Are there atheist robots? Atheism seems to be very anti-robot.

File: goddamn i love being white.jpg (43KB, 494x661px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 494x661px

>>34746226

Atheism's just as subhuman low IQ retarded as fervently subscribing to a religion.

Humans don't know that there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity. For all of human history humanity has worshipped well over 5,000 variations of deities and each congregation of tribe or people are autistic enough to say there one's the right now for some vague reason.

But at the same time saying that you, a hairless primate who can't even find his car keys on a bad day let alone understand the mysteries of the universe and leave your own god damn planet, know for certain with your infinite wisdom that there is no such omniscient deity pulling the strings of infinite dimensions beyond your comprehension. To say that you comprehend that there is no "God" and you're certain of such thing is just as arrogant as a religious person saying they know there is. For fuck sake we could be in a virtual reality run by aliens for all we know. We barely know everything about our own Earth let alone what else exists in the universe or beyond it.

So both sides are absolutely dumb fuck retarded. You can't confirm nor deny it. You can just have the most rational and objective stance which is "I don't know." Because there's not a single human on Earth who does know for a fact it's one way or the other. There's only retards.

File: 1452559843498.jpg (17KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x375px

Anti-robot in what sense? It's the rejection of one of the most normie things.

>>34746359
Atheism literally allowes normies to do whatever they want, because there is no higher force to judge them.

>>34746357
burden of proof

asdfksodks

>>34746226
>Are there atheist robots? Atheism seems to be very anti-robot.
How do you figure?

Autistic people are literally more likely to be atheists because we lack a lot of the part of the brain responsible for religious beliefs. Autistic people who are religious have very different views on god than non autistic people.

>>34746410
No, Christianity allows whores to do whatever they want because "only God can judge me, the Bible says it's not man's authority to judge, let he who is without sin caste the first stone, also god is forgiving etc etc.".

t. Grew up around a lot of sluts in church.

File: IMG_0889.jpg (252KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1024x1024px

>>34746226
I'm agnostic when it comes to belief in God but I think some religion is healthy for society. I think the state should promote religions that outline and offer clear, civil moral guidelines and values.

>>34747083
Atheism is also at the burden of proof.

>>34747200
You don't have to prove a negative.

>>34746357
learn the difference between positive and negative atheism. positive atheism asserts that there's no god, whereas negative atheism rejects all assertions of god's existence. you're in fact (from what I've gathered) a negative atheist just like me and most of the atheists actually.
>>34746410
believing it and wanting it to be true does not make it true
>>34747194
yes, slavery, genocide, capital punishment and the like are very healthy indeed.

>>34747200
Not really
>Theism: God exists and thus wills it
>Atheism: If God proves itself, we submit to it. Until then we're just gonna hold human beings accountable for the things human beings do.

>>34747233
You're genuinely retarded if you believe that. The proof being that you hold such an opinion.
>>34747261
Just because you believe in God, doesn't mean there has to be one.
Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that there doesn't have to be one.

>>34747200
nope. atheism (the rejection of the assertions that god exists) is at no burden of proof because it doesn't make a claim. all it does is it rejects claims that haven't yet met their burden of proof.

>>34747275
so many words, so little meaning. are you a buzzfeed writer by any chance?

>>34747275
I don't even know what that has to do with (at least one) God proving itself real, and thus stopping Atheists from stopping tangible people that definitely exist from fucking other tangible people over. It's not really hard to grasp this concept.

>>34747279
>>34747295
>>34747302
Prove God doesn't exist, back up your claim. You can't.

File: IMG_0971.jpg (72KB, 1300x885px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1300x885px

>tfw God is the first cause that set this hard-deterministic train going

Why would you be an atheist? Who gives a shit if God(s)'s real? Be apatheist master race.

>>34747311
which god? there are uncountably many. do I have to disproof them all? and have you disprooven all gods but the one you believe in?

>>34746357
Which one's more likely, they're all right or I'm right?

>>34747311
Just because you can't prove something DOESN'T exist does not mean that it does. It literally doesn't work that way in any other aspect than this. Burden of proof is on you.

That's like saying...

>I own a pet shark.
No you don't.
>Prove that I don't.
Prove that you do. I'm not supposed to do your job for you.
>See? Therefor, I do have a pet shark. Checkmate, atheist.

Moron.

>>34747311
God, if you exist, will you please strike down anon number 34747311 as a show of your magnificence. Amen.

Reality is anti robot

>>34747311
(negative) atheism doesn't claim god or deities don't exist. what it says is that all religious claims of god's existance provide insufficient evidence and thus we reject all their claims. we make no statement as to whether or not god exists so we don't have to proof anything - unlike you.

>>34747311
Nope, the burden of proof rests on claiming it exists. As it has never been proven, only historically imposed on society, I await the empirical proof it exists. Until then, I reject the notion on the lack of proof.

>>34747311
Things don't exist until you prove their inexistence, you fuckwit. The burden of proof is on proving god exists, not proving that he doesn't exist.

>>34747311
First you prove witches don't exist.

File: 1475419436353.png (309KB, 750x711px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 750x711px

>>34747339
>have you disprooven all gods but the one you believe in?
holy shit, religious keks FUCKING WASTED

>>34747339
>which god?
Any God really, you can't disprove them.
>and have you disprooven all gods but the one you believe in?
No, I'm not the one saying they don't exist.
>>34747355
Same can be reversed
>you don't own a pet shark
Yes I do
>prove you do
Prove that I don't. I'm not supposed to do your job for you.
>See? Therefore, you don't have a pet shark. Checkmate, christians/muslims/jews

Retard.

>>34746357
Most atheist are agnostic atheist, as in "I don't know for sure if there is a god, but I have seen no convincing evidence, so I don't belive in one"
Im sorry but if you are not convinced that there is a god, and it sounds like you are, then you are also an atheist.

File: 1475846998147.png (295KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 600x706px

>>34747411
>No, I'm not the one saying they don't exist.
neither are atheists. unlike you, they just don't believe in them as long as there is insufficient evidence supporting god's existence.

>>34747411
>Same can be reversed
No, it can't you fucking idiot, and that's the whole point. The neutral position is to be unknowing, i.e. I don't know whether or not you own a pet shark. If you assert that you have one, then you have to provide evidence to back up your claim. Until you do so, I remain unknowing about your pets and I surely won't believe anything without evidence to back it up.

>>34746357

Religious apathy is just as bad as atheism you fence-sitting faggot. Pick a fucking side and quit trying to play the "neutral" card.

File: Image.jpg (24KB, 1200x680px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1200x680px

None of this matters.

It's easy to throw everything to God because of how we don't know. We evolved and thrived due to our brains. We're self-aware and this is one of the consequences. We must know because it's how we function. Some people can't handle it and decide to throw it to God because it hurts to think about as your brain can't get past it. You could go insane if you try, honestly. We're all in the same boat.

The universe should not exist. There is no purpose to it. Just rocks floating around. If the universe needed us, which is doesn't, it wouldn't have taken this long. You can see that we were an accident due to how the universe itself is. It's indifferent to our existence. Let's say that us, humans, are required for a greater purpose. An end goal. A final solution so to speak. Why? The universe created us to fix a problem? Or it could have just done nothing and there would be no problem. It created a problem, just to created a solution, and to have that solve the problem?

God is just another barrier to the same question. God should not exist. We would not exist if God existed. Why? Well, clearly he exhibits human-like traits which a God would not. He would not put us on Earth and test us. He would already know the answer before he asked it. Let's say that it's a test for the afterlife. Why? Why does the afterlife exist? Why does God need us there? He could just skip all of this and put us there because he already knows the outcome, but there's still no purpose to it. It seems like a man-made idea just to make us feel better.

God doesn't need our help. He wouldn't do it just for fun because God would not exhibit those characteristics. He's not bored because he can't be. Did he gimp himself because he wanted to stop being bored and have something to do? Not possible because then he would not be a God. Then who made him? Why does he exist? Was he just there the entire time floating around?

>>34746226
If you have God you're not alone, so you're not a robot. I actually know a guy who was a depressed loser and found comfort in religion, that gave him optimism and turned him into a normal person

>>34746226
if you are talking about actual robots. humans create robots, they are higher beeings, so humans are robots gods.

>>34746357
>muh agnostic dogma

Except NDErs. They know because they've experienced it first hand.

>>34747603
Furthermore, if he created himself, what was his mission? If he did it just because then that would not make him a God. God doesn't need to do that.

Even if you take all of that away. The opposite of something is nothing. What is nothing? How does nothing exist? Is it just nothingness? Does this void mean anything? Are we just in this void forever. How did it come to be? You can always trace back to the start and... There is no start. It just keeps going and going. What is outside of this void?

You get the idea. We're in the same boat and we're fucked either way.

There's really no reason whatsoever to believe in any historical religious figure. It may be the case that some otherworldly entity created life or the universe, but there's no evidence regarding it and certainly no evidence to support any current religions.
I consider myself an atheist because I don't see any good evidence of a God, so there's no reason to believe in one. Yeah maybe there is some form of God in existence, who knows, but there's certainly no reason to default to believing in it, any more than it makes sense to wake up every morning and believe you're on the Truman show

I can prove right now, with logic, that God doesn't exist.

The problem is however, that the use of logic is easily beyond 90% of the population, therefore they will continue their ignorant cry of "you can't know anything" indefinitely.

>>34747658
Well, what do you know? The construct of a God goes beyond logic, you can't use logic to argue about the supernatural.

>>34747358
Underrared.

>>34747692
Your idea of God is a meaningless contradiction.

File: WE BELIEVE IN NOTHING.jpg (23KB, 560x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 560x375px

Nah man, I don't believe in god. I was never raised to have any religious beliefs, my parents celebrated Christmas for fun and presents, but that was as far as it ever went. When I started talking to other kids in school and learned about the concept of god, I just thought it was weird and cultish.

I mean, I guess it's possible, what they say. Maybe there's some kind of force that's "above" us, but I don't think it's anything like what us humans can conceive of. If there IS a "god" up there, it probably doesn't even know we exist, and it's probably more of a brutish, mechanical cosmic force than anything else.

I was raised to trust in the scientific method, evidence, and proof. I'm a default-state human - no beliefs were pressed into me, and I never had severe hardship force me into a belief system to keep me sane, so I don't believe in anything. Until I see a convincing case for something existing, I'm going to continue believing in nothing.

>>34747692
>can't use logic
>can't use facts
>you have to believe
Well, then we're back at square aren't we?
>he exist
>no he doesn't
With your logic you can never have a meaningful discussion with anyone.

>>34747820
>With your logic you can never have a meaningful discussion with anyone.
No, I'm just saying that most religious people don't take logic that much into consideration, for better or for worse. Why bother so much with people who don't care if it doesn't make sense?

>>34747311
You don't have to prove a negative.
originoli

>>34747775
This is like 99% of atheists across the world, it's only retarded americans who are so convinced that being religious is the "default" that they have trouble believing anyone could be atheist other than being an edgelord who hates their parents for making them go to church. The truth is that most people are simply never indoctrinated in the first place.

>>34747928
Isn't that the truth.

>>34748007
The fact you're never indoctrinated is a product of civilised culture.

Fact is, there is no culture in the world without a native religion and religious practices. It takes a civilised culture like modern Western society to evolve beyond innate human superstition that created religion. It's no wonder most people in the world believe in religion, and as the amount of third worlders grows, so shrinks the atheist population.

>>34746357
what if acknowledge that I don't know but that I BELIEVE based on my paltry knowledge about history and psychology that the most likely answer is that there is in fact no omnipotent entity?

does that even exist on your retarded atheism / agnostic duality or why do you have to pretend believing something is only what religious people do?