Hi /x/, I want to realise that 'God' doesn't exist.

>>18422939
The God Delusion by Dawkins. It goes throught with all arguments for Gods existence. Great read.

>>18422946
Thanks, are there any more?

>>18422954
read about the demiurge in gnostic philosophy

File: 51FpMF3p2VL.jpg (34KB, 375x500px)

34KB, 375x500px

>>18422954

Pic related if anons book doesn't go into how the concept was formed

Thanks guys.

>>18422966
This looks interesting. I think I've found the whole book on Smashword

File: 511D+1q9zxL.jpg (39KB, 323x500px)

39KB, 323x500px

>>18422939

>>18422939
Forget the books. There is no proof for a god, nor is there any proof that there isn't a god. Atheists are just as bad as christfags, both putting "faith" into something for which there's no proof.

We don't know. The Bible is bullshit though. All religious texts are mumbo jumbo.

>>18423839
>Implying Atheists have a horse in the race
Atheism isn't a belief, you imbecile

>tfw no one wants to believe in the Christian God because it's so shitty

Look into alsn watts. He'll help you out :)

>>18424746

Of course it is. You severely reject that there's a god and you wouldn't ever believe in him, whether he existed or not.

Atheism is just as delusional bull shit as your oh-so hated christendom is.

You can't base your
>belief
on facts, just assumptions. That's what christians do as well. You critizise them for this very fact while stating that your own axioms of belief are the truth.
If that's no belief or even pseudo-religion then I don't know.

>>18424746

You imbecile.

>>18425801
You sound fucking stupid, Atheism is the rejection of a claim not a belief

No matter how many times you say it or how many people redefine the word, you will always be wrong

File: 4048383.png (84KB, 852x360px)

84KB, 852x360px

>>18428182

>atheism
>atehism
>ate hism
>ate hsim
>ate shim
>ate shit

Its whatever your heart desires.

>>18422964

Second. The idea of the 'creator' god, and the true, unknowable god, makes a lot of sense.

The book recommendations have been great so far but I'm sure there's many more of them.

>>18422939

>I don't want to believe in the Christian's 'person' God who is supposed to be the creator of our world.

It is intellectual cowardice to believe or disbelieve due to whim. Try your best to understand the world, question everything, and find what is convincing to you. It's all that any of us can do.


>>18423839

>Atheists are just as bad as christfags, both putting "faith" into something for which there's no proof.

If someone tries selling you a suitcase for $1000, claiming that within the suitcase are rare gemstones worth over $1mil, is it a matter of faith to doubt the claim? Is the statement "The suitcase probably doesn't really contain such a bounty" equal to the phrase "The suitcase is completely empty"? How would you gamble, and would your reasoning be analogous to the that which you used in your above post?


>>18425801

>You severely reject that there's a god and you wouldn't ever believe in him, whether he existed or not.

Hi, you probably don't recognize me. That's because I'm an atheist in the flesh, not the straw. I will contend that the so-call arguments and evidence in support of a deity are so embarrassingly poor as to make the claim appear almost certainly untrue. Especially given the length of time human beings have spent on that one subject. That's the atheistic position, and I'll change my stance when the real evidence comes by.

>>18430543

Have you heard of pantheism? Its the most logically sound version of religions imo

>>18422939

Sorry friend, you can't prove or disprove the existence of anything outside your own phaneron.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism?wprov=sfla1

>>18430557

Monotheism, polytheism, deism, pantheism, fryingpantheism... Always the same problems with internally inconsistent logic that requires rewriting the rules specifically to include whatever higher power is being posited.

File: 3878207_f520.jpg (37KB, 520x578px)

37KB, 520x578px

>>18430564

You can add science to that, our own understanding of the universe is faulty. Until we figure out the uncaused cause problem we can'tknow what is going on.

Well then what do you believe? Not like trying to prove god exists or something just legitimately asking. I'm gonna assume since you are on /x/ you believe in ghosts and shit, and just by science and basic common sense for anyone who is so skeptical and science oriented they don't believe in "God" Ghosts by many laws of the Universe shouldn't and can't exist, not to mention if there was a scientific explanation for it it wouldn't explain why our world isn't filled to the brim with ghosts, since if they could exist if there's no heaven or hell they couldn't just disappear when they want since they have nowhere to go

Again not trying to make a case for God's existence, not even implying so despite the fact I believe in God for personal reasons (Funny since I am a vehement user of 4Chan, the centerplace of "Sinfulness" lol) I don't really mind if you don't believe in God, just wondering

>>18430574

What you think is a philosophical brick wall is actually philosophical bedrock. There is no possible way to answer the question of why everything exists instead of nothing, since whatever presents itself as the cause would then need explanation. Then we get to infinite regression. If you were to propose some powerful deity, or even some unintelligent force, as the answer, you would end up with more to explain, not less. This is where theists will claim that their answer is, by their definition, exempt from such requirements. This is basically the method by which that internal logical consistency is brushed under the carpet. But you can't just throw a foreign element into a logic problem and then pull it out once it's placed under observation.

It must be true that at some point, on some level, stuff just exists. It just does. A godless existence is the more parsimonious model, and so that's where my preference lies. Trying to add anything else is like trying to calm ripples in a body of water using your hands.

Finally, science has given us a immensely useful but heretofore incomplete description of the universe from within. Faith in science can indeed be a problem, but its scope and track record make it the most deserving line of inquiry by parsecs.

>>18422939
>thinks things exist or exist
>believes metaphysical concepts can be rationalized in physical world
>needs other people to confirm his mind
jesus christ kid go the fuck back to your astrology general or wherever you come from and stop shitting up our board

>>18430603

You sound like a christfag explaining the same exact problem.

>What you think is a philosophical brick wall is actually philosophical bedrock. There is no possible way to answer the question of why everything exists instead of nothing, since whatever presents itself as the cause would then need explanation.

This is the exact issue I am talking about "there is no way to prove it look move along". It's not "philosophical bead rock" it is a real issue and implies that our understanding of the universe is completely flawed. Like I could create matter out of nothing and you wouldn't even question it.

>What you think is a philosophical brick wall is actually philosophical bedrock. There is no possible way to answer the question of why everything exists instead of nothing, since whatever presents itself as the cause would then need explanation.

This is where atheists come in and direct attention away from the fact that the main issue is the same in everybodies beliefs what came before the first thing there was.

>It must be true that at some point, on some level, stuff just exists. It just does.

And this implies that outside our universe our laws of physics are meaningless

A godless existence is the more parsimonious model, and so that's where my preference lies.

Believing anything with zero understanding of what it is you are believing is ridiculous absurd and unscientific. Atheists are no better then theists in this regard.

>Trying to add anything else is like trying to calm ripples in a body of water using your hands.

Holding any solid belief about what lies beyond our universe at the present time is like judging a book with the knowledge of a single word.

And I dont know why you finally ended with "science is great" I never made the claim that it wasn't just that our understanding is hugely flawed. If you think atheism is a scientific belief you will have me bursting at the sides.

>>18423839
The bible is a set of metaphorical fables aimed to teach people how to be decent human beings, but 1) the general public has always been retarded and interpreted them as real 2) endless revisions and retranslated editions muddle the original text, 3) It was never clear enough in establishing the metaphorical nature of its messages in the first place, and 4) christianity is false flag

>>18430638
Thank God someone understands, everyone gets so asshurt and mad at the things the Bible says even though even the stupidest shit like the world "Being 6000 years old" was explained amazingly by a book, and atheists may claim "Christians are such Christfags lol" in recent years they've become so cancerous it's pathetic, Christians today are so amazingly understanding and open to everyone whereas Atheists will post on Facebook they're unfriending anyone who believes in God (I've even seen this personally myself) and they'll call Christians stupid faggots who need to off themselves or some other stupid Leafy Fanboy levels of childish bullshit meanwhile Christians open debates politely and let Atheists know they're not trying to be rude just having open debates, it's stupid as hell and it pisses me off how modern Atheists think they're so much better then Christians despite the fact they're astoundingly cancerous to the point where even other Atheists are making fun of them

Inb4 "Haha stupid Christian ur inferior" only proving my fucking point

>>18430638
Oh and I forgot to mention, including the very OP in this thread "I know I'm right please confirm my belief" and they say Christianity is a giant circlejerk while this shit is accepted without a second thought

>>18430635


>This is the exact issue I am talking about "there is no way to prove it look move along".

Hey, if you're the guy to finally give me a logically sound explanation of anything more, do stick around. But don't be surprised when I've heard it all before, because I've heard it all before.


>It's not "philosophical bead rock" it is a real issue and implies that our understanding of the universe is completely flawed. Like I could create matter out of nothing and you wouldn't even question it.

Completely flawed? We don't have an answer to an unanswerable question. You're asking a bit much, methinks. This isn't even about science, by the way. It's impossible to use logic to magic an uncaused cause into the discussion without breaking said logic.


>This is where atheists come in and direct attention away from the fact that the main issue is the same in everybodies beliefs what came before the first thing there was.

I'm not sure what you're meaning to say here. Are you saying I'm an obscurantist for telling people they're muddle-headed to follow baseless, irrational conjecture?


>Believing anything with zero understanding of what it is you are believing is ridiculous absurd and unscientific. Atheists are no better then theists in this regard.

I used the word preference. I don't know absolutely that nothing exists outside this universe, but without a way of testing that idea there's no point in postulating. Russell's teapot. What separates me from theists is that I know where to draw the lines on what I don't know and can't know.


>If you think atheism is a scientific belief you will have me bursting at the sides

The post I was originally responding to (not sure if it was yours now) stated that I could add science to the list of nonsensical beliefs in higher powers. I strongly disagree with this appraisal of the method. Your sides may relax now.

>>18422939
God is a tool like a wrench or a hammer. To say that 'God doesn't exist' is to say that that tool has no use anymore. God is a damn useful tool with a lot of versatility. Depending on the context God is a cross-peen, straight-peen, ball-peen, claw, or sledge hammer. The specific ideas and metaphors associated with God are what make God useful. When you try to turn God into a vague spirituality you strip away all of the development that people put into God. It's like eschewing every available hammer for an unshaped rock.

I know I'll get shit for this, but there is an argument that God exists because we can conceive of God. It falls apart under examination, but the idea is stronger in reverse. There is an aspect to human being that people needed to be able to talk about, and over thousands of years we developed a set of ideas to communicate about that part of being human. In the West we call that set of ideas God.

>>18430664

So your holding a belief on matters you couldn't possibly understand backed cemented by the unscientific notion that reality is impossible to understand and rationalized because "it makes the most sense to you"

As I said, you and the vast majority of atheists are no better than christfags.

>>18430712

No, that's an ostensible misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's hard to keep track of how many aspects within this conversation are beyond your mental grasp, but I can list atheism, belief, logic, and degrees of certainty regarding knowledge.

I'm betting you were the person who made that aside about having faith in the scientific method being comparable to beliefs in the divine. You're just not able to maintain a straight line of thought because you're out of your depth. You forget the points even you've made because you're not even sure what you're trying to say at this point.


>the unscientific notion that reality is impossible to understand

You harp on and on about science while regarding the realm of philosophy. It's like you're trying use "unscientific" as a buzz word.


>rationalized because "it makes the most sense to you"

What does 2 plus 2 equal to you?

>>18430726

>Faith In the scientific method
>Comes to conclusions about things we haven't tested
>doesn't question holes in our knoledge we know exist
>fills holes with "faith"
>no better then a christfag

>>18430757
So what you're saying is, nothing is supernatural

>>18430799

No, merely unknowns. If something is paranormal and existent then one day we should be able to understand it. That goes for everything from ghosts to enlightenment to gods to plain reality.

I'm not saying its not ok to have solid beliefs about unproven or even unproveable things. But you can't make an educated guess about what's going on outside this universe until we know what the fuck is going on inside. And you certainly shouldn't write it off as something that's unproveable, if science can't understand the world then we have some big problem.

Its hard to think about but our laws of physics are inheritantly flawed. And the more we learn about it the freakier shit gets, look at quantum mechanics shit is whack.

And if you want an Occam's Razor based belief then my opinion would be simulation theory. Stuff exists because it was programmed to exist, uncaused cause loop ended because we couldn't possibly understand what the laws of physics in the real world would be.

>though they could also be a simulation

>>18430712
Simulation theory? Explain to me how that makes sense using Quantum Physics

>>18430847

Was meant for:

>>18430838

>>18430847

I dont know enough to try and didn't make the claim. Merely that it was the most logical theory to explain how something could come from nothing

>>18430872
"Something come from nothing"

So semantics

>>18422939
the Christian's 'person' God should be referred to as YHWH or Jehovah really as 'God' means wildly different things to a lot of people. I have no doubt that lots of Christians find support in their belief in 'God' from the fact that others believe in 'God' when actually they have totally different beliefs and both use the word God, just to mean whatever they want.

In Dawkins 'God Delusion' he has to spend the start making a specific definition of God which he is to expose as a delusion, and he is right, it is delusional to worship such a god even if you believe him to exist. But the god he exposes is not really the God many progressive Christians believe in.

Christianity conflates the ideas of a ruling god-king with the ideas of what is best described as the Dao, the nature of 'oneness' throughout the universe.

If you want to put YHWH to bed and make a sincere enquiry into spirituality, then consider him an alien tyrant and look into zen.

>>18422939
Richard Dawkins The God delusion

>>18422939
>Hi /x/, I want to realise that 'God' doesn't exist.

Translation: I want to CONVINCE myself god doesn't exist.

>>18430962
You think the default position is believing in god?

>>18430968
Supposing that scripture states how the path to hell is wide and the path to heaven narrow, no? Although each human has in their hearts embedded the knowledge of God.

>>18430968
>>18431000
t. dif anon

I don't really get it to be honest.

The things we make up with children so they believe it's real to inspire their imagination until they get older. We know what we tell them is false, but why does Religion persist as factual when it holds no additional weight compared to other forms of fiction?

Funny thing is in the face of death I bet most atheists will ask God for forgiveness just in case.

>>18431012
i certainly hope that they do, and that you too will as well.

>>18431000
In their 'hearts', eh?

The metaphoric language is lost on me