Navigation: /b/ - Random [Archive] | Search | Blowjobs | Archived.Moe | 4Archive.org [Home]
4chan archive logo
Is there a single rational, legitimate reason...
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random

Thread replies: 298
Thread images: 31
Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to be a theist in 2016?

Think about it.
>>
>>684045425
there is, belonging to a religious group has benefits

there isn't a single rational reason to believe in god
>>
>>684045425
CURRENT YEAR
>>
>>684045425
Probably not.
>>
File: 1462852087090.jpg (44 KB, 400x315) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1462852087090.jpg
44 KB, 400x315
>>684045425
OP man created God, not the other way around
>>
>>684046100
This is never going to be a thing.
>>
>>684045425
Science pretty much has answered all the stuff theism asks about, so nope.
>>
>>684045425
only if you have a phd in philosophy
>>
>>684045973
meh
>>
File: 2zgyant.jpg (80 KB, 700x467) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2zgyant.jpg
80 KB, 700x467
Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there).

Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references.

Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you.
>>
File: big-bang.jpg (2 MB, 2122x1415) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
big-bang.jpg
2 MB, 2122x1415
>>684047571
True
Origin of man
Origin of life
Origin of earth
Origin of the universe

are all stuff religion used god as an easy answer for, now we know the real natural occurences for all of them and don't need god as an explanation anymore
>>
>>684048133
>things you can do if you are a theist
run for president in america
not pay tax on church related business
be part of a relatively safe group, less murderers etc
receive support, financial, emotional, medical etc from members hoping to earn their deities favour
be reasonably sure all the yung pussy in church is virgin
have access to church run enterprise, like child care, low interest money lending etc

i could go on im sure
>>
>>684048674
Pretty much
>>
File: 1462418009251.jpg (59 KB, 528x528) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1462418009251.jpg
59 KB, 528x528
>>684045425
Belief systems are an integral part in how our brains evolved. Manipulating your own belief system to empower yourself and strengthen your mind is an important toolset utilized by the strongest members of our society. There is no "rational" reason, but nothing about life or reality is rational by virtue of its own existence. If you believe life is "rational" than you are deluding yourself. Agents of order are unknowingly agents of chaos under the employ of someone or something stronger than themselves. The next stage of human evolution is remembering that we ourselves are god, and god is everything and everything is the same.
>>
>>684048532
>Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there).
my country has an areligious majority.

>Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references.
as opposed to secular charities?

>Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you.
muh pascal's wager.

hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.
>>
It's cool to believe in Jesus
>>
>>684050698
no it aint
>>
>>684045425
>rational
>believes in religion

Pick one.
>>
>>684050914
what is it with you faggots not being able to tell the difference between religion and god
>>
>>684051390
What is it with you pedants and pretending that they're mutually exclusive. They're intertwined, regardless of how hypocritical the faith may be.
>>
>>684051390
OP is asking about believing in theism.
>>
>>684051607
>>684051751

they aren't mutually exclusive, they are different things

you can't believe or not believe in religion, it is a real thing regardless of your opinion

I thought you fedora fuckers were meant to be intelligent
>>
>>
>>684048674
this
>>
>>684050407

Well arn't you quite the antagonistic soul.

>my country has an areligious majority.
Sorry I assumed you were in a major country where religion is prevalent.

>as opposed to secular charities?
I did already point out that volunteer work from anywhere was looked upon as good, did I not?

>muh pascal's wager.
So what? It's still a compelling argument to some.

>hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.
It all depends on perspective. Also, who's to say there is a right or wrong god? Certainly not you.

If you don't want to believe, fine. You have that prerogative.
Enjoy that. Many people find solace and community in churches. Many find it in other ways.

Just because I don't believe myself, doesn't mean I'm going out of my way to make them feel bad for their own personal decisions. We are rational beings who have the choice to make our own decisions, dispite your feelings.
>>
>>684045425
Belong to no religion and believe in God. It's the safest way.
Still an Atheist though
>>
>>684053645
>safest
>>
>>684053645
What makes it safe?
>>
Can't we all just get along?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
>>
File: 1446855843678.jpg (20 KB, 599x337) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1446855843678.jpg
20 KB, 599x337
>>684045425
>>
>>684053565
>their own personal decisions
Nobody got a problem with that. it starts to become a problem when religion is used to carve out a privileged position in public policy.

>Discriminating at the workplace is ille-
>nuh-uh, religious family business!
>o-ok, i'm soooooo sorry, carry on with your discrimination then, god bless your soul
>>
>>684055042
If a God exists, he certainly wouldn't want you to pray to the wrong God. Therefore, belong to no religion.
If a God exists, he wouldn't like to not be believed in either. So, believe in a God and stay religion free.
>>
>>684053645
>believe in God
>Still an Atheist
what?
>>
>>684055820
I am an atheist
To believe is safer
>>
>>684055998
atheist = not believing.
so you're saying you don't believe but think it would be safer to believe? or are you saying you don't really believe but do sortof believe at the same time because it improves your safety?

have you considered that it might decrease your safety because god is a vengeful one and hates believers paying lipservice?
>>
>>684055771
What makes you think a God would care what it's creation believes?
>>
>>684045425
community involvement.
>>
>>684048674
that answers how, not why.
>>
>>684056875
There is no why.
>>
>>684056977
not everyone wants to believe that.
>>
>>684056366
I have
If God values logic, I am safe. If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing.
However, the point I am trying to make is "To belong to no religion and to believe in a God is safer" because if you don't belong to a religion you don't believe in one of the known Gods. But you still believe a superpower exists somewhere. God, if it exists, will appreciate it.
>>
>>684056875
The how is the why, given they're natural occurrences.
>>
File: escapism.png (104 KB, 244x165) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
escapism.png
104 KB, 244x165
>>684057109
>>
>>684045425
Science has never discredited creationism, if anything it has empowered it.
>>
>>684057413
I assume you made some kind of major typo there?
>>
>>684057215
>If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing.
He could hate you for not-believing just as much as believing in false gods.

Unbelievers and heretics.

>God, if it exists, will appreciate it.
but you didn't live according to the holy scriptures, sinner!
>>
>>684057413
agreed
>>
>>684057665
No. Evolution, the Higgs Boson particle, and the Big Bang devalue theism about as much as understanding how children are born.
>>
>>684058157
all of those discredit it
>>
>>684057413
Creationism was proved to be bullshit in every area
>>
>>684058298
But they don't. They're explanations of a process, not by any means a conclusion.
>>
>>684058676
A natural process that needs zero supernatural bullshit
>>
>>684056595
>didn't live according to the holy scriptures
There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have know which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.
>>
>>684058676
showing how a process works without external intervention takes many points where a previously-believed-to-be-necessary sentient creator would have to be present. Therefore it reduces the possibility-space of creationism.

Before evolution you could have argued that god created every modern species as it exists. After that you could only argue he created the original life. After a theory of biogenesis you can only argue he created the universe with the planet in it. After understanding the big bang you could only argue he set things into motion etc. etc.
>>
File: j9xgl.jpg (44 KB, 393x330) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
j9xgl.jpg
44 KB, 393x330
I find it funny that no matter how eloquent arguments are in religious debates, they only serve to strengthen the resolve of the other person.

>"Oh yea?? I'll show you!"
>>
>>684045425
If there is a god and he's like he is in the books i wouldn't worship him anyway
>>
>>684059395
Not far enough to have one side murder the other and settle things once and for all.
>>
>>684057873
>didn't live according to the holy scriptures
There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have known which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.
>>
>>684059147
Dissecting the processes of doesn't discredit the belief that something put those processes in place. You guys seriously don't see how this argument pans out? We'd be better off arguing which came first; the chicken or the egg?
>>
>>684059549
It was not for a lack of trying.
>>
>>684045973
Would blindly believing in something fictional be also rational if it brought you happiness and peace of mind in this existence?
>>
>>684059630
If you postulate that there MUST be something that puts the processes into place, then there also MUST be something that created god.

Otherwise you argue that there can be a final cause, and why not stop at physical processes for final causes?
>>
You can't deny your own opinion. If you believe that science is the only option, then that is your opinion, or possibly truth.
>>
>>684045425
>Atheist
>Win
>>
>>684059630
Emphasis on natural occurences
>>
>>684060337
Santa Clause was the shit. I totally wish that was a lifelong thing. I don't care about logistics.
>>
File: Irreligion_map.png (192 KB, 1800x820) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Irreligion_map.png
192 KB, 1800x820
>>684060647
If it weren't for mudslimes and niggers we would be winning.
>>
>>684060647
shut up
>>
>>684060395
Science can't rationalize the beginning of the universe anymore than theology. Arguing a "start" is no more reasonable than an "always", that there has always been a universe. Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God. It defies our understanding of finite and infinite. It's a quantum vacuum that mankind will never answer, but we're damn good at convincing ourselves we can. Cough.
>>
>>684061949
Big Bang?
>>
>>684061949
>Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God.
I do not follow that argument.

It's theology that argues that there must be a god because something must have been the first cause. But that's basically a +1 argument. why not +0 or +2. I.e. no god or a meta-god. Even if you accept their argument that there must be a first cause, it does not follow that that first cause is anything they call god.
>>
>>684045425

There are plenty, yes.

Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people? No, not really.
>>
>>684062688
What about it? You're telling me a giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere and exploded to create the universe as we know it? That's crazy. Sounds like something out of the Bible. Heh.

No, but really, did you read my post at all? The argument is a quantum vacuum with a recurring theme; what made that? What was before that? Infinity. Stuff we can't grasp because of mortality itself.
>>
>>684063546
that doesn't sound like anything from the bible
>>
>>684063212
>Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people?
It is if they use those believes to justify anti-social behavior or political demands without other foundations.

You know, sharia law for example?
>>
>>684062983
You can't quantify infinity and your insistence that the argument must be something created God for continuity's sake is proof of that. Omnipotency can't create omnipotency, it's a moot point.
>>
>>684063697
The inference was it sounded crazy enough to be out of the bible, not that it literally sounded like something out of the book of Matthew, you daft cunt.
>>
File: necromancer2.jpg (212 KB, 1600x992) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
necromancer2.jpg
212 KB, 1600x992
>>684063546
>giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere
First of all, that's not even close to what happened. Secondly, following the second law of thermodynamics we are basically feasting on the corpse of the big bang. it was one highly-ordered energetic state that has been decaying, becoming more chaotic, ever since.

So in a sense nothing was created. If you wanted a religious interpretation then maybe god died that moment and we are the maggots eating his corpse.

Maybe /tg/ knows of some necromancer religion worshipping death, that would be more in line with what happened.
>>
File: Georg_Cantor.jpg (76 KB, 534x700) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Georg_Cantor.jpg
76 KB, 534x700
>>684064161
>You can't quantify infinity
Math 101, F, see me after lectures.
>>
>>684064501
You're literally agreeing that it must have always been there which breaks all logic
>>
>>684064671
The integers never end either way. There is no beginning or end therefore it can't be quantified. Pi has not and never will be fully quantified, but it doesn't have to be because it's not a range. Who needs to go back to Math 101 again?
>>
>>684064294
It doesn't sound crazy
>>
>>684065220
You have oh so much to offer, don't you. What with your omnipotent opinions
>>
>>684064793
Time only makes sense for our own universe. So if the big bang arose from a singularity, and not a big bounce for example, then there is no before. and even if it was a big bounce it's possible that the point where it happened basically erased causality between the old and the new.

This discussion trivializes way too many things.
>>
>>684045425
I just hate Richard Dawkins.
>>
>>684065484
Quantum. Vacuum.
>>
>>684064161
I just got here, but are we really doing the irreducibly complex, creation debate right now? Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator. Then, why do we have a creator? I hope that wasn't too terribly butchered, but I'm pretty sure that argument has already been put to rest pretty thoroughly.
>>
Taoist here. You're all wrong. Everything just is. Now shuttup and enjoy your life, or don't I don't mind.
>>
File: 597636844.jpg (96 KB, 500x555) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
597636844.jpg
96 KB, 500x555
>>684045425
Does it count if you worship money???
>>
>>684060703

Yep. Your post is simple, yet says it all. I was trying to remember when I "found out" there wasn't a santa clause. Felt a combination of confidence, as I "figured something out". Growth/maturity. And the "end of something".
Ignorance is bliss? I don't know.
>>
>>684063212
There is one reason. Believers usually go beyond metaphysics. But this is where science has explanations (facts about the universe, evoultion, biology, neuro-science, etc) and religion has no sense.
>>
>>684045425
If it makes them happy, then I think it's rational. They say "ignorance is bliss." And it may be true.

Dawkins doesn't seem that happy tbh.

When you boil it down, for all his pontificating and postulating and eyebrow wiggling, he's wasted his life just as much as the religionfags. Maybe more.

The most rational thing would seem to be focusing on your own life, because it'll be over before you know it. And whatever happens after that... nobody knows.
>>
>>684065637
Yep.
>>
>Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to be a theist in 2016?
Low intelligence
>>
>>684063212
>>
I'm sorry, but is fundamentally disagreeing with someone not a rational and or legitimate reason?

I take issue with your statement (what I would consider a belief) right here and now. If your beliefs infringe upon my beliefs, then who gets to prevail?

Fuck it, just cut off my hand and send me to jail. Turns out that I actually do feel bad for looking at that purple camel on the third tuesday of november. Nevermind.
>>
Well nobody knows what happens till they are dead. If you keep to yourself you aren't hurting anyone.
>>
>>684066303
When you're dead you're dead
>>
>>684065604
You have to equate yourself to God for that argument to work, which is once again a matter of concept(flawed at that) not fact.
>>
>>684066303
You cease to exist. We have zero evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>684065912
Dawkins' just a cynic and basically does more harm than good for all ideas he's trying to advocate.
>>
>>684065912
That's it. He is focused on his own life. Everyone is. You use the word wasting, as if you're not doing the same thing that he is.

I would also say that blanket statement like, "If it makes them happy, then I think it's rational." Is a little short-sighted.

Just let the rapists rape, if it makes them happy. (No, I don't think you condone rape, and NO I'm not likening rape to religion. It's merely a point made that perhaps you should be more clear when making statements like that.)
>>
Religion threads are cancer
>>
>>684066703
Congratulations, you are part of the cancer now.
>>
>>684066340
Its a nice idea the afterlife. And if people need a religious dogma to not commit heinous acts then its all good. Carry out horrible things in the name of a god is a bad thing. But people kill one another over any bullshit all the time.
>>
>>684066560
You know, other than the countless people who have died on the table and came back with out of body experiences that are still a subject of debate to this day. Inb4 pineal gland dmt
>>
>>684066504
I'm fairly certain that I don't need to equate myself to God for that argument to work. I'm curious why you think this is the case.
>>
File: chowtime.png (39 KB, 300x217) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
chowtime.png
39 KB, 300x217
>>684066340
>>684066560

And you've received this data from a significantly sized random sample of deceased people?
>>
>>684066927
You absolutely do.. You literally said "if God doesn't need a creator then why do we". Because you're not an omnipotent deity that predates the universe, you fucking dumbass.
>>
>>684066940
We know this from examining the brain after death.
>>
>>684045425

Yes. Built in social network, and social influence. Christians are plentiful, and easily manipulated. Pretend to be one and have influence over a vast amount of people.
>>
>>684066940
Well, dead people are certainly dead. The first guy got that right. The second guy, seems to be leaning a bit. Your neural activity and your consciousness are definitively linked, but AFAK there's still a ton of things we don't understand about the brain. There's even fewer things we understand about the nature of consciousness. I've even heard theories that the second before we die lasts an eternity through chemical processes similar to the processing of DMT.

TLDR; We don't know for certain, and that's literally not a big deal.
>>
>>684067254
But... What if he is? I believe that
>>
>>684067585
Something tells me he does too
>>
>>684066678
Indeed, I'm wasting my Thursday night on /b/.

Dawkins has wasted significantly more time than I will on this subject.

As far as the statement I made about happiness, I thought the "it" was clear. I apologize. Yes, I was talking about religion/theism. Certainly not rape.

But to add to it, I'm somebody who believes that you should be able to do whatever you wish with your life as long as it doesn't harm someone else. Many members of my family go to church on Sunday. I generally sleep in. We still get along. I support their right to go, they support my right not to go. I'm not offended by them saying grace at the table as long as I get to eat immediately afterward.
>>
>>684045425
if rationalism is what logic supposes, and by that your individual subjective logic, you've already made the answer a clear yes.
>>
>>684066923
Those aren't exactly reproducible experiments.

If you wanted to design a proper experiment we would kill people and try to bring them back while laying out some cards next to the table. If they were truly hovering over their own bodies they could tell us which cards they saw with a chance significantly better than random.

Some might be lost in the process, but we can repeat this hundreds of times until we either have solid data or someone screams "ok, maybe we were wrong".

>>684066940
Yes, zero of them reported being alive after destruction of their brain.
I take that as no evidence in favor of life after death.
>>
>>684067254
who says he is?
>>
>>684067873
Finally someone who gets it.
>>
>>684067477
Yeah, you get the idea
>>
>>684067254
A does not follow from B.

I can create life without being omnipotent. So why is an omnipotent creator required?
>>
>>684067990
thanks buddy. I think he meant to say is there an empirical reason to believe.
>>
>>684067254
Ouch. That's not very nice. Okay, so you have a screen where I posted text, and you didn't read it properly.

I got you, don't worry.

"Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator."

That's what I said, and it's a really dumbed down version of an argument I've seen a bunch. The only reason I bother saying that, is because I encourage you to look up debates had on this subject. They're very interesting.

Back on topic. I can't equate myself to God in this argument, because the entire purpose is proving His existence. If I were to do that, it would become circular (eg: your goal).
>>
>>684067949
By out of body I didn't mean literally floating over the operating table, I meant otherworldly, although there has been plenty of cases where the person will claim to float out of their body/look over it. Really the question you have to answer is is there a soul, which hardly fits into the realm of science. Although if you believe Dr. MacDougall it weighs roughly 20 grams.
>>
>>684067873
But it makes sense only in a metaphysic way. Otherwise, it's not a religion but fooling yourself and others.
>>
>>684068329
No intelligent practicing theist will ever attempt to present you with physical evidence of God, to them the evidence is life itself. The logical response is to say there is no way to effectively disprove God.
>>
>>684052262
Execpt Robespierre was a theist
>>
>>684067688
Well, then we share the same idea about happiness.

I guess that we do disagree on what it means to waste time, however. Anyway, sorry for nitpicking.
>>
>>684068376
this is abstractedness and not an argument.

You still lose the point on "rationality." Metaphysics is what is behind every concept, and as such it's way too reductionist and eliminates any argument you might want to prove when you call it into question.
>>
>>684068548
I didn't mention anything about physical proof? If we are not questioning God's existence, then why are we having the conversation initially? I'm officially confused.
>>
No not at all. Religion is just a myth that people are brought up into and are too emotionally invested just to quit.

Religion is dying. No doubt about it.
>>
>>684068892
You said the entire purpose is proving his existence. unless your definition of proof is metaphysical, in which case.. wat
>>
>>684045425
There's contradiction, misinterpretation, and hypocrisy in the bible. Not to mention that most of it is hypothesis based off stories people have been telling for hundreds of years, which might not even hold true or accurate anymore. Whereas science is widely accepted as fact and has repeatedly been examined, tested, and analyzed to determine it's credibility, or at the very least developed theoricts that can neither completely prove nor disprove anything. You can believe in God if you want, no one really gives a shit whether or not you think a man in the sky exists or not regardless, but how about you kill yourself OP, and let us know whether or not you meet the man yourself or not, then post your factual evidence. And cite your sources too, pussy! This isn't 8th grade

TL;DR OP is going to hell for being a faggot
>>
>>684052052
Religion is the belief of a higher order which is implied with a god. There's no way out of that implication either.
>>
>>684069290
I disagree. We have no evidence to suggest theists are correct, but they could be. If you would call that irrational, then so be it. I would call it wishful thinking.
>>
>>684068360
>I meant otherworldly
and why should I give that more credibility than an LSD trip?

>Although there has been plenty of cases where the person will claim to float out of their body/look over it
Even some of them experiencing that would be good enough for the card test.

>Really the question you have to answer is is there a soul
you first have to define "soul" before you can test it.
>>
>>684068548
>to them the evidence is life itself.
ask them how that is evidence. because considering evolution and what we know about physics it hardly is direct evidence. it would sound more like a very very long and tenuous chain of arguments where at each point they would have to prove that there is no alternative explanation that works just as well or better.
>>
>>684069290
...No communists atheists in Russia and Cambodia were always peaceful.. whitepeople.
>>
>>684045425
reason and rationalism sound like intellectual terms but the things we know best are from experience, not just logic and reasoning.

Most people believe in god because of rationalism.
Eg. There is a universe. All things are in this universe. It originated at some point. It must have been created.

Arguments like that can't even be disproved! So use your head and don't just intelligence signal to all the atheists here.
>>
>>684069523
The entire purpose of the argument, yes. It's an argument generated by theists to reach a conclusion that God exists. I assumed I was arguing with one?

Of course I don't believe that the end result is any sort of proof. I'm arguing against that in the first place (well, technically I'm not even arguing. I've just lightly read up on this stuff).

Does that clear anything up? If not, make me look slow some more (I tend to be, sometimes) and we'll continue.
>>
>>684070114
That's a lie. Communists aren't evil.
>>
>>684070122
True.
>>
>>684068063
How do you not follow? You have to equate yourself to the idea of God, which is impossible, to make a valid argument that you don't need a creator.. Were you not born? Were your parents not born? Do you have the answers to the universe? No? Then the two aren't really comparable. Jesus Christ. It's a discussion of divine design, not misguided nihilism.
>>
Claiming that science has answered everything, yet the law of the conservation of energy only explains so much. There has to be a catalyst, an outside force. An outside force could be considered "God" by definition. Discuss?
>>
>>684070928
>there has to be
not really?
>>
>>684070928
What do you mean only explains so much?
>>
>>684070300
I'm agnostic at best. There isn't an end result, the argument never ends. Science analyzes and explains a process and religion/belief gives it a purpose. The two go hand-in-hand whether we like it or not; they both stem from our need to understand/rationalize the unknown.
>>
>>684067873
>>684067990
>>684068376
>>684068691
>>684070122
Anyone have anything to add or are we done?
>>
>>684070757
Was I born? Yes
Were my parents born? Yes
Do I have the answers to the univ- What?
Do YOU have the answers to the universe? Holy shit. How did we make that jump? What a ridiculous question. Of course YOU have the answers. They are in a book, written by an omnipotent being whose existence can't be proven, and they can't be contested based on faith alone. What a convenient, argumentative guarantee you've got there. Is this the part where I literally concede to your argument based on nonsense?
>>
>>684068193
>>684071620
Forgot to mention this
>>
I've had an NDE and I don't believe in God, but I believe in the afterlife
>>
>>684070122
The world in our heads isn't the same as the world outside. Jumping to the conclusion at god exists is because your brain rationalises things it doesn't understand.
>>
ITT trolls trolling trolls
>>
>>684071523
I strongly disagree with you. Science analyzes physical reality, and God is (at best) an entity that is outside of our (at least, current, conceivable) measurement. He is metaphysical, and science is physical. To say the two go hand-in-hand is ignorance, in my opinion. Science exists not to understand the unknown, but to make sense of the physical reality around us. God does not qualify for this.
>>
>>684071953
not clear what side your on if any on this
>>
File: virgin3gifts.jpg (35 KB, 411x336) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
virgin3gifts.jpg
35 KB, 411x336
I have anecdotal, but personally compelling, evidence of something or someone that can predict my future and cares about me.

God? Dunno, but prophesies came true, and science does not yet explain what I experienced.
>>
File: house lip.gif (238 KB, 500x224) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
house lip.gif
238 KB, 500x224
>>684072045

splitting logic to fit his religious indoctrination.

>top kek.
>>
>>684071953
I didn't say there was a deity, I merely said there are many reasons to believe there is. Not good ones in my opinion, but hey, the point is proven.
>>684071620
>>
>>684072275
god is nonsense come on
>>
>>684069734
Believing claims without evidence would be irrational. Just the possibility of some outlandish claim being true does not mean you should pay attention to them unless they also bring some evidence to back up that claim.

Otherwise I demand that everyone treat my claim that you burn in hell unless you spend 30 minutes per week hopping around on one leg with exactly the same zeal as they treat any other religious claims.

HOPPY DEMANDS IT.
>>
>>684071953
In either event, you are arriving at a conclusion that is not entirely supported by facts. Any reasonable atheist will concede that if God turns out to be the real deal, then he will start fucking praying.
>>
>>684072291
I'm confused. You think I'm religious? I have no deistic beliefs...
>>
>>684072325
You mean not scientific or not empirical. That's the whole point. Reason in itself takes steps and concludes without evidence all the time.
>>
>>684070757
>You have to equate yourself to the idea of God, which is impossible
Says who? I create things. creating a universe is only a few bits more complex, certainly finite in effort. I'm not omnipotent. Neither is any supposed creator.

In fact, some very dumb, unintelligent things create stuff every day. So he who created the universe might actually be a fairly dumb, unintelligent process.
>>
>>684072324
I can't state that with certainty, so wont
>>
>>684071796
you=/=god

Does that help?

It's like talking to a toddler. The "why do I need a creator of God doesn't" argument doesn't work because you're not comparable to God in any shape or form. For starters, because you're fucking born. Yes, you can create too, but it's a result of a cycle/process that theists easily(or conveniently, idgaf) attribute to God.

The point? There is no fucking point to this tedious discussion. It's all conceptual.
>>
>>684072713
There's no evidence to support it
>>
>>684072083
God is a result of the absurdity that results from attempting to apply meaning to a meaningless universe. The universe in your head and the one outside are made of different stuff for different "reasons". The problems of explanations of the universe are problems in our heads, not problems outside of our heads.
>>
>>684072633
I don't think you are talking about creation, but merely rearranging, which is all men can do.
>>
>>684072792
so what you're trying to say is that my working model of the universe doesn't have a god in there. well, yes. you're right. Doubt it ever will.
>>
>>684072325
Perhaps I am oversimplifying things, but here's what I think about what you said:

Believing in claims without evidence would be irrational.
Evidence for God = 0
Evidence against God = 0
Either belief = irrational

The only logical belief, to me anyway, is health skepticism and agnosticism.

As for your example of hell, that exists independent of the belief of an intelligent creator, so I choose, conveniently, not to entertain it. Ha-ha.
>>
>>684072539

you sound like someone who is afraid of there being a God and you making the wrong assumptions. There's fear in your words. You're playing pascal's wager, cause you dont have the balls to simply state that there is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of a God or Gods.

You, are a pussy my friend.
>>
>>684072045
I'm sorry but are you fucking retarded? Because "making sense of the physical reality around us" clearly infers it's UNKNOWN, not KNOWN. holy shit
>>
>>684045425
If theist ever THOUGHT than they wouldn't be thiest.
>>
>>684070928
Even assuming for a moment that all your other premises are correct

>An outside force could be considered "God" by definition.

Then you're saying you're willing to tack the label "god" onto practically anything. Which makes it a fairly meaningless and arbitrary label from which very little additional information could be derived.

Let's call it phlogiston instead. Or luminiferous aether, doesn't that sound spiritual?
>>
>>684073122
i g2g bc fags like this. He obv said that he doesnt even believe in deism. deism is the weakest form of god. it's like a pantheist. no consequence in the real world. k.
>>
>>684072723
I'm sad that you once again ignored what I'd written.

Why is it that human kind needs a creator?
>>
>>684072045
>and God is (at best) an entity that is outside of our (at least, current, conceivable) measurement.
how do you know that? those holy books of yours must have been written somehow, which suggests interaction with the physical world, thus measurable effects and thus within the purview of science.
>>
>>684072933
And I'll add, when you think about it, god is not really an explanation at all! It's like saying "I don't understand" without having to admit it.
>>
>>684073177
And so what? He says about purposes.
>>
>>684073419
Nobody ever said they needed a creator, I've been attempting to explain to you that your reasoning for why they wouldn't need one is extremely flawed though.
>>
>>684072792
I have evidence, which is personally compelling. I can't reproduce it, so it is just opinion to you, nor is it proof of deity.

But I have experienced things currently inexplicable by science, and am a scientist.

So, I can make no judgement, but to be honest, must keep an open mind.
>>
>>684073065
>The only logical belief, to me anyway, is health skepticism and agnosticism.

Pascal's pussy wager.

Fuck off, pussy.
>>
>>684073122
There is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of a God or gods.

Are you good to continue?
>>
>>684073539
You what nigger?
>>
>>684045425
rational ≠ theist
thats the problem
>>
>>684045425
of course there is, to get into heaven baka OP
>>
>>684073177
How does that infer that? I don't think you understand what infer or physical or reality or sense or science means.

Science takes a (physical, observable, testable) phenomenon like gravity, and explains it by eliminating variables until we arrive at a conclusion that is, ostensibly, fullproof. This is a physical observation of reality, and we make sense of it. This cannot be done for something we cannot interact with.
>>
>>684073633

Go on, pussy.
>>
>>684073580
He's not making Pascal's wager, which concludes that only belief in God is reasonable.

He's saying that neither is there evidence that there is no god, so honestly must conclude he cannot definitively know.
>>
>>684061118
This map look alot like the one that shiw poverty over the world. Only exeption is wtf china.
>>
>>684073558
If you don't have an answer to that question, then we either do not disagree, or you are full of shit... I think.
>>
>>684045425
no, nor is there a reason to be atheist
>>
>>684073065
>Perhaps I am oversimplifying things
yes, you are.

The issue is that we cannot assume that every random claim is true. Therefore the default assumption is that every claim is false unless some evidence in its favor is presented. There are some further conditions, but this might suffice, considering that there is no evidence.

True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But this only applies if you have strong prior reason to postulate somethings existence, e.g. because several other observations strongly indicate their is a common underlying cause to a process we have no observed directly yet.

For example until recently we have not observed gravitational waves, but that absence of direct evidence was not taken as evidence of absence because we already had the theory of relativity whose other aspects have been well-tested and because we already observed other phenomena such as binary neutron star inspiraling which is best explained with gravitational wave emission.

But as you say, there is zero evidence for god. We're lacking a motivating foundation and a testable, falsifiable prediction that would make it even worthwhile to consider that any such claims are true.

Therefore the default assumption kicks in that it is not true and it's on the proponents to present something to convince us otherwise.
>>
>>684074072
I will? The ball is in your court, as far as I know. I cleared up a misunderstanding, and now you're free to refute or agree with me?

Do you even know why we are arguing?
>>
>>684073992
Did the definition of unknown suddenly fucking change? Or are you too proud to admit that something previously not known is unknown? Do I need to post the Webster dictionary definition for you, Dumbass MD?
>>
>>684045425
Only the Jewish god has unhealthy obsession with belief. Normal gods are cool if you obey the taboos, fulfill rites and make sacrifices.
I.e. Jewish god is like psychotic wife - she is never content with simply not cheating her, she want you to not even want to fuck some young Qt.
TLDR - Jewish god is mentally unstable bitch
>>
Is my grandmother "looking down upon me" whilst I masturbate? That is the question.
>>
>>684073065

Nope.

Because the rejection of a proposition is not a proposition in itself.

By your logic it's irrational to deny the existence of anything anyone cares to state may exist simply because one can't provide evidence for that denial - which is always the case with unfalsifiable claims.)

If someone says: "I believe there is a microscopic, invisible, super-intelligent teapot floating in orbit around Saturn."

It is impossible to provide evidence to refute this claim.

However it is NOT irrational to do so precisely because the PROPOSITION has been made without evidence.

Likewise with claims of a God.

There will likely never be any evidence to positively disprove the existence of a deity. However the claim FOR one's existence has been made without putting forward any evidence in support of one. Ever. In the entire history of religious apologetics, philosophy, metaphysics and theology. Not a single proponent of deism or theism has been able to move past claims of revelation, weak tortology, the dishonest misuse of real science or unfalsifiable corruptions of logic.

Therefore it is patently rational to deny the existence of God.

Agnosticism is the position of the apathetic moron.
>>
>>684073992
You put too much faith in science. Theories, like relativity, or quantum mechanics, are proven incomplete, and the upshot is that an honest scientist must be prepared to change his mind, when presented with new evidence
>>
>>684073559
As long as that information is only inside your brain I consider your brain as a likely source of errors. As should you.

If you're really a scientist they should have taught you that your own mind is not a reliable instrument. It's easy to fool oneself. It's easy to fool others.
>>
>>684072402
Do you think an alternative explanation for the existence of the idea of god could give reasonable doubt to a gods existence?
>>
>>684074195
To what question? Why does humankind need a creator? I guess I have to reittirate I never said that it did? Or are you just deflecting because you realize how stupid your comparison to God was as an example
>>
>>684074349
>The ball is in your court

WTF is this? Basketball?

You are a pussy. You'd rather play it safe and call yourself "agnostic" (which really means "no dick or balls man") because you'd rather not damn yourself to this imaginary hell you've heard about from others.

>The only logical "belief" is agnosticism, because Im too much of a pussy".

Thats what you should be admitting to yourself.
>>
>>684074311
I can't really argue with any of that if we are speaking within the confines of physical reality. Everything is false until proven true. Science tests physical reality. It does this empirically. I don't know how you would attempt to test for a God or gods. I'm not saying this constitutes as evidence for their existence. I'm merely saying, with no way to measure or observe, we are left with something that presumably operates outside of the rules that govern science and or physics.
If we have no sign of a deity, and if it's powerful enough to create the entire universe and life as we know it, then why would we have the mean to observe it?
Deities would have to be metaphysical beings by nature. Trying to use science to quantify or prove them would, in theory, be meaningless.
I really apologize if all I did was repeat myself, but I'm confident that I did not. I don't believe in any sort of higher power because I have no evidence to suggest that. However, I recognize that I could be wrong, given the nature of the situation.
>>
File: pepe squint.jpg (60 KB, 500x495) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pepe squint.jpg
60 KB, 500x495
>>684074667
>faith in science.

Oh oh.... watch out brothers. The man has learned how to reduce the coversation down to silly semantics.

Next thing he's gonna say is that "atheism" is a religion too.

A group of people who share any one thing in common?... Thats a religion too!

Baseball?... Thats a religion.

and so on...

>MFW
>>
>>684074751
I do know that my perceptions, intelligence, and education are finite and flawed.

The fact remains that I can only reach conclusions based on those tools, which is why I state that I have experienced scientifically inexplicable things, which appear to be evidence of... something.
>>
>>684074477
>In the entire history of religious apologetics, philosophy, metaphysics and theology.
I think anyone who ever believed that their is a literal guy with a white beard sitting on mount olympus and throwing down lightning has been proven wrong.

You may argue that only few people held this belief, and no true theologian would have claimed that. But it still is a possibility-space that met the criteria of being falsifiable. And that has been done. Probably thousands of years ago already.

The war is won in the sense that every (reasonably) falsifiable claim has been falsified and they have retreated onto unfalsifiable territory. Which is akin to retreating onto quicksand.
>>
>>684074667
>and the upshot is that an honest scientist must be prepared to change his mind, when presented with new evidence
that's the point you retard. nothing is taken as holy scripture. everything is just an approximating model which might get overthrown tomorrow in the face of new facts.

and most importantly, each theory makes testable predictions.

that's exactly what we ask for from religion.

not truth. not exhaustiveness. just some testable claims and an open mind to the test results.
>>
>>684045425
Yes, you can fuck altar boys.
>>
>>684075268
>which appear to be evidence of... something.
Something, sure. Such as LSD in your tapwater, a brain tumor or maybe a lack of sleep.
>>
>>684075265
You can play word games to avoid my point if you want. That won't be anything other than a tactic to prevent comprehension, and that's just trolling.

Ty for showing the quality of your contribution to this debate, so we can consider it's merits accordingly.
>>
>>684074477
You are awesome. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

My initial argument was just that it was not necessarily irrational to believe in a God or gods.
It's not a question of stating whether or not something exists, but rather a question of, given a lack of evidence in either direction, is it flawed to choose to -BELIEVE- one thing (in this case, religion).
I understand that a god cannot be proven, and that it's flawed to try and assert that. I hope I haven't (unintentionally) done so or asserted its possibility.
>>
>>684075829
>You can play word games to avoid my point if you want.

You're the one playing semantics (thats "word games" for you) you stupid iron age retard.

You like living in the dark ages?, go live in a fucking cave and hunt your own food. Renounce everything that science has given you and your retarded kind. Let the rest of us move on and improve the species, you piece of shit embarrassment to the human intellect.
>>
>>684075628
Not all experience is testable, and we all, atheists and deists alike, have faith in things we believe that cannot be reasonably tested.

And, as we do not expect to test every belief, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the untestable beliefs of others are ridiculous.

At least not unless we are willing to conclude that our own faith in our untested beliefs are equally so.
>>
>>684076417
>, atheists and deists alike, have faith in things we believe that cannot be reasonably tested.

No we dont. Stop asserting shit that isnt true. Saying it doesnt make it true.

I dont have "faith" in shit. I have reasonable expectations based on my circumstances. Thats all.

There is no "faith". Bitch.
>>
>>684066288
Nice hitler dubs, reddit.
>>
>>684074667
idiot
>>
>>684076417
I liked what you were saying until you decided that something was ridiculous. By your own admission, your conclusion is unreasonable, I think? Maybe you didn't mean it that way, and maybe I read it incorrectly, but until that's cleared up, you're probably some sort of faggot, and you should probably feel bad and stuff like that.
>>
>>684074477
Yes, but that's because science deals in absolutes. Understanding the processes of life doesn't make you anymore wiser to the purpose of life itself. Theology is a discussion of quantum reality that easily comes off far fetched and silly to the man who loves his 1 and 0s.
>>
>>684045425
According to psychologists the 2 things that make humans happiest are marriage and organized religion. How dare people want to be happy?
>>
>>684073992
>until we arrive at a conclusion that is, ostensibly, fullproof.
Nothing in science is foolproof (you're placing too much trust in your auto-correction).

For example that whole origin of life thing? Far from settled. Evolution? Still some gaps here and there. Gravity? We don't know how it works at small scales. And we have yet to directly observe strongly curved spacetimes, we only can directly see rather shallow ones.

You might think of those open questions as only tiny corrections that still have to be done. And maybe from the perspective of everyday-life that's true. But as far as theoretical models go we might have to eventually throw them out of the window and admit that they were only crude approximations (albeit fairly useful ones) that just worked in the domains most easily accessible to us.

Take all that chemistry stuff for example. Full of bullshit rules that only work 90% of the time and break down if you throw in some elements with more complex electron shells into the mix. That's because all those empirical rules you learn in chemistry class are just emergent behavior of quantum interactions between atoms which in some cases also need relativistic corrections. Calculations that get so complicated so quickly that simulating molecules more complex than hydrogen gets extremely error-prone. That's why we're using approximations.

Anyway, science is not a magical thing. It's an information-gathering process.

> This cannot be done for something we cannot interact with.

Indeed. But things that do not interfact with us at all are irrelevant, because they by definition have no impact on us or the world around us.
>>
>>684075740
Some things are likelier than others, you will concede, I am sure.

I experienced prophecies, which were utterly beyond my powers of prediction, and incredibly unlikely to be mere coincidence.

While I cannot conclude with certainty god did it, I'm sure it wasn't lack of sleep, or LSD in my well water.
>>
>>684076813

arguing for religion based on its utility?

>what if rape makes me happy? should rape be legal then?

how dare I be happy?
>>
>>684052052
irony
>>
>>684052262
Revisionist history sure is popular these days, huh
>>
>>684076565
I feel like you might have missed his point? Is gay marriage okay? What about eugenics? These things are beliefs that you cannot test to arrive at a 'correct conclusion,' and I believe that's what he was referencing. The fact that he included both theists and atheists in the same sentence lead me to believe that he was excluding religion from the conversation. I could be wrong, however.
>>
>>684076417
>Not all experience is testable, and we all, atheists and deists alike, have faith in things we believe that cannot be reasonably tested.
Such as?

If some omnipotent guy with a beard shows up tomorrow and does some neat party tricks like putting the moon on the other side of the earth by snipping his finger then I would be willing to consider him also being capable of creating planets with life on it. I wouldn't blindly believe that he is omnipotent, but i would take that demonstration as decent evidence towards that direction. Or at least that he can trick my brain fairly well. And at some point the distinction becomes merely philosophical for a bounded intellect such as mine.
>>
>>684045425
Would fear be considered a rational reason?
>>
>>684076966
Woah, woah. Back up a second and give me your definition of the word happy.
>>
>You can't prove that it's real therefor the only logical thing to do is rabidly declare it isn't real

agnostic atheists > religious people > edgy reddit militant atheists

If you're sitting here reading this thinking "oh boy i sure am glad i'm one of the good athiests", after reading the posts in this thread it's more likely that you're a self absorbed narcissistic pseudo-intellectual who hates people for believing things they can't prove while assuming that the opposite assertion (which is equally without proof, just like any supernatural claim, positive or negative) is automatically correct like a hypocrite.
>>
>>684076164
Ad hominem attack? Are you bereft of any further substantive comment?

Sorry about your feeble intellect. Maybe, if you try, you can improve
>>
>>684077253
I bite my thumb at thee, ye most faggeth of fags.
>>
>>684076966
I'm saying why do people fucking care what other people believe? Nice try equating rape and going to church. You must wear a helmet on that short bus.
>>
>>684076565
You say potato, blah blah..

Reasonable expectations, blah, blah..

Same damn thing,only you will not concede that others experiences have as much validity to them as your own do to you.

You have faith, just not in a deity.
>>
File: atheists.jpg (34 KB, 491x541) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
atheists.jpg
34 KB, 491x541
>>684077253
Holy shit this post is comedy gold

You know it's possible to be an atheist without being a massive tryhard fag, right?
>>
>>684076823
The word ostensibly was used for a reason.
(Provided I'm not mistaken on the definition of the word.)

I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because I believe in the scientific method, and I think one of us is misunderstanding the other. Reprimand me if I'm just an asshole or something.

Things that do not interact with us at all are irrelevant. I guess that's a sentence.

I think we're straying from the original topic? I just don't think it's irrational for someone to believe in a God or gods. I wouldn't have them assert it's reality, of course.

That's the real topic, right? I would say its relevance to your everyday life is (kek) irrelevant.
>>
>>684045425
>684045425
>>684045425
pascal's wager. have you even philosophy 101'd in college OP? ignorant faggot
>>
Being an Atheist is pretty ducking depressing imo. I'm half Jewish and soon I'll become a full Jew. I'm not doing it because of God and all that shit, it's more of a matter of belonging.
>>
>>684076830
You said earlier that what you have observed would be merely written off as opinion.

I'm saying that it sounds more like crazy. Because you swear that there are things happening to you which you cannot explain and nobody would believe. You might as well swear you have been abducted by aliens and you're utterly convinced that they're using you to stage an invasion on earth.
>>
>>684076765
You're saying that you cannot hold any beliefs that others might reasonably conclude ridiculous?

I'm saying we all are finite, flawed, and do hold ridiculous beliefs.

Maybe I'm wrong? I doubt I'm wrong about that, but I'll keep an open mind.
>>
>>684077729
Have you?
>>
>>684077524
>I'm saying why do people fucking care what other people believe?

I dont give a fuck what you believe. The problem with your "beliefs" is that they keep showing up in public policy, and you inevitably make decisions that affect others based on your "beliefs".

You dense motherfucker. Die already.
>>
File: michael-bolton.gif (3 MB, 408x218) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
michael-bolton.gif
3 MB, 408x218
>>684077253

Thats one fucking euphoric post right there.
>>
File: 1458361529435.jpg (31 KB, 500x408) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1458361529435.jpg
31 KB, 500x408
>>684078290
Says you faggot.
>>
>>684077653
>I just don't think it's irrational for someone to believe in a God or gods
I think there several things that make it irrational.

First, the unwillingness to reevaluate that belief. It may be a bit tautological but believing in something intangible requires determination to keep believing it despite reasons not to.
Second, those believes do not exist in a vacuum. They entail required actions and behaviors and color decisionmaking on no rational basis
Thirdly, they are irrational simply by having no rational basis.
>>
>>684077171
I fully agree with you, and this is why I can only state that my experiences are evidence which cannot rule out some form of deity.

I can think of several other possibilities, some of which seem more likely to me, but none of which I can reasonably test, and therefore leave me ignorant of the actual 'truth'.
>>
>>684078134
why i oughtta....
>>
>>684078095

Not all beliefs are testable
We all have untestable beliefs
It is unreasonable to conclude that untestable beliefs are ridiculous
^This is an untestable belief

That was my point. I'm not sure if I cuck you, but if I do, cuckmate. If I don't, then I submit to your superiority and admit defeat.
>>
>>684077462
May Allah curse your mustache!
>>
>>684077729
Bookies give high payouts for dumb bets so dumb people give them money. Jus sayin.
>>
YOU NIGGERS THINK THIS SHIT JUST HAPPENED? THIS EXISTENCE?? THIS COMPLEXITY?

here's my proposition:
the human mind isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend existence or understand the universe. our universe might be of intelligent design but the one beyond ours could very well be chaotically randomly created
>>
>>684078958

can you prove I am not a leprechaun?

>therefore... its possible.

lel.
>>
File: 1453880530594.jpg (176 KB, 600x798) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1453880530594.jpg
176 KB, 600x798
>>684079063
>>684079063
can you explain how its a bad bet? to me it makes a lot of sense
>>
>>684078732
I understand, but why are the same arguments not valid as a counter in the context of merely believing?
It seems to me like you are assigning reason to faith- uh oh. I think I'm going to have to go crawl under a rock and never come back. I need to go study a dictionary. I'm sorry.
>>
File: huffky.jpg (85 KB, 540x449) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
huffky.jpg
85 KB, 540x449
>>684079141
>the human mind isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend existence or understand the universe.
>goes on to explain it even though the human mind isnt sophisticated enough to understand it.
>my fucking sides.
>>
>>684079180
can you prove you are real, and not 'asleep' in a pod plugged into a digital world like the matrix?
>>
>>684079180
I wasn't arguing, but questioning his logic.
>>
>>684079310
was trying to give an illustration for the peabrains like you out there. the explanations might very well be something which we cant understand or define, or even be cognizant about
>>
>>684077644
The post to which I was replying was nothing but an insult, and merited my response.

Certainly one can be an atheist without being reduced to incapacity of rational argument?
>>
>>684045425
chocolate milk and young titties
>>
File: 1448957010902.jpg (2 MB, 1512x3000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1448957010902.jpg
2 MB, 1512x3000
I'll just leave this here.
>>
File: dawkins-watson.jpg (95 KB, 800x450) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
dawkins-watson.jpg
95 KB, 800x450
>>
nine elevi nevar forgetti is still beleif
>>
does a fish on the bottom of the ocean have any idea of iranian vs united states international relations? how can we understand what the fuck is going on lightyears away from our galaxy, much less the outer reaches of the universe?
>>
>>684079319

i cant. and therefore its a VERY REAL possibility according to you, not... can you prove I didnt type this and you're not imagining it?

>lets keep the stupid ball rolling.
>>
Deism master race. Have fun being militant little faggots.
>>
File: 1378689851637.jpg (350 KB, 1600x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1378689851637.jpg
350 KB, 1600x1200
>>684079421
>implying something
>>
Look at Richard Dawkins, do you think something that complex could have evolved by chance? Surely it must be Intelligent Design.
Q.E.D.
>>
>>684058157
strawman arguement
>>
>>684078657
ALLAHU AKBAR!
>>
>>684079636
hurr
>>
File: aRAy7wG_460s_v1.jpg (56 KB, 460x613) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
aRAy7wG_460s_v1.jpg
56 KB, 460x613
Here
>>
>>684077911
If that had been my experience, that's all I would have to work with.

My experiences aren't reproducible, and cannot be considered by me as evidence to you.

My assertion of my experience, on the other hand, should be, as I have shown to make no immodest claims, and to properly consider my own fallibility.

I remain reasonable, and therefore my statement should be treated as reasonable.

This is about all it can mean to anyone not in my head.
>>
>>684078460
I'll try to screw my fedora down tightly
>>
>>684079912
>9gag memes
find better Sauses
>>
>>684079217
Good for you.
>>
>>684079912
Please tell me you're an atheist...
>>
>>684045425
Unless proof is brought forth, I will not believe in God.

Unless proof is brought forth, I will not deny his existence.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but being far right or far left with the absence of definitive evidence to support either argument makes you closed minded.
>>
>>684078958
Actually, I think we're in agreement here.
>>
>>684057109
Some people are simply too weak to admit that their lives have no predetermined meaning and they must find it on their own.
>>
mainly to separate myself from edgey faggots
>>
>>684078834
If you can think of several other possibilities then opting for "results inconclusive" would seem like a solid choice instead of just jumping on one conclusion.

Assuming for a moment that your choices are "there's a deity" and "I'm crazy". Then I can see how the crazy aspect might be an unpleasant choice, especially if it means you're hallucinating things that convince you that they are utterly true even when you can reason that they shouldn't be. In fact, it would cause me some serious mental anguish if I had to contemplate such scenarios.

But once you think about it some horribly ill-defined deity thing existing can get very unpleasant too. Because it means that there is some super-human intelligence which scrutinizes your entire life based on a system that might be entirely beyond your comprehension and then mete out rewards or punishment based on that system.

Wouldn't that feel like being a rat that has to die for cancer research? Sure, it's for a good cause, and done with the most stringent ethical restraints on the process that only those rats will be dissected where it's really necessary. And it will be done in the most humane way possible. But in the end, from the rat perspective, you're just being created, poked and trained to behave a certain way only that some of you get killed, although maybe if you're lucky you're part of the mythical "control" group which gets a nice cage until they die of old age instead of being cut open.
>>
>>684079421
looks more like feminist art.
>>
>>684057413
Creationism is just a dated wrong hypothesis. The fact ,that a lot of people believe it, is a proof that the level of standard education is still too low.
>>
>>684079521
i cant, for all i know you are a computer. or a handler of humans. maybe extra terrestrial
>>
>>684045425
No.

Kill all theists. They have no value except their bodies for plant feed.
>>
>>684079912
>9gag
>aRAy7wG_460s_v1
If I were religious I would accuse you of being a false-flagging atheist.
If I were an atheist I would accuse you of being even more retarded than most religious people.
>>
File: 1453601983943.jpg (39 KB, 600x449) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1453601983943.jpg
39 KB, 600x449
ATHEISTS, POST YOUR PROOF FAGGOTS OR STFU.

THEISTS, POST YOUR PROOF FAGGOTS OR STFU.


EVERYONE ELSE, ENJOY YOUR MINDLESS LIVES. NOTHING YOU DO IS UNIQUE OR SELF CONTRIVED
>>
>>684080959
Then my plan worked.
>>
>>684080598
I completely agree with you, and have only stated that what I experienced us evidence of ... something.

Something that I am unable to be certain isn't some kind of deity.

It would fit some descriptions of deity, so ... I dunno.
>>
>>684080251
Since you neither wish to make absolute statements for or against about the existence of god, let's talk probabilities or maybe the following:

How much effort and resources should be invested in finding proof for god's existence it it were up to you?
>>
i havent seen one compelling argument from anyone in this thread, fucking step up niggers
>>
>>684081069
You sound like a wannabe atheist with a religious girlfriend or something.
>>
>>684081191
Good question anon. Pertaining to probability, I'd consider myself agnostic atheist, being that I'm neutral to either standpoint but find it unlikely for there to be an existence. I've been through some rough shit, and at the same time, have had some truly great experiences, neither of these I attribute to the influence of a higher power. I believe in chance, which completely goes against the ideas of divine intervention. That being said, I laugh at people that tell me they were at a difficult point in life and picked up religion and then all of a sudden, things got better, so they attribute their good fortune to God.

I think a minimal amount of effort and resources should be used to determine the answer. The very same resources that we'd use to discover an existence can be used to improve the quality of the tangible lives we live here on Earth.
>>
>>684081584
i am a scientist you faggot, i want to believe whatever the proof shows me
>>
>>684081897
Boolocks.
>>
>>684068554
True. He felt atheism was a decadent symptom of the Nobles indifference.

But the cult of the Supreme Being seemed to be mostly about himself.

Long live the Jacobins! !
>>
>>684081069
>ATHEISTS, POST YOUR PROOF FAGGOTS OR STFU.
Sure.

1. For the proof of (non-)existence of the God (henceforth: the subject) the subject and its properties must first be defined. Discussion of an undefined subject would be a discussion void of content.

2. The subject's definition must encompass properties and predictions derived from those properties that are observable. If it were impossible to observe by any process it would have zero impact on reality and could thus be substituted by a subject that is inert or does not exist at all.

3. To date all proposed definitions of subject which have observable properties have either failed to manifest the predicted results or the predicted results were equally or better explained by alternative theories that did not involve subject.

Conclusion: All definitions of subject have so far proven as void of content, equivalent to an inert or non-existent object, falisfied or indistinguishable from simpler explanation, which the principle of parsimony would prefer.

This leaves the possibility of yet-untested subject candidates, but it is on the proponent to provide those.


Footnote: Testing of his noodly theories provided us with quite some food for thought. We encourage students to retrace our most delicious steps as homework.
Thread replies: 298
Thread images: 31
Thread DB ID: 37949



Navigation: /b/ - Random [Archive] | Search | [sexy] | 4Archive.org | [Home]

Navigation: /b/ - Random [Archive] | Search | [sexy] | 4Archive.org | [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.