, the source of life and the world? Doesn't make sense to me.

If we suppress knowledge of our Origin we also lose sight of our Purpose, life becomes meaningless, nothing is satisfying, truth and morality disappear and people can never reach their full potential and become fully human, they end up behaving like animals and sometimes worse.

So I'm not an atheist because it goes against my reason and my intuition and certain 'divine' experiences I've had... and because it drains life of an origin and a purpose.

I'm not edgy enough to be an athiest

>>1836376

What does this even mean? It sounds like you are an atheist but refuse to call yourself one because if memes.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (35KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1280x720px

St. Anslem's Ontological Argument is pretty decent, but tricky to understand.

Once you understand who you are talking about you'll see God exists by definition, existence is his essence, like the number 2 is even by definition.

>>1836474
too bad kant already disproved it

>>1834954
Trotsky had his brain smashed open with a pick Axe.

File: hhh.jpg (8KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 231x218px

>>1836499

>philosopher
>proving or disproving anything

Because of something secondary to atheism, which isn't the disbelief itself (since no one can really know any of this, making pretty much any answer correct), but this cult of reason nonsense, where God seems to have been replaced by reason as some omnipotent, infallible source of knowledge.

That's why I like David Hume much more than Richard Dawkins, because at least he's consistent

>>1834853
I don't hate or deny God/religion; just believe in the Path of Sincerity. As long as you're doing the right thing, and are 'sincere'. God has your back.

>A certain person said, "In the Saint's mausoleum there is a poem that goes :

>"If in one's heart
>He follows the path of sincerity,
>Though he does not pray
>Will not the gods protect him?"

>What is this path of sincerity?"

>A man answered him by saying, ''You seem to like poetry. I will answer you with a poem.

>As everything in this world is but a sham,
>Death is the only sincerity.

>It is said that becoming as a dead man in one's daily living is the following of the path of sincerity."
>-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, The Hagakure

>"Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm."
> —Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11

>"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

>>1836571
>i've never heard of logic

>>1836571
If philosophers can't prove anything, why the fuck are you citing St. Anselm? Retard

>>1834853
Because of arbitrary definitions of theism that put me in the categories of either atheism or pantheism. It's all dumb and gay, I'm a religious naturalist.

>>1834853

MORALITY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEJ_dtN0QO8

atheists don't actually care about the creation mythology itself but the values entwined with the faith

>>1836716

never said St. Anslem proved anything though, his argument is just a sort of support or nudge to get you thinking about God and 'existence' in a different way

anyway Kant didn't even read Anslem's Proslogion, Kant attacked Descarte's ontological argument. But the two are different and Kant's attack doesn't apply to Anslems although people assume it does and they misapply it.'

File: 1471854250096.png (273KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 450x450px

>>1836805
>morality

Top spook.

File: gg.jpg (8KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x224px

>>1836871

>right and wrong are spooks
>it's wrong to be spooked!

>>1836912
>it's wrong to be spooked!
Wew, when did I say that.

Personally I wouldn't want to be spooked because it would limit my freedom but feel free to be as spooked as you want. Just don't expect it to be a compelling argument.

File: stirner.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

>>1836912

>right and wrong are completely objective and immutable
>by the way, when the Bible says I should do stuff I don't like, it was a metaphor all along!

Check Your local voting registration.

Niggers in Newark NJ and Hillary are making their move as we speak.

I repeat, Niggers are challenging, This is the moment we have lustered for years!!!

Go to USA.GOV and see!
This needs to go down! call the cops when You find anything wrong!!!

File: dib.jpg (8KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 262x192px

>>1836916

>long-winded way of saying it's wrong to be spooked

>>1836932
>Bible says I should do stuff I don't like

becoming illuminated is a struggle, yep

>>1836981

Tell that to the homeless people you feed

Oh wait, you've probably never done that and never will

>>1836973
>I wouldn't want to do it
>Therefore I'm making a moral claim

I don't like coke therefore I don't want to drink it. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to drink coke I just wouldn't want to do it.

>>1834986
>something must be the biggest thing
>I can think of no bigger thing than God
>God must be real
Babby logic

>>1834853
I am but as long as I'm officially registered as a christian I get a weekly newspaper for free.

File: large.jpg (32KB, 461x461px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 461x461px

>>1836987

>spooks are just preference man, like apples and oranges, not a big deal

cool, I guess Stirner ranted against communism, morals, and the State for nothing; some people like Zelda others like Final Fantasy.

File: jewin.jpg (4KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 160x160px

>>1836991

>straw man

jewish logic

>>1837024
Spooks aren't a preference, spooks are spooks and that's an immutable fact. However making a declaration on whether spooks are right or wrong would itself be a spook.

> I guess Stirner ranted against communism, morals, and the State for nothing;
If you ever read Stirner you'll notice he's not very into prescribing what you should do but rather describing things as they are.

Of course if you accept his analysis you might think and/or behave differently. But fundamentally you'd also have to realize that what you do with this information is up to you. Nothing could be more alien to Stirner than just aggressively parroting what he believed and calling yourself a Stirnerist or something.

File: 4RYUWBn.gif (372KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 400x240px

>>1837043
>that's an immutable fact
>I believe in an unchanging, objective truth aka a "fixed idea"
>"what is a "fixed idea"? An idea that has subjected the man to itself." - Stirner

you're spooked.

>>1836871

>he fell for the spook meme

>>1837107

Yeah, really. He should have just call spooks a metaphor, christcucks always buy that excuse

>>1834853
atheists are ghey

>>1837132

well I guess that's it.
/thread

all we need is a picture of that Fat banana-anus fedora Man

>>1837154

Ahh.

You mean that big fat religious dude that complains about being called an atheist on Facebook.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bradesposito/jerry-messing?utm_term=.isoMq58nV#.eqOWMZXLy

File: atheists.webm (606KB, 291x229px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 291x229px

atheist world-view makes no sense

File: 1475228693745s.jpg (8KB, 249x231px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 249x231px

>>1837165
>buzzfeed

>>1837181

I would hardly consider it a good source for anything serious but it's fine for shitposting memes.

You can Google Jerry Messing's facebook posts on the subject last time I checked anyway.

>>1837107
>>I believe in an unchanging, objective truth aka a "fixed idea"
You do realize that egoism is grounded in a strictly materialist view of the universe?

Stirner's philosophy wasn't just
>lol bro can't kno nuffin
Some things simply are true. [word] meaning [word] being one of those things.

>>1837222
>You do realize that egoism is grounded in a strictly materialist view of the universe?
>materialism is the immutable, objective Truth

nope, he wasn't spooked, that's just you.

>>1837242

Oh, you've got him there.

Luckily, I recently heard that materialism is just a metaphor, so he doesn't have to care about it at all and can completely ignore it when it doesn't suit him. Lucky him

>>1837242
>>materialism is the immutable, objective Truth
It is though. Recognizing that materialism is the state of the universe is as much as an immutable objective truth as it is that the sky is blue.

These are not spooks, these are observations.

File: 1473693098196.jpg (41KB, 630x394px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 630x394px

>>1837271
>doubling-down on your spook

WINNING

File: heretic.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>1837171

The Pope says evolution is not incompatible to being a Christian.

Are you just being a tardy heretic prottie though?

>>1837445
Not an argument.

>>1837591
The pope is a fucking heritic. The Bible makes it very clear that we were created.

>>1837271
>objective Truth
Capital T Truth is a spook, yes. However, there are things that exist, and true and false statements. Gravity is not a spook.

>>1837591

>evolution

the point is bigger than evolution, more like the totality of the universe....

File: 13412012_946148988830623_3156374156025175178_o.jpg (250KB, 2048x1441px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 2048x1441px

>>1837621

The bible also makes it clear that:

Ecclesiastes 1:5

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

I'm pretty sure the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around lad. Unless you think Galileo was a heretic after all.

>>1837028
I summarized Aquinas perfectly. How is that a straw man? Or Jewish?

>>1834853
Because i'm not a fucking communist

>>1837656
>I'm pretty sure the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around lad
The Bible does not distinctly advocate geocentrism and both the majority of those that wrote it as well as other ancient peoples knew the earth revolved around the sun.

>>1834853
I don't know if I'm an atheist.

>>1837753

Ok. So you mean the Bible shouldn't be taken literally then?

I mean Genesis says god created a firmament in the heavens.

"Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day."

So where is this firmament?

>>1837808
In ur heart

>>1837819

So its a metaphor then?

>>1837753
>The Bible does not distinctly advocate geocentrism and both the majority of those that wrote it as well as other ancient peoples knew the earth revolved around the sun.

Lol, just lol.

How can anyone even believe that?

>>1837808
>"Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day."
What did it mean by this?

>>1837889

>The word "firmament" is used to translate raqia, or raqiya` ( רקיע), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqa ( רקע), meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[5][6]

>Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

> The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

File: Origen-vs-Ken-Ham.jpg (94KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 620x696px

>>1837808

Origen was an early Christian Church Father.
Compare him to modern protestant Ken Ham

>>1837902
Yeah, so what's it supposed to be a metaphor for?

File: 1084.jpg (41KB, 508x338px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 508x338px

>>1837808
It's religion/mythology and like anyother religion/mythology there's shit the ancient knew in there/science; then there's wild mythological shit. Taking things out of context and relying on the Bible for actual scientific knowledge instead of seeing there's some shit anceints knew in there but otherwise this is meant to have a religious purpose/be fictional is like me relying on those weird otherworldy passages from the Lotus Sutra to exactly detail waht other dimensions are like and what happens after death.
>>1837830
>Lol, just lol.
>How can anyone even believe that?
Based on historical proof and research detailing that ancient people weren't backwards dipshits. We're on a history board, you should know that by now.

>>1837903
>Compare him to modern protestant Ken Ham
K.

>human race is 6000 years old
Origen: Yes
Ken Ham: Yes

>global flood
Origen: Yes
Ken Ham: Yes

>Noah's Ark
Origen: Yes
Ken Ham: Yes

>tower of babel
Origen: Yes
Ken Ham: Yes

>firmament
Origen: Yes
Ken Ham: No

>geocentrism
Origen: Yes
Ken Ham: No

Wow, looks like he took the bible quite literally, even more than Ken Ham in some places.

>>1837930
You're on a history board, so you should know by now not to group all "ancient people" into a singular monolith.

>>1837930

Well the ancient Hebrews believed in firmament and celestial spheres.

There were some Greek (and to that extent Romans that learned from them) that did believe in round earth and correct orbital bodies but Ptolemy was a firm supporter of the Geocentric theory.

Which the Christians latched onto as the Bible quotes seemed to support that.

Not saying all ancient people's were tarded but some of them really lacked in scientific knowledge.

File: 1473246816172.jpg (910KB, 2528x1820px) Image search: [Google]

910KB, 2528x1820px

>>1834853
I don't want to be associated with these guys

just look at them

File: 1476251208138.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

>>1834927
>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

>>1837973
>group all "ancient people" into a singular monolith.
>>1837999
>but some of them really lacked in scientific knowledge.
I both know and do concede these