At what age did you grow out of atheism?

How can you grow out of logic and common sense?

>>2405688
OP said atheism, not Christianity.

16

Conception, in other words the exact moment the sperm and egg which would become me combined.

>>2405683
22 after my best friend dropped dead in his dormm room playing gtaV on his 21st bday from an unknown heart condition.

If I didnt believe, why was I angry at god?

>>2405713
That's a good way to die

Around 18~20 when I stopped being edgy and realized there is more to life.

>>2405706
Ditto

>>2405717
looking back yea. It was instant. He had just had dinner and drinks few hours before with friends and family.

Could have been worse. I just wish his roommatehadn't been 10ft away. Whole experience got to him

>>2405683
Converts to religion typically experience some desperate hardship and crave a regulatory emotional experience.

To say you "outgrew" Atheism means something convinced you to adopt a religion. It could be anything, a traumatic experience or some intense social obligation. People only believe what they feel based on their life events.

>>2405742
this
most midlife converts to any religion are total losers and lonely aging people

>>2405742
>revelatory
fucking typos

>>2405756
Yes, sadly that's it.

>>2405713
WASTED

>>2405724
Double post: Accepted Christ at age 5 on Yom Kippur. No one pressed me into it, or even confronted me directly about the subject. I just woke up and knew what I believed, so I asked my parents to show me the way.

>>2405683
The...Same...Fucking...Thread....

>>2405742
Tips, tips TIIIPS, how's that fedora of yours doing?

>>2405683
16 when I discovered /pol/ and got redpilled >:]

24 when i realized evolution is a myth.

it's sad that children are still being brainwashed into that cult, it's the main reason why people become atheists in the first place.

fun fact: if you're an atheist and believe in darwinism, you never left religion. you simply changed religion.

>>2405683
999

>>2405819
We get it grandpa.

>>2405742
I started believing when God revealed Himself to me and gave me gnosis so I could go to heaven.

Before you answer: the only mental illness here is the one your mother had since apparently she cared so much for one of her diarrhea discharges she fed it and gave life to it so you could exist.

18

>>2405683
Born Christian
Atheist during my edgy phase
At 18 became a non-theist.

>>2405843
u sound mad af

>>2405688
Found the atheist

>>2405819
This.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0 video series changed my life.

Around my early 20s.

>>2405683
17

>>2405819
>24 when i realized evolution is a myth.
Could you please elaborate on how evolution is a myth? I'm a Catholic but I still accept evolution as fact because one can literally prove evolution in a month with a pétri dish and a bacterial culture.

>>2406105
>Evolution + Catholic
Oh boy now you've done it.

File: IMG_0446.jpg (84KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 768x576px

>>2406122

File: fedora meme.jpg (266KB, 1170x720px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1170x720px

>>2405683
I'm 55, last week I was a diehard Secular Humanismist and Evolutionist, but a Christian posted a fedora meme and I was so overwhelmed by shame and guilt that I renounced Darwin and converted to Southern Baptistism on the spot.

Now I make sure to post as many memes as possible every day, in the hopes that others may experience the same life-changing power I felt. I consider posting memes on 4chan to be my humble way of giving thanks to God.

>>2406105
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>>2406177
same thing happened to me last week

>>2405974
ohhh congratulations

22. I realized that science pointed towards a created universe and that all Dawkins and Hitchens were doing was desperately trying to hide the evidence

>>2405683
19

Like 16, when I read Plato and Descartes

>>2405683
Never been an atheist, been agnostic, but not atheist. Too many personal experiences at a very young age for me to say there wasn't something out there, that there isn't something beyond death.

>>2406177
>atheist who is slowly realizing his movement is becoming nothing but a meme

>>2405683
18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU

Ateists hae a ugly habit of expecting others to prove things to them.
Well guess what, faggot, maybe the true religion doesnt reward recruiting but rather continuous spiritual practice and maybe people think that they dont owe you shit to trouble themselves convincing you.
You are not my responsibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

These exposed the lies of evolutionist Atheists to me and showed me the light.

15

File: christcucks 3.jpg (148KB, 800x963px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x963px

>>2405683

When I was 19 I grew out of atheism and became a "cultural Christian"

After a few years I realised that cucktianity is not compatible with my political and philosophical beliefs and it is a cancer than must be eradicated

File: 1385167349225.jpg (99KB, 900x1344px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x1344px

>>2410025
>new earth creationists are arguments vs theism

This is why atheists are so hated

>>2405683

le edgy atheist until 20
ambivalent until 22
firmly agnostic at 23
theist at 24

making my way through the christian canon currently (24)

I was about 21 or 22

>>2405713
>muh I believe in god now because health problems still exist

There are four levels:
>1. being born into christianity and going with the flow (or atheism, if so skip to level three)
>2. blindly rejecting it and becoming an athiest while you rebel against your parents and society
>3. realizing everyone else is an athiest too, and therefore feeling the need to be different and identify as a christian for contrarian points (you are here)
>4. realizing that while christianity has cultural and moral value, it's obviously not true, and although it is possible for a god to exist, it's not the christian one (agnosticism, aka enlightenment)

>>2405683
15.

I cant believe in things without proofs, sorry. Citation needed for the existence of god

>>2405766
Too soon

>>2405843
Top zozzle

>>2410262
that's really not it at all.

We were both raised Catholic but we just couldn't buy into it.

We became edgy teenage atheists but gradually just became agnostic after realizing we didn't agree with religion, not the idea of God.

When he died I was angry at God even if I didn't fully believe. That night I was watching tv and a character in some show had something similar happen and his friend asked him "how can you be mad at something if you don't believe it exists?"

It was jut a coincidence but it stuck with me all the same. I'm no bible-thumping born again Christian, but I'm not an atheist anymore

>>2410400
Personally I've never been an atheist just an agnostic.

>>2410400
Just because it feels better to be able to blame something rather than nothing. Doesn't inherently mean there is a big Other or a God.

>>2406105
No, you believe evolution is a fact because your priest told you it was a fact.

>>2410355
>I cannot detect the universe, the post.

>inb4 hurr durr it just came from nothing.

>>2410427
>We don't really know how the universe started.
>Musta been Yahweh

>>2410439

>believing a transcendent, incomprehensible entity created the universe is somehow considered less rational than believing lmao we dunno aahahahhaha but i 100% know for a fact it wasn't god :')

>>2410427
So where does the existence of a god come into play with the formation of tge universe?

>>2410446
What made god then?

>>2410446
Where did I say I 100% know it wasn't God, retard. Also how is it more believable that Yahweh did it than us not knowing. Sounds like you let your emotions get the best of you in this post buddy.

>>2410449

>transcendent

15

I became an atheist at fifteen but over the past few years the more I read the more I find myself leaning torwards agnosticism.

>>2410463
So how is some eternal being creating universes more plausible than eternal dust in the void?

>>2410470

from the human perspective and our experience of reality and according to our understanding of the forces that govern it, attributing the existence of existence to absurd and inexplicable material reactions is a damn sight less rational than the explanation that there is in fact a prime mover

>>2410446
I have a box in my hand. Both of you are asked what might be in there.

He'd say: "I don't know what's in it. Might be nothing, might be a banana or something else, but I'd like to see evidence for whatever you think is in there."
You'd say: "There's a banana inside, and I know this for a fact, but I don't have evidence."

Which statement is more rational?

>>2410480
The assertion of a prime mover is a lot more of an assumption than dust. If god just was then why couldnt the universe just be?

>>2410489

>If god just was then why couldnt the universe just be?

Well, we know that the universe developed out of a singularity. We don't know why, but given what we know about Newton's laws a prime mover is an absolutely rational answer to how the fuck did we go from a singularity to a universe.

The big bang/big crunch cycle is a satisfying and entirely plausible explanation but even then it always comes back to the what caused the first motion in that pattern of activity

>>2405683
I dunno, probably like 14 or so.

>>2405683
When I realized escaping hell fire is more important than my pride

>>2410515
Theres no such evidence of a mover however. You say its only rational, but no physics supports it. Its a lot more probable for the dust to have just been condensed rather than formed from nothing.

>>2410525

>Theres no such evidence of a mover however.

I've just explained to you why religious people feel like the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of a prime mover

that was the entire point of my last several posts

I'm not sure how I could have worded that any better for it not to have gone completely over your head

>>2410540
Then my request for evidence of a god went over your head completely.

At least people have the chance to grow out of atheism. Had they been brainwashed since birth about atheism, there would be no escape.

>>2410521
If you'll sacrifice anything in fear of hellfire who do you think that goes to?

>>2410544

well, there you have the fundamental point of difference between theists and atheists, atheists ridigly frame their beliefs within a materialistic/positivist paradigm and theists don't

we may as well be speaking different languages

>>2410571
So what youre saying here is the proof of god cant be provided logically and rationally in accordance to enlightenment era philosophies practiced by the modern world in order to accurately explain the known universe.

>>2405819
Fun fact: you're an idiot

>>2410586

i'm saying it's perfectly possible to work within that framework if one is willing to accept the not exactly radical, in scientific terms, premise that a transcendent entity might have stimulated the otherwise inexplicable occurrence of existence

but despite somehow claiming the rational/moral position most atheists cling to the belief that the only sufficient proof of existence of a prime mover is a bearded man appearing in the sky and throwing down thunderbolts

>>2407824
>theist who doesn't know the definition of the word "meme", nor who coined the term.

>>2410606
>>2410586

sorry, that should be "reasonable" not "moral"

freudian slip...

>>2410606
The problem is that the argument ends at the assertion of the possibility. Theres theories that we are a binary star system with an incredibly weak dwarf star, bit theres no solid evidence for that star and thus it ends there without being pushed as a heavily probable theory

>>2410606
>otherwise inexplicable
But said entity doesn't provide any explaining. It only adds another element that needs explaining.

>>2410627

I agree. That said, for me at least, this is where the argument moves beyond the empirical and towards the metaphysical side of things and you have to bring elements like "faith" into the equation which are utterly incomprehensible to atheists by definition, because otherwise they'd be agnostic.

>>2410606
>bearded man appearing in the sky and throwing down thunderbolts
Considering that most theists a Western atheist will meet are Christians, and those aren't at all trying to defend a prime mover that is just some sort of cosmic principle and impersonal (heck, he has a son and is weirdly preoccupied with a dwarfish outer Milky Way rimworld), yeah, that caricature is actually a fitting starting point.

>>2405713
Jesus that's terrifying.

>>2405772
You mean every thread on /his/?

>>2410689

Granted. I'll refer you back to >>2410645 though: this is the stage of the argument where concepts difficult for positivists to grasp come into play - the inevitable "why does this transcendent entity care if i masturbate"

for me i think if you're going to quantify religion it comes down to an acknowledgement that the "religious" interpretation for the existence of the universe is a coherent empirical explanation, combined and supported by "evidence" that can only be understood personally and rarely conforms to empirical/positivist expectations

faith is composed of both these components, you can't have one without the other, atheists lack the first and agnostics lack the second

>>2405683
At what age did you grow out of Santa?

>>2410400
>"how can you be mad at something if you don't believe it exists?"
Easy: By you having grown up being made to believe that it exists, and you needed to quell that psychological fear of not understanding why it happened.
So, your options were to accept nonunderstanding, which takes strength, or you take the easy ways out: Make something up or revert to old thought systems which already made something up for you. In times of distress, we revert back to thought patterns we know and are comfortable with, and that's what happened.

Also, we are always looking for patterns, especially when something big happens. This allowes you to notice silly coincidences, even in hindsight. The coincidence then stuck because coincidences that happen while something big happens stick particularly well. You've probably forgotten or not even consciously noticed the countless silly coincidences that happened on unremarkable days.

If you were born in the M.E would you be islamic? Or if you were born in some Polynesian island would you be a cargo cultist thinking John Frum was gonna fly in from the afterlife with food and wealth?

File: whats_going_on_in_here_002.jpg (4KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 251x251px

>>2410943
Wow, I just learned three new terms.

(John Frum, cargo cult, Melanesia)

>>2410943

it's probably not a particularly popular perception among laymen but there are a fair few at the bishop/cardinal level and at the university level who believe that having a relationship with a god(s) at all are is really vastly more important than the cultural factors that dictate the nature and form of that relationship

IIRC one of the directors of the vatican observatory wrote about this

>>2405683
67

old anon here

>>2410943
>Its your culture
No, I received a sign that pretty much revealed Gods existence to me and experienced gnosis, translated this means I was gifted heaven.

Not in my culture, I have to follow literally no doctrines.

>>2411005
https://youtu.be/9RQ8mSBaD3Q

20 years old. My Hindu friend pulled me out of it. He made me realize there's more to God/religion than the Abrahamics. Of course I knew this beforehand, but I thought all religions/theists were similarly stupid.

>Anon's family has been Christian for countless generations before hand
>"But surely I know more than them" he says as he puts on his trusty fedora.

>>2406131
>undivided church
whoisArius.papyrusscroll
whatareCoptics.graniterelief
>UNCHANGED Orthodox church
kek

>>2411068
The head druid of their religion has a better hat

>>2410400
The same thing happened to be except I didn't fall into the complete fallacy that just because I was angry at god, doesn't mean I think he exists. I remembered "what the fuck am I doing, I don't even believe in God anymore" and after that I never had any sort of attachment to the idea of God, which I can only assume is leftovers from years of believing in him and attempting to confide in him or something akin to debating something with your own internal dialogue for no apparent reason (people catch themselves doing this right?)

File: 51f87X3jBOL.jpg (38KB, 330x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 330x500px

>>2410879
I haven't read him in a bit but I think Zizek talks about something similar.

>>2410446
>believing a transendent, incomprehensible entity created the universe for NO REASON at all other than tradition
kek

Guys, as a relatively new theist (about half a year) I am having trouble with my works. I study Hinduism a lot but I was born in the West and a bunch of the traditions/mantras seem a bit weird to me because they are so foreign. What should I do? Should I suck it up and realize it's just my ego that doesn't want to practice Hindu works (if this is the correct term) or should I seek another route? I also do not love Christian traditions all that much. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise?

>>2410515
>>2410525
The difference is that the "Big Bang" and the idea behind what was "before" it and what caused it are theories based (varying) on physics and some evidence. Religion however is absolutely believing in the existence of God because A. "faith" and B. because the tradition of religion exists

>>2410303
I've pretty much gone through those steps, though steps 3 and 4 have come and gone until I finally fully committed myself to exploring and learning about Christianity (since it's my culture's go to religion and the one that resonates the most with me when I think about theism). I couldn't develop the requisite faith needed to sustain a practice so I stopped going to church. I realized that while I believe in a higher power I do not believe in any religion. So, I'm a theistic agnostic who does not believe in a personal god with human qualities.

I was always an atheist by default since I grew up in a completely non-religious culture, but now I'm just not really sure. Like, I still think a combination of cosmology, evolutionary theory and the anthropic principle explains most of how we got here and why the world is the way it is. Given a set of fundamental truths and laws such as mathematics, logic, physical constants etc, and a vast enough realm of possibility, then we will find ourselves emerging in such a world. But it seems like there still must be something beyond this, a fundamental basis for this law and structure through which all things are possible, some ultimate reason for why it should exist rather than nothing, or just absolute chaos. A "Logos", if you will.

Does that mean I believe in God now? I don't even know anymore.

>>2405683
A week.

>>2411046
>Anon's family has been rightless serfs for countless generations beforehand
>"Good thing I don't know better than them", he says as he deprives himself of basic education and plows the field by hand for his lord, as a tactor drives by

>>2405683
Yesterday I realized that germ theory is complete bullshit. It's all the fucking demons' fault. I've had the sniffles for a while now, planning to get an exorcism soon.

>>2410024
So according to you, people can make up whatever they want, and listeners are at fault for not instantly believing them?
Who's responsibility is it to convince others of the things YOU believe in?
You either care enough to try to be convincing, or don't insist in the first place. You can't demand both without coming across as a petulant child.

I know this is a troll thread but the fact remains that that's such an absurdly self-serving philosophical position.

>>2411646
>So according to you, people can make up whatever they want, and listeners are at fault for not instantly believing them?
Isn't this exactly what atheists say when people refuse to believe the myth of evolution?

>>2411658
Not really, no.

>>2410446
No, you refuse to accept that someone could simply not accept either argument because their is not enough evidence. Regardless of how much philosophical thought you put into this and how you reason you can't escape the fact that we live on a rock in a random spot in the galaxy in a universe that is incomprehensibly massive. We simply can't make accurate judgement on where it came from. And it's far more healthier to accept that than take a leap of faith.

>>2410488
>atheists think this is a good analogy

>>2405683
14-15

>>2405683
When I was like 10

>>2412242
>Christians think this is an argument

>religion is dying in the western world
>within a few generations religion in the civilized western world (christianity) will be a tiny minority
>no amount of shitposting, arguing, crying or praying will stop the ineveitable march of rationality

Feels good man

>>2412387
Religion is growing faster than atheism. Atheists don't reproduce. Worst case scenario is that Christianity simply gets displaced by Islam, which is exactly what is occurring in Europe right now. 25% of all students grade 5 and below in Germany are Muslim.

>>2410488
You find a clock on a beach.

Atheist: It might have formed naturally, we can't see a creator anywhere so we don't know where it came from.

Theist: Clocks are obviously designed by intelligent beings. There is a creator even if we cannot see one.

Which statement is more rational?

>>2412416
>Worst case scenario is that Christianity simply gets displaced by Islam
Do you prefer this?

>>2412416
>25% of all students grade 5 and below in Germany are Muslim.

You have a citation?

>>2405688
prove god doesnt exist
pro tip: you cant just as you cant prove god exists
atheists are as arrogant as theists are deluded

File: chaos_001_kannesteinen.jpg (2MB, 2641x2125px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2641x2125px

>>2412422
I don't find intelligent design at all compelling.

>>2412416
>religion is growing faster

Nice evidence to back up that assertion.
Here's mine, regarding the UK

>>2412425
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2016/09/PD16_327_122.html

>

The population with an immigration background is on average considerably younger than the population without migration background. Every third person under the age of 18 had an immigration background. The highest proportion was in the age group of children under five years (36%)

File: IMG_0395.png (71KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1080x720px

>>2412451
Tism

>>2412451
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

>Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

Truth hurts, bud?

14, then moved on from theist-perspective-meme entirely

>>2412460
>shitskins are reproducing faster than westerners are becoming non-religious.

I never contested this, in fact you just moved the goalposts. Nice try though :)

>>2412473
>Religion is growing faster than Atheism
>Prove it!
>I-I never disputed that, you moved the goalposts!
Retard

>>2412473
Ah I see what you mean, I came off that way. I should have been more direct, I was talking specifically about christianity in western countries vs atheists in western countries.

>>2412477
This thread is about christianity. I admit that I worded my post in a misleading way, but my point stands.

File: PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsOverview_projectedChange640px.png (60KB, 641x847px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 641x847px

>>2412483
Christianity is also growing faster than atheism. Turns out when people reject God to live a hedonistic and materialistic lifestyle they put less emphasis on having kids, they're such a cramp on the lifestyle after all.

>>2412480
>>2412483

>>2412477
See here

>>2412387
I say religion initially, but then specify. In other words, christians still btfo

>>2412490
In western countries? This source is about the world in general.

Whats wrong with living a hedonistic lifestyle? Are you saying its wrong to try to pursue enjoyment?

>>2412499
>Whats wrong with living a hedonistic lifestyle? Are you saying its wrong to try to pursue enjoyment?
To a certain extent. The problem is when your entire existence starts revolving around obtaining pleasure it's harmful to society as a whole. To use an example at the extreme end of the scale a heroin addict is only seeking out pleasure, but it's self destructive behavior. Society requires a certain level of self sacrifice from each person to keep functioning, so too does family life. Why are birthrates dropping like a stone in western countries? Because people are starting to see starting a family as a drag that interferes with pleasurable activities.

Pure hedonism leads to a soulless, degenerate lifestyle that corrodes society around it.

File: 0069TDIhgw1f33582d6eaj30s711inpd.jpg (300KB, 690x918px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 690x918px

>>2405683

I was never religious in the first place so growing out of atheism does not apply to me.

However most atheist I meet are stupid fuck who try to be edgy to their religious parent, that's why I always say that I'm non religious rather than atheist.

>>2410303

that only applies to children of christ cuck.

>>2411195

The supernatural cannot exist. Don't run to religious like a weakling, stay strong.

>" Take everything that exists, existed and ever will be, and let’s define the laws of nature as what governs the whole of existence, laws which we humans may never know or comprehend in their totality. Having concluded that existence is governed by the laws of nature, and that the supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, thus outside of existence, then by definition the true supernatural does not exist. "

>>2412499
>Whats wrong with living a hedonistic lifestyle?

Ever heard of hedonism treadmill? Hedonism lead to a meaningless hollow life

People who can't find greater purpose in life other than hedonism and religions are scums and should kill themselves.

>>2412434
There is literally a ball of energy supplying the life on Earth.

>>2412622

One of billions.

>>2412630
So?

>>2410943
>atheists think this is an argument

>>2412428
Atheism is just the opposite of Theism which is the belief in a god. If you're just not sure that god exists, but don't deny the possibility, then you're still not in a state of "believing in god" at the moment. Which makes you the opposite of a theist, which makes you an atheist. Atheism does not necessarily equate to denying all possibility of god. There are some atheists that believe this, but that group does not get to define the entire philosophy.

File: 1432067001553.cached.jpg (312KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 2000x1333px

Why can't christards stop getting BTFO?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

>>2412679
Remember that when arguing with a Christian, they are deeply disingenuous.
Here the problem is that they have their own definition of Atheist: "One who rebels against my obviously True and Real God". They insist on this incorrect definition because it flatters their egos. They were never interested in real empathic connection or genuine inquiry, or discovering insight into another's point of view, they only want to foster a divisive ideological slant.

File: b618c45f14e39e083981e22c11b3fda4.jpg (39KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 403x403px

>>2412434
When you start digging deeper into the sciences and realize how incredibly improbable it is that we exist it becomes really hard to deny that there is some intelligence at work. The book Infinity and the Mind pegs the number of possible alternate universes (that is the number of different cause and effect chains that could have occurred from the time of the Big Bang to now) at roughly 10^118, or a quintillion googol. Of those possible universes the specific one that had you sitting there reading this thread right now occurred. It's really difficult to get a handle on that number, it exceeds the number of atoms in the universe by billions of times. The probability that you exist is many, many times less than the probability of you winning the Lottery every single week for 10 years. And yet here you sit.

In the end there are only two possibilities.

1. A 'multiverse' of some sort. Either in parallel or linear with a near infinite amount of universes that have been created then collapsed back in on themselves in an infinite loop.

2. A single universe with an intelligence creator who guided things to be this specific way.

>>2412716
>number of possible alternate universes (that is the number of different cause and effect chains that could have occurred from the time of the Big Bang to now) at roughly 10^118, or a quintillion googol.
maybe intelligent life exists in every single one of them therefore making the possibility 100%. Why are we assuming improbability?

>>2412716
Oops, used the wrong calculation. That is the calculation for the number of protons that exist in a Hubble volume (observable space). The actual number of possible different Hubble volumes is a Googolplex to the power of a quintillion.

>>2412725
That's the number of possible universes that could exist, the vast majority have no human life in them. Maybe there is some intelligent life in them, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is such a small chance that the universe which has me and you sitting here discussing this should occur that rationally, it shouldn't be occurring. Yet it is. The two ways to reconcile this fact are 1. Multiverse where every possible reality is real. 2. An intelligent creator. There is just no way that if this is the only universe that a quintillion, quintillion, quintillion particle interactions over 14 billions years happened in just the specific way that enabled you to exist. It's far closer to being a statistical impossibility than it is a statistical improbability.

>>2412752
I don't understand that premise. What is so special about humans that we regard our existence as the deciding factor for an intelligent omnipotent being?

That same argument about ME as MYSELF having a one in a gorillion chance of being here, could be applied to some flaky rock on the other side of the galaxy. You might as well say that if ANYTHING exist in ANY form, there might be an intelligent creator because the chances of that precise outcome are infinitesimally small

>>2405683
Like half a year after I grew out of Christianity

>>2412780
to add - that's like the golfing analogy

the chances of the ball ending up on one particular blade of grass are incalculably small. But the chances that it lands on ANY blade of grass are almost 100%

>>2412780
The exact problem is that none of those other realities occurred. This specific one did. The only question you have to answer is did this specific reality occur because of a multiverse where all possible realities play out or because of the hand of a creator? Those are the only two possibilities.

>>2412788
What does this analogy say when the chances of Human life actually occurring is approaching the limit of 0%?

>>2412797
Pretty much the same thing.

>>2412797
>chances of Human life actually occurring is approaching the limit of 0%
we don't know that. Judging from our sample size, the chances of humans appearing are 100%

>>2412791
I don't know if we can reach common ground so let me go on a little tangent

let's say the chances that any particles coming together in any form in any place in the universe are 100%. Now you say - they came together in X way, the chances of that are ridiculous - if this is the only universe, there must be a creator

I say - they could have come together in any way. The individual chance is tiny. The collective chance is 100%. Even if there is one universe, they MUST come together in one way, and this is our one way. I don't see a design here

File: 1437067674300.png (588KB, 1558x1652px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1558x1652px

>>2405683
18.

>>2412816
I should add to this - there are certain theories of biology and physics that claim that the appearance of life is actually inevitable given some VERY basic conditions, and it's not a huge jump to say intelligent life might often follow. Which means that random arrangement of atoms I talked about could easily produce us even in that one specific universe we exist in with no multiverse around

>>2412816
Yes I get your point, my point is that saying "Well it just happened that way" is not actually a solution. Because while you are correct that the universe had to form some specific way, it still stands that factually it formed in the exact specific way that led to your existence. Hand-waving that away doesn't really work, you still have to deal with the issue that statistically you should not exist. Using the golf ball analogy the blades of grass are potential universes that do not allow for Human life to have been created, and a coin balancing on it's side is the one where Human life does exist. The ball lands on the coin and perfectly balances there and your solution is just "Well it had to land somewhere", which is not a solution it's dismissing the issue and hiding it under a rug

>tfw too rational and logical to believe in a god

>>2412835
>Which means that random arrangement of atoms I talked about could easily produce us even in that one specific universe we exist in with no multiverse around
This is not true at all. It might result in SOME life, even some intelligent life. The chance of the Big Bang happening in just the right way to lead to an unbroken chain of cause and effect that led to you writing that sentence is close enough to 0 that we can effectively treat it like a 0, just like Calculus. Without a multiverse or a creator it just cannot occur.

>>2412855
>misinterpreting calculus this hard

I know Christians choose theology or English over math degrees, but my word.

>>2412863
Sorry if it's not technically correct, that's how I learned limits anyway. Try not to get side tracked and argue the point, please.

>>2412855
So since the exact statistical probability of any one event occurring in the universe is almost zero, then no events occur and the universe ceases to exist, right?

>>2412428
So your strategy is to be both, brilliant play

>>2412855
I guess I just don't see anything special at all about specifically me being specifically here. I see myself as the result of physical and biological laws which were always going to form someone somewhere.

Flip a coin. You will NEVER flip a coin the exact same way ever again. The chance is zero. Is its trajectory Intelligent design then?

>You will NEVER flip a coin the exact same way ever again
What if u're in space?

>>2412886
In a deterministic universe the probability of events occurring all trace back to how the Big Bang occurred. Think of breaking balls in billiards. The way they break is determined by how the cue ball hits them and how the cue hits the cue ball. The Big Bang is the cue ball that scatters the energy of the universe in such a way that all events afterwards are traced back to how the cue ball hit it. Of all the almost infinite ways the Big Bang could have scattered the balls the one that occurred is the one that led to you shitposting here right now.

In short we're on railroad tracks and nothing is more or less probable than anything else in a deterministic universe. It was all predetermined by how the balls scattered at the beginning of the cosmos and there were an infinite number of variations on how that could have happened.

>>2412915
ok but I don't look at the balls after and think "intelligent design"

>>2412899
>I see myself as the result of physical and biological laws which were always going to form someone somewhere
A little bit silly in my view. Like shrugging off winning the Lottery 50 times in a row with "Well someone had to win it". You existing is almost infinitely more improbable than that happening and yet if it actually happened it would blow your mind and possible make you consider the existence of God but you take your existence which is many quintillion times less probably as a given.

Very strange attitude indeed.

>>2412422
That's full on turbo retarded

>>2412930
An egg cell matches with a sperm cell to create a human. Is that human ME? If so, great. If not, oh well, it will be someone else, I won't be around to notice or care.

>>2412930
we also need to introduce a third possibility - an infinite universe. If that exists, then I not only exist on infinitely many other planets, but I just won the lottery 50 times on one of them

>>2412946
Yes, this is true, just like if the universe collapses on itself and then re-expands in an endless cycle then it's an inevitability that it will re-create itself in the way that allows us to exist now. The idea of the universe being somehow infinite in some way resolves the problem since in that case the ridiculously low probability becomes a certainty due to the power of infinite time and space.

>>2412943
>Is that human ME? If so, great. If not, that's fine, I'll just be them instead.
Fixed my own post in hindsight.

>>2405683

one doesn't grow out of atheism, in the sense that "growing out of" connotes "progressing towards truth". What instead happens is that full adults, people advancing into their twenties, instead "break dumb" because they realize that they need to belong to some culture in order to have social contact/opportunity/belonging/etc. This says nothing about the truth of the tenets of such a meta-club, however.

To "grow out of" atheism is to feel more fully a part of a community of culturally established adults. However, this shift comes at the expense of truth, which adults stand ready to make for the sake of comity, for belonging. "growing out of atheism" is to "grow out of truth", which is a typically and quintisentially adult compromise. It doesn't make such a compromise literally right, though. Truth is more important than belonging. And the truth is, that god doesn't exist, and that even if he did, then if he is anything like the established theories suggest, then the appropriate action would be to reject him. This is the final analysis, and where the discussion ends, which only requires detail, or shocking new evidence to overturn its provisional truth, which stands good for now.

>>2412943
Again this is just handwaving the issue instead of addressing it. I am well aware that there are a nigh infinite ways you could NOT exist. I'm asking you to address the fact that if you step back and look at the probabilities rationally that you shouldn't. You DO exist when there was a 99.99999999999999999999999...% chance you would not. How did you beat the odds? We all know you COULD have been someone or something else but you aren't, you are you, and now you need to address that fact.

File: 1418722607429.jpg (67KB, 380x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 380x400px

>>2405683

I don't particularly care if someone is an atheist but I can't stand the incredibly smug and pretentious "internet atheists" who do shit like:

>attach the label of "science and reason" to atheism
>attach the label of "logic and common sense" to atheism
>attach the label of "skepticism and critical thinking" to atheism
>attach the label of "enlightenment and intellectualism" to atheism
>credit all of science to atheism
>credit all of technology to atheism
>credit all of modern medicine to atheism
>credit all of modern peaceful society to atheism
>rewrite history to blame religion for all wars
>rewrite history to blame religion for holding back knowledge
>rewrite history to make mystic nut jobs like Bruno "martyrs of free thought"
>rewrite history to make it seem as if atheists were burned at the stake and oppressed until just recently and atheists dindu nuffin in the reign of terror or communism
>argue atheism by calling god a bunch of funny names
>argue atheism by disregarding all none atheist opinions
>argue atheism by overgeneralizing one bad religion as proof of them all being bad
>argue atheism by saying everyone with a dissenting opinion is just indoctrinated in childhood (just like neonazis claim everyone who believes in the holocaust was just indoctrinated to be that way in childhood) and is just suffering cognitive dissonance and engaging in mental gymnastics to stay that way

>>2412428

The "prove x doesn't exist" is pointless. The point is to "prove x does exist" and if you can't, why should you just believe it is so?

>>2405683
15 or 16.
Had a really intense experience with the occult after meddling around with it just see if it was "real", crazy shit happened, etc,etc.

>>2412455

what happened in '98?

File: 1471980218804.jpg (6KB, 267x323px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 267x323px

>>2412983
>Truth is more important than belonging
t. Autist
The 'truth' means jack shit. Sating your intellectual curiosity doesn't affect the quality of your life in any way. You will live and die not knowing the truth about the nature of reality, does that mean your life is tangibly worse without that knowledge? It means nothing but giving you a smug sense of superiority, and you're mistaking that smugness for actual meaning.

>>2412996
It's easy to logically infer the existence of God if you don't handwave the evidence away as something that can be explained scientifically later.

>>2412990

Probability is only so much. Two humans fucked, something literally had to be the result, so while the possibilities are endless UP UNTIL that point of birth once that happens it's no longer some holy infinitesimal probability. Reality already addressed that fact- what, do you want me to be more awed about it? Do you go gasping and fawning over every individual consciousness pointing out the infinite complexity and possibility of the uncertainties that led to its existence? Uniqueness is amazing, certainly, but in itself is hardly evidence of intelligent design. If the rules of the universe existed before all the examples you have given, it would stand to reason. I'm not the person you were replying to but this is not an argument for theism any more than it is an argument for atheism.

>>2413005
>Reality already addressed that fact- what, do you want me to be more awed about it
No I just want you to admit that mathematically it shouldn't be that way and the only way to reconcile the fact we know it shouldn't with the fact it is, is either some kind of 'infinite' universe whether it be an endlessly looping cycle of infinite universes in parallel, or a creator. It's one or the other.

>>2412993
Also atheists (and hell, even some scientists) cease to care about providing evidence for their claims the moment they can't. People like St. Paisios and Padre Pio are still an enigma to this day but watch how silent they remain on the subject.
>self mutilation and DID is the cause of the stigmata!
And yet there isn't a single case actually providing evidence for these claims in regards to the some of the most well know stigmatics and entirely based on assumption even thought gathering evidence for self mutilation and DID would be so fucking easy. Besides gaping flesh wounds going through you hands don't close within a day. Oh but they will ignore that bit too.

>>2412990
I'll humor you and "address the fact" that I am me.
You think that it's a tiny probability that I'm me but I'm saying it's a sure thing that I'm me.
The chance that out of the billions of atoms that make reproductive cells and combinations of chromosomes, plus the exact events in the universe that led to me being who I am is 100% sure to have happened.
The chance that I could never have existed is 0%

>>2413013

>mathematically it SHOULDN'T be that way

You don't understand math or the concept of infinity or probability. What are you proposing SHOULD have been, mathematically? A different equally-unlikely individual consciousness? An even-more-unlikely carbon copy of a biological organism which by definition behaves based on its environment in addition to other factors? You are not proposing anything here other than DUDE, IT'S SO UNLIKELY CUZ NUMBERS

>>2413026
>What are you proposing SHOULD have been, mathematically?
Any and all other possibilities. Every possible variation of the universe starting with the Big Bang. From the ways the galaxies formed, different natural laws, where stars popped up, the distribution of energy, EVERYTHING that could have gone differently.

>>2412993
I feel ya. Smugness is a self-congratulating emotion, it doesn't help to endear anyone.
To be fair this is exactly how an Atheist feels when Christians attribute all Goodness and Moral Rightness to their religions, and that everyone else is evil and blind.

>>2412993
Yeah that's really annoying, especially when they claim science as some special atheist only thing when the majority of scientific endeavor throughout Human history was undertaken by religious people.

>>2413035

Right so like I said, the chance is equivalent for all of them. There is no unbelievable epiphany here my friend. Please just take a statistics class or something.

File: 1480632212927.png (427KB, 640x481px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 640x481px

I grew out of christianity

I'm technically atheist, but I hate calling myself that irl so I just say i'm secular. I have no need for a god. I'm not a hedonist. I have goals, motivations and morals. People are people no matter what creed is attributed to them and to think christianity is needed as an ultimatum is short sighted.

I mean, if you're already at the point of god of the gaps, what's the point in believing at that point? Just silly. If you believe in an "impersonal, first mover" god, you don't believe in god.

Any god that is not personal should be disregarded, and personal gods are pretty untrue at this point. Don't meet many people day-to-day that still believe that tripe

inb4 fedora yep yep smug atheist whatever you guys are just as fucking smug

>>2413071
If your existence hinged on someone flipping a coin and getting heads a quintillion times in a row how long do you think it would be before you exist?

>>2413074

Honestly I can respect individual religious beliefs as they clearly provide some benefits and have maintained a pretty impressive level of social order over their career, but they should be seen for what they are so the potential dangers can be identified. Morals based on extremely basic humanist ideas can stand in intuitively for most people and religion can provide any structure people need to deal with how reality works and the existential questions our minds come up with.

>>2413082

Probably a few million years :^)

>>2413082
Given an infinite universe, even that example is 100% chance of happening eventually.

>>2413101
And if it isn't then you wouldn't expect it to occur at all in the entire life span of the universe, assuming 1 flip per second. So now we're finally on the same page. You MUST assume the existence of an infinite universe to explain your existence OR a creator if this universe is the only universe and not infinite.

>>2413086
I agree. I'll admit my post was "broad brushed", but I suppose I get a little fed up with the discussions these anonymous image boards come up with.

The structure has been beneficial for many people over the centuries as living conditions were shit and believing in something after death would have been a real morale booster. Now, though? I'm not buying it as a practical tool for most developed nations - or rather, not as much of a tool anymore but still a nice comfort for some.

>>2413114

As an American, looking at the geopolitical situation I think variance and chaos is still enough of a factor on the global scale that religion holds a very clear and important place even now. We in advanced western societies have the benefit of a dispassionate distance from the problems that religion can salve, but we should realize how many people in the world, proportionally, still have such a long way to go to achieve what one might call a standard living situation.

>>2413112

Dude, are you fucking retarded? Probability is not a guarantee, and "you wouldn't expect it" isn't sufficient evidence to base an entire all-encompassing world view from. "Assuming 1 flip per second" is a fucking stupid and arbitrary limitation, using that as proof is simplistic and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of basic mathematic principles and any assumption beyond the realization of the statistical consequences is pure conjecture. Do you have a real argument or are you gonna keep spouting the same talking points all night?

File: 1481746495968.jpg (94KB, 1238x1080px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1238x1080px

>>2405683
It doesn't surprise me that people who become atheist to be contrarian would "grow" out of it without ever seriously considering which position is more logical

>>2413101
But if it has a 0% chance in the first place then it won't happen.

>>2413153
>"Assuming 1 flip per second" is a fucking stupid and arbitrary limitation
Not really. It's a demonstration that logically you shouldn't exist. Do you go out and spend hundreds of dollars on lottery tickets? You seem to have little to no conception about the probabilities involved here so I'll stop the nuance and just say it flat out. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to exist as a consequence of random chance in a single and finite universe. Not improbable. Impossible. Do you understand now? I get the feeling you were still thinking "Well there's SOME chance...". No. The chance is pretty much zero. I felt like you might have the intellectual capacity to understand that the level of probability we're discussing in reality is more or less equivalent to zero, but I overestimated you so I need to simplify things a bit more for you and just stop this dumb line of thinking you have like every single idiot who blows half their cash on lottery tickets.

Stop thinking there is any reasonable chance you could have come to existence in a finite universe. There is not. It's infinite universe or creator. Pick one. There are no other options.

>>2405742

I didn't adopt a religion. I just grew out of nihilism. We're all conscious and alive, and that's hella fucky to me. No religion or anything, just a feeling that there's something 'more' to the whole thing.

>>2413176
How do you the specific probability that life will arise on a planet? whether or not the universe is infinite, it is fucking massive, so massive and expanding so quickly at the same time that light from the farthest reaches of the universe will never be able to reach us. there are plenty of stars, and plenty of stars with planets. let's say that the chance of a planet developing in a star's habitable zone and then developing the compounds for life is some ridiculous percent like the quadrillion you gave. there are a lot more then a quadrillion stars even in the known universe. the universe is so fucking massive that statistically improbable events are nearly guaranteed to happen

File: trimp.png (228KB, 316x351px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 316x351px

>>2413176

k

>>2413176

I was kinda holding out hope you were actually serious but I'm more glad that you're a mildly interesting troll to be totally honest.

>>2413176
Now that's a false dichotomy to end all false dichotomies.

>>2413200

ya but numbers are big so u cant exist, which means god must exist so u can because that's more likely than random chance actually being random

>>2413188
nihlism can be a consequence of atheism but the terms are hardly synonymous. you make it sound like you still are an atheist

>>2413200
The number of possible variations of the universe are somewhere around a googleplex to the power of a quintillion. The numbers we're talking about dwarf the universe in every sense. If you had a universe for every mm from here to the edge of the observable universe it would still not be anywhere close to 1% of that number.

>>2413212
It's good to see that you've given up trying to hold your logically untenable position. It's always nice to see when you back out you resort to calling the person who bested you a troll.

>>2413227

Given the fact that your refutation was that statistics say something is impossible, I'm gonna stick with you're a fucking idiot.

File: 1470113221991.jpg (35KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 402x402px

>>2413214
>Shows you have a mathematical probability of existing approaching zero
>"Yeah, well I guess I just got really lucky lol"
Don't worry, I'll explain it as many times as it takes to wrap your head around it. I know you're a bit lacking in cognitive ability.

>>2413227
>The number of possible variations of the universe are somewhere around a googleplex to the power of a quintillion
What variations are you accounting for? the laws of physics? there's no way to calculate how likely different laws of physics are or the likelihood of the weak force to be this or that strength in a given universe or even if universes can possibly have laws of physics different from what we have. that's merely speculation

>>2413237

I must say, I'm not surprised but I am impressed with the infinite complexity of the universe generating a shitposter with vaguely-defined "mathematic" explanations for why a creator has to exist with no figures, statistics, or evidence, using an argument as useful against the point as it is for it. Biology certainly is amazing! It's a shame most of those traits are pretty undesirable so you'll probably end up depositing most of your genetic material onto a body pillow.

File: this is how you look..jpg (58KB, 601x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 601x720px

Christians can never be good people, they just pretend to be good people to appease the man upstairs.

That is why they treat others with different beliefs like shit because they can get away with it.

>>2413236
For all intents and purposes, yes. At the level of probability we're talking about it is essentially equal to zero. The problem is you keep falling into the same trap as the lottery player, you can't grasp how unlikely it is so I decided the best thing to do was just take it off the table entirely so you would finally understand. The problem is because you think there is a chance then technically it can happen. I mean technically you could be hit by a bolt of lightning every day for the next 20 years, it's possible. But it won't ever happen. You need to separate what is theoretically possible from what is realistically possible.

I know you have a lot of trouble wrapping your mind around these numbers we're talking about, it's in your best interest to just assume it's impossible because much like the lighting you seem to be thinking it's actual a realistic possibility, rather than a theoretical possibility that will never occur. Because I don't think you're able to actually grasp the idea otherwise

File: YHVH.jpg (30KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x480px

>>2413248
I wouldn't say YHWH necessarily wants them to be good. what are a few genocides anyways? those Canaanite babies had it coming

>>2413245
You haven't refuted any of my points. All you've done is revealed yourself as someone who has no grasp of probability and probably invests half his paycheck into lottery tickets because of it.

>>2413252
the problem is that you are being extremely vague about what it is that is improbable and how you have arrived at how improbable it is.

You mean

>At what age did 4chan grow out of autism?

which this thread proves it never will

>>2413255
>muh babies
Respect YHWH's right to choose bigot.

>>2413261

Your only point is that specificity is incredibly unlikely in a statistical model of the universe because of the ridiculous complexity of the model. However, even as I exist now I'm only one specificity among billions of billions, all decided by coin flips, atomic reactions, and the effects of those specificities. It seems that you have a problem wrapping your mind around just how small even the incredible complexity that is you poses in the larger scheme of even something as small as your geographical region. The complexity of reality is such that everything that exists is the winner of a lottery of much slighter chances than any of our lotteries, and yet at the same time there had to be an outcome and here we are. If you swapped out every person with a slightly variant possibility of themselves, would it be any more proof of a sentient creator rather than a variety of rules and probabilities? What if you swapped it with an even greater variance? You're placing a reverence on reality as an outcome of a plan, but the only evidence you have of that is that it's unlikely, as if any other outcome is any more likely. Each variance, given the complexity of the system at this level, is equal in probability from any perspective you can realistically give, and if I were .000001% different from myself, your 99.99999% similar copy would probably still be here making the same tired point without realizing that.

>>2413277
and any one of these particle interactions being different means that life cannot arise? that's way overly simplistic. What this perhaps could be an argument for is the likelihood of specifically humans arising or specifically me or you. But the improbability of my specific existence is just as high as any of these other humans that don't exist so it hardly proves anything

File: Francis-Bacon-Quotes-4.jpg (249KB, 2000x927px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 2000x927px

>>2412716

>>2413279
Not that anon and my input is completely irrelevant but both your arguments are seriously making me question how such a complex system like the universe could arise. Well, more like the big bang and it containing all the perfect "ingredients" to create our universe the way that it is, with its laws, etc.

Sorry if this question is all over the place. Understanding of how the universe works is clearly not my field of specialty.

>>2413308

The concept of anything approaching infinity is incredibly alien and frustrating and difficult for humans innately. From an evolutionary standpoint if you believe in that sort of thing, our brains are a few thousand years behind our societal advancement when it comes to how it prioritizes and treats information, so we're still on the level of thinking of quantities from a level that would be useful to an individual or social group (food, shelter, etc). I may be biased in thinking that leads to an over-mystification of the admittedly-mind-boggling complexity of it all, but I don't think the fact that it's intuitively staggering to the human mind is evidence of a sentience orchestrating those events; in fact the unreal complexity seems even more likely to me to be the result of forces and rules than a guiding hand. All of this said, my main point here all along is not that there is no god, but that the incredible complexity, for all its intrigue, is not any more evidence for god than for a system of rules and interactions that is nearly incomprehensible to us because of our own limitations.

>>2413176
You're not thinking about this as deeply as you think you are. Someone winning the lottery 50 times in a row is only a statistically significant event in hindsight: we have previous knowledge of the likelihood of something, and then observe a sample of evidence that runs contrary to what we would expect. You can't apply this to the fact that we find ourselves alive in a universe that allows for our existence.

If I roll a million-sided die and get 781,472 there is no reason to think this unusual because there is no significance attached to any of the outcomes, they are all equally unlikely but one of them has occur. What you are claiming is that the existence of this particular reality does have some significance over the googolplexes of other possible realities, but you haven't established what this significance is. "It's the one I'm observing" doesn't count.

>>2413308

As someone that is on your level (I was a history major, lol) I think it comes down to grasping just how far beyond normal human understanding the sheer size of the Universe is, let alone the Multiverse, if such a thing exists.

When you are talking about such vast scales what we consider improbable happens on a fairly regular basis.

>>2412716
>When you start digging deeper into the sciences and realize how incredibly improbable it is that we exist it becomes really hard to deny that there is some intelligence at work

This doesn't mean intelligent design is true. Unlike what some fundamentalist religious people believe, it's possible to accept the science of evolution without having to be an atheist.

>>2413319
>even more likely to me to be the result of forces and rules
That's what I find mind boggling. If it is forces and rules at work , how did those rules and forces establish themselves as "rules and forces" and from where and how did they come into being?
The universe is bizarre.

>>2413329
His point had nothing to do with evolution though and more with just existing.
I think just about everyone in this thread believes in evolution. At least I hope.

>>2413357
Well he responded to a guy who said he didn't find intelligent design compelling.

21 daoism

>>2413363
Intelligent design is far less about evolution and more the complexity of the universe and how it's constructed and maintained. Though I don't why anon believes humanity would be a mind boggling enigma in our universe even after the long debate that took place in this thread.

>>2413371
>Intelligent design is far less about evolution and more the complexity of the universe and how it's constructed and maintained

I don't see how this is true, when it has always been argued as the opposite "theory" to evolution.

>>2413391
Have you only ever had the misfortune of debating with nothing but fundamentalist protestants on this subject? Evolution existing isn't a strong argument against intelligent design because one could still argue that evolution does nothing contrary to nature or laws that said entity has created within our universe.

>>2413410
Arguing that evolution has teleology isn't what is commonly meant by "intelligent design".

Intelligent design as I have seen it being argued is biblical creation myths extrapolated as scientific theory. E.g "God made animals after their own kind" is extrapolated to mean that there isn't any evolutionary mutation at all.

>>2413410

The problem with "intelligent design" in the context you're using it is that evolution does not require a designer or creator so it is a useless addition that can be dispensed with via Occam's Razor.

>>2413434
Also, arguing that evolution has a "goal" is not the same as arguing "evolution isn't real".

File: 1474718766602.jpg (5KB, 200x236px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x236px

>>2405683
I'm beginning to grow out of it right now at 20 tbqh

>>2412645
One of billions that works in a well-described process that we don't need external assistance to explain.

>>2413371
>Intelligent design is far less about evolution and more the complexity of the universe and how it's constructed and maintained.
ID is a political tool to wedge religion into the science curriculum by pretending there is a controversy. It's not a real school of thought.

>>2412983
>the truth is, that god doesn't exist

Where is the proofs?

I was never an atheist.

I did have a falling (or climbing?) out of Christianity.

File: Mind_the_God.jpg (147KB, 600x798px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 600x798px

>>2412428
>prove god doesnt exist

Can't prove a negative.

Its funny that you kinda tell who's american or not, as if not believing in God was a subversive act.

>>2415054
The universe was created, therefore God exists. God is the human conceptualization of the universe.

>>2415239
How can you live without the Truth?

>>2405683
I was 17

>>2415239

Yes.

The other give away signs are they will certainly start ranting about "leftists" (as if not being superstitious had something to do with being left wing) and that they genuinely think evolution is not true, a position that is fleetingly rare even among Christians in other developed countries.

>>2415239
Not believing in a source of ultimate morality is pretty darned subversive bro.

>>2415283
The ultimate source of morality is to get God to give you magic powers so you can save the world.

>>2415283

It's an abstract, philosophical point that has little to do with how people live their lives.

It turns out that in other developed countries vast numbers of people stopped being superstitious without going on murder and rape sprees, who would have thunk it, huh?

>>2415269
On flag boards they also are the ones always bringing up race,even though they are the least white western country

>>2415324
Because not believing in God does not change the fact you have a conscience inside of you that tells murdering and raping are bad.

Just as having a fight with your father does not change the fact you're his biological son.

>>2415328

Neither of those things are undisputed facts. Just asserting your own personal religious beliefs as if they are true is not an argument.

Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for once. I'm as nonplussed about how to respond about that as you would be if some Hindu randomly told you it was a fact that Hanuman the monkey was stopping you killing people and that it doesn't make any difference whether you actually believed in Hanuman or not.

File: 5eac9cfad6c0331d13c76f3de54f7356[1].jpg (91KB, 564x798px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 564x798px

>>2415253
But which God?

>>2415371
The God of the Bible.

>>2415371
Allah

>>2405683
About 14. Nowadays I'm firmly agnostic.

>>2415376
But why pick any one ancient myth over the other?
Especially the bible, so boring and cliche.

>>2415371
The ineffable.

>>2415408
>boring
how is a story about a demonic warrior god that demands you sacrifice your first born to him boring?

>>2415415
Ineffcthulos The Eternal; Astride the Gates of Time?

>>2415408
Facts are not myths.

>>2415324
Yeah they just start to believe that a man can become a woman if he believes hard enough, that rioting is a form of peaceful protest, and that when someone makes them feel uncomfortable they should be able to call the thought police and have them taken away.

>>2415435
>Ineffcthulos The Eternal; Astride the Gates of Time?
Hallowed be thy name.

>>2415447
Myths are the facts of dead civilizations.
>HAHA Let's stop believing in the things our ancestors believed in what's the worst that could happen?
>*cue collapse*

>>2415371
Any of them

>>2415600

See >>2415269

You're very easy to spot.

>>2415624
>Implying the collapse of the current society is a bad thing

>>2412993
>internet atheists

You mean new atheists

>>2415054
>Can't prove a negative
Of course you can:
1. If dragons had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of dragons in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, dragons never existed.

You're saying all inductive reasoning is invalid with your line of thinking because it isn't foolproof like deduction. Also, the god of the gaps is pre-Christian pagan idolatry to explain physical phenomena. God is not a superhuman who merely performs physical functions like Zeus or Thor, but rather is that universal entity through which all things came. The Bible is not meant to be read as a scientific textbook, but is meant to answer the "why" question; why should we continue to exist and behave morally? Therefore, you can either choose to have faith in God, or in a naturalistic cosmic soup without Providence; neither can be proved through deduction.

Probably when I learned about the randomness of the universe because of discoveries in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Mechanistic view of the universe really didn't have a place for God, but now that the universe is just a lot more complicated than that I find it more possible.

>>2417065
How do you know that dragons never left a fossil record? How do you know they didn't decide to fly off to another planet? How do you know that dragons don't still exist today, they're just really good at hiding?

We can't even prove facts 100%. Proving a negative is impossible because there are hundreds of millions of possible scenarios that say "well fuck I guess I can't prove that". It's deciding which conclusion is rational to you based upon the evidence that you have seen

File: dinosaurs.jpg (3MB, 2376x3696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2376x3696px

>>2417065
Dragons = Dinosaurs.

They refer to the same creatures.

>>2417133
We can induce that dragons never existed based off of strong evidence for that being the case. Dawkins is a good biologist, but his philosophy is shit-tier money-grubbing which is why the nu atheist movement is dominated by cringy teenagers. So, we can either induce that we live in a cosmic soup devoid of Providence or in a universe with Providence.

Also, saying you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. So if you were to prove that you cannot prove a negative, you would be proving a negative.

>>2417143
ok, I meant the fire-breathing ones from folk-lore. Could put any other fictional creature into that example

>>2417183
To quote you, "We can induce that dragons never existed". Inductive reasoning can be useful and effective, but is not foolproof. You cannot prove that dragons never existed any more than someone can prove God never existed. There is absolutely strong evidence for that being the case, but strong evidence does not necessarily mean it is the case. Occam's Razor holds that it is probably true, but it is not infallible

I can't prove that you can't prove a negative, but all the evidence seems to suggest it :^)

File: LerSGEY[1].jpg (1MB, 3745x4985px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3745x4985px

The final redpill is pantheism you plebs

>>2413366
>he thinks taoism is a religion

>>2417234
>There is absolutely strong evidence for that being the case
?

>>2417133
But that has nothing to do with proving a negative. It's just a limit of empirical knowledge, whether you're talking about positive or negative facts.

Proving a negative is no different to proving a positive. For example:

1. Triangles have 3 sides.
2. Therefore, there are no 4 sided triangles.

I don't know where this meme came from.

>>2405683
20.

>>2417234
There isnt strong evidence either. Show me your strong evidence.
>p-people I agree with never saw anything
Well, I did see stuff
>mental illness
Thats just a card fedoras play against eyewitness though

I never did desu, 4chin just shifted to religiousness due to its usual contrarian nature, as atheism becomes more accepted you guys become christian

>>2417065
But you see, when they die they evaporate into the air. That's why they existed but there's no fossils.

>>2405683
Tbh, I never became an atheist. But I was agnostic from around 17-18

>>2418408
Not the point of my message, but regardless, I take that religion makes more sense when you boil it down to natural human fears about life. There is no reason why God has any more validity than paganistic beliefs of a thousand years ago.

I've had religious experiences myself and still hold that it probably was just what I wanted to hear/feel at the time

>>2417562
I meant more that there was strong evidence that dragons do not exist. I also hold that there is no more evidence for God than dragons, but that's not the crux of my argument

>>2405843
holy shit dude calm down

you don't appear very tolerant for a christian

>>2405819
Have you observed similar traits between children and their parents? Similarly, have you observed children with mutations?

If you answer yes to either, then you have witnessed evolution on a micro scale.

>>2420669
Yes, I hate this "well I saw it so it's real"

Simply having other people either never have these experiences or accept that it was their own brain should prove that they're not universal and thus useless "truths".

And why are these visions always really lame things? In the bible, it was people being resurrected, water being turned to wine, people walking on water, all sorts of stuff

Now it's just weather and other shit like that.
>but it was predicted!
Yeah, you can bend any prediction to be what you want it to be.

>>2405683
18.
I grew up in a very dominant catholic country (Ireland). Before I grew into Atheism, I attended mass regularly, prayed before dinners and even read and memorized a few scriptures out of interest to see whether or not I wanted Religion to play a larger role in my life, and because of this I was even offered a place at a local abbey in my parish.
Then the Internet came by, as well as "outsider culture." People began to do things differently and even this one guy went to become a nurse, which resulted in people questioning whether or not he was gay. I was revealed to a whole bunch of stuff concerning atheism and the legitimate arguments against religion. This also played a massive impact in my outlook of life since in around this time, my father died. I didn't attend mass as much and I even forgot parts of the Hail Mary prayer. My mam didn't like this. Because of me distancing myself from my faith, I gained a lot of freetime to learn about more things. I actually became interested in things like projective geometry, arithmetic reasoning, etc. Maths really tested my problem solving skills and as such I also gained interest in physics, which helped me a lot when my leaving cert was just around the corner.
A few things happened in my life which made it turn for the worst, and a few months after my leaving cert, my mother kicked me out of the house for my "incompetence" to not be able to hold a stable relationship with my ex, as well as act orderly. This fucked me over pretty badly, as at the time, I wasn't working in any job at that time and I couldn't financially support myself as well as get into college. It was in around this time that I ditched the atheism stuff and began to rediscover my faith in god.
Sorry for the TL;DR.

>>2413556
ew, why? internet atheism isn't even irl atheism

besides, on 4chan all the christfags bitch about "fedoras" when in reality the atheists on this site are the best behaved. It's the christfags shitposting about ">2017 >not being orthodox" or some such bullshit. Atheists here are rational but if anyone ever says "well there's not logical reason to believe in god besides fear of death" you just get

>FEDORA
>[IMAGE OF FEDORA]
>EUPHORIC
>EVOLUTION IS A MYTH

Christians are really hypocritical tbch, as well as real assholes on this site. Seems pretty un-christian to me.

>>2421804
sounds like you just needed something to support you

people do the same thing but with drugs, alcohol, etc

why do you think all of a sudden god exists? Seems like you had a tough time and in your head you were subconsciously saying "i need a god" so you created one.

>>2421806
>>>/reddit/

File: 1477275073362.jpg (429KB, 800x609px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 800x609px

>>2421821
see what I mean? you can't even have a discussion with these fucking faggots

and if you do, they just shitpost bible verses as if those are immutable facts

>>2421813
I didn't "create" a god. I just rediscovered my faith in Christianity.
Look, this "heh your god isn't real" bullshit aside, Religion creates a very strong social bond between people. Even if there isn't a god, even if there isn't an afterlife, it still creates hope in one. It creates a positive outlook on life, and we all know life can be bullshit. And sure, Religion is one of the major causes of war and such, but so are Resources, Racial Tension, etc.
And yes, I did have a bad time. Religion helped me cope with that without having to resort to drugs or drinking. And honestly, it's a better alternative when considering the endgame.

>>2405683
18. Had to go through some growing up and see some real life to realize that the only way you can possibly make sense of everything is through god. You might just say its a coping mechanism, but you can't argue against simple faith. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs and I dislike those who try to force theirs on others.

>>2412428
prove spaghetti monster doesn't exist

cliche but that's how retarded theists are

>>2421840
Shitposting is better than shoving a banana up your hole

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQgI4bHpAlA

>>2421888
how is arguing about the logic of whether there is a God forcing your beliefs on others?

>>2421872
no one's doubting the bond, I just don't understand why it has to be in the form of following objectively archaic doctrine. Why can't you just have a community independent of religion? Why is that such an abhorrent idea? That's what I don't understand. I know that it creates community, but it isn't the only vehicle to do so.

I just don't think it should be painted as anything other than self-help, really.

>>2421930
Because Religion creates belief in a higher power looking out for you.
The idea of having an all powerful fatherlike being looking after you and promising you eternal happiness after death just at the cost of praying to him and his prophet is a pretty nice sounding one.

>>2421957
you're right, you're right. And it does sound nice

but saying that makes it sure sound... silly, huh. It's hard for me to walk outside and experience the world in its natural state and think there's anything else but nature. And I think I'm fine with that, really. What's here is really, really, beautiful and I'm glad I can experience the emotions of life. I have a mini heart attack sometimes when I think about the fact that "I exist". Really crazy.

>>2405683
About 17

File: 1427807266975.gif (2MB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x576px

>>2405683
When I stopped being an autistic fedora-tipper at 19
god the horrible memories
*cringes at self*

>>2421891
If I want to call my uncaused cause the flying spaghetti monster, then I fucking will

>>2421971
Found the naturalist