My GF just converted to Atheism and now she is always angry and disagreeable.
How do I unconvert my GF from Atheism?
>Pic related.
>MFW she yells at me.
>>768411321
Anselm's ontological argument
How many insecure Christian threads do you intend to post today?
>>768411321
beat her into submission like the bible says
You can't. Faith in God isn't something you can make someone else understand. She needs to turn to God on her own.
>>768411569
shut the fuck up prottie. OP needs to beat her to a bloody pulp. Forced conversion just like the old days
You don't. She doesn't need to be religious in order for you to have a relationship with her. The problem with your religious people is that you expect everyone to adopt your way of thinking, til the point that it suffocates them. Don't force your beliefs onto someone else and if you have a problem with that, dump her or take it up with God.
>>768411321
Sell her as a slave to a Canadian.
>>768411321
she deserves better than you, give me her info.
>>768411321
Show her paganism
>>768411321
>How do I unconvert my GF from Atheism?
You can't. You can't fix stupid.
Athiesm is a religion. It requires the biggest leap of faith and is grounded in arrogance. Only a complete idiot believes that there is proof that there is no God.
>>768412166
Gentlemen, i present to you, a strawman.
>>768412342
Not that anon but I used to be an atheist and that post described me, especially in my starting phase. I'm agnostic now, which doesn't seem like too big of a leap but I be damned if I said atheism wasn't a half-baked knowledge-fest phase in my life.
>>768412737
>half-baked knowledge-fest
To those that didn't understand: I mean it was a part in my life where I interpreted a lot of information incorrectly and rationalizing a LOT. Very bad for somebody who claims to have the truth.
How does it feel to date such a simpleton? She probably converted for some selfish reason unless she's actually autistic but I'm sure you would have noticed her drooling and shitting on herself by now
Retarded people don't understand reason. Break up with her. She sounds like am unmovoing bitch.
>>768411321
So you're a crybaby
>>768412737
> I'm agnostic now
A (without) + theism (belief in a god) = without belief in a god. An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of a god(s).
Atheism is not even a category. It is the exclusion of a single category, theism. Meaning that someone who is not a theist, is an atheist. The only way to exclude yourself from atheism, is to believe in a god.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with a god belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, we are all agnostic, its irrelevant.
Now you can disagree with the definition of atheism all you want, but that doesnt change how people who actually do call themselves atheists use it, you are misrepresenting them.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
>>768412737
Another poor atheist turned against his fellow men by christian fallacies, propaganda and pressure.
You are still one of us, they have just brainwashed you, like they like to do.
>>768411321
Stop being a pussy, then tell her God cured you.
>>768413573
I'm referring to the Dawkins' scale, if that makes more clear what I believe in.
this >>768412166
>>768412737
you graduated
athiests are literally the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet
I swear they like saying they are athiest because they think it makes them sound smart (except to actual smart people who think they are simple dumb)
>>768411481
That's far the worst one. We cannon properly define God because we cannot get direct knowledge about Him, so we cannot presuppose existence in His essence.
To op: teach her about basics of coasiccal philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and then simply show her a bit of Aquinas.
>>768413573
dat retarded logic
first defines (misdefines) then builds off of flawed premise and absolutely false definition to draw illogical conclusion
hint: an atheist believes there is no god
an agnostic is uncertain as to the existence of a god
a theist has faith, albeit despite without proof (hence faith) that there is a god
you are about a dumbass if you have to redefine what atheism is to justify how stupid it is
>>768415286
the scale is misleading, there is no pure agnostic.
You either believe a claim or you dont, there is no middle ground.
There also are no strong atheists, not only can you not obtain absolute certainty, how can you claim to have it with no evidence what soever.
You are an agnostic atheist, just like me, you dont believe in a god but wouldnt claim to know there is no god, the terms are not mutually exclusive and like i said before, agnosticism is VERY irrelevant in this conversation.
>>768411321
>disagreeable girlfriend
You're too neurotic.
>Your girlfriend wants a dangerous pirate werewolf male
Don't be a religious sheep
tl;dr clean your room
This >>768415286
And this imbecile literally makes up his own definition >>768413573
How retarded is this anon >>768413573
>>768415562
>(misdefines)
im sorry to say but you are the retard here, words dont have meanings, they have usages, every atheist on the planet uses it in a certain way (no belief in a god) but you faggots demand it means you claim to know there is no god, read the fucking link.
Big man from sky somehow exists, created everything.
Sounds legit.
>>768415599
>not only can you not obtain absolute certainty, how can you claim to have it with no evidence what soever
It's how one self-describes, not how YOU perceive the nature of reality. By your logic, there aren't any "strong/militant/extremist Muslims (or anyone of any ideology)" either because "you can never be sure about what you believe in", therefore you don't act from a standpoint of feeling you're absolutely right.
Your method of describing people's beliefs is untrue, impractical and useless.
>>768415286
This scale is very wrong, agnosticism says nothing of probability. An agnostic simply says the claim of God's existence is unknowable. Whereas a theist believes God's existence can be proven (the bible says so, etc) and an atheist believes it God's nonexistence can be proven (omnipotence paradox, etc).
>>768416212
>big man
size is never mentioned
>from sky
not technically heaven
>somehow exists
always existed, like science claims of the multiverse
>created everything
like the big bang?
>>768416334
of course you can be sure, you just cant be absolutely certain, altough many would claim they can, im just not that ignorant.
>Your method of describing people's beliefs is untrue, impractical and useless.
NO U, my way is the most common, its the most simple and therefor also the most practical and usefull
You either believe in a god or you dont, thats a fact.
You either claim to know if a god exists or you dont, its very simple, which part are you not understanding?
>>768411321
>Converted to atheism
Kek. No ,but really can we please stop these repeat threads .
>>768416599
>>768416599
I read nothing in this thread. Really just some internet guy passing by.
But
>science claims
>multiverse
triggers me so much.
You have no idea what you're talking about, bimbo.
Simple, vote HOI4 in this poll
https://www.strawpoll.me/15686592
>>768416666
>cant be absolutely certain
Again, that has nothing to do with descriptions of people's beliefs. No matter if you believe nothing is real, or that perceptions make reality, or whatever you think is the nature of truth, it has absolutely nothing to add when it describes people and how their beliefs affect their actions. It might as well not exist. It's a completely different discussion to be done.
>>768412737
> make a false claim that Carl Sagan didn't know what the word "Atheism" really means, and be the ultrafaggot of the day
>>768411321
Kill yourself.
>>768416911
>science claims
Let me be more specific. These are voices in the scientific community who support the multiverse hypothesis (sometimes logically, sometimes mathematically) Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll, Stephen Hawking.
You have no idea what you're talking about hick.
>>768417189
>Again, that has nothing to do with descriptions of people's beliefs.
exactly the point i've been trying to make here, agnosticism is irrelevant and has nothing to do with beliefs but these faggots demand they can be between theism and atheism.
>>768411321
Maybe someday, Christians will finally understand what the word "Atheist" mean: to not believe in a god based on the lack of evidence. Period.
So you can be at the same time Atheist (you don't need a "God" in your existence to define the world as it is), and Agnostic (you cannot say that there is or not a God).
Also, nobody knows how to define "God". So religion is broken beyond repair.
>>768417273
>sometimes logically, sometimes mathematically
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>voices in the scientific community
Is completely different from
>science claims
>Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson
These people are megaclowns. They are a joke to people who actually work in science.
>>768417328
So you're saying that, if I self-describe as agnostic atheist, it's all okie dokie. A description which, by the way, I'm content to use, since I don't believe in the existence of a god/s in the first place. Makes sense.
>>768417492
>a belief in something that cannot be defined is broken
Scientific belief makes claims for consciousness all the time and it cannot be defined either. In fact, most things cannot truly be defined, only pointed to in a set and described in terms of quality/quantity. Religion is doing just fine.
>>768417741
>Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's almost as if you have never heard of M theory, which requires the existence of a multiverse and has a great deal of math involved. Or perhaps you just don't know what it means to support something with logic.
>Is completely different from
No, your interpretation was completely different. It's not my fault you assume everyone is an ignorant bimbo.
>These people are megaclowns.
Literally the voice of the scientific community. They disseminate information for the ignorant masses to consume - the very people who would hear the words "science claims" and assume I mean the scientific community which includes their favorite spokespersons.
>>768417850
i dont really care what you describe yourself as, as long as you dont go making assumptions on what other people believe based on your definitions alone like these other asshats in the thread. Another thing that bothers me is people thinking they can be between believing and not believing, they are rare but have seen it.
Theism is gay af. rofl
>>768418242
gay? propably.
stupid? totally.
>>768418108
>between believing and not believing
I'm not his, but I don't see how this is impossible. An agnostic is technically this, in that they make no claim. An agnostic who is neither theist nor atheist would be be considered between belief and non belief of God.
>>768411321
Conversion is no longer an option. You have to get all logical and start making sense to her or you won’t have a gf.
>>768418462
You really think there is a position between believing and not believing?
Let me introduce you to the logical absolutes and more precisely Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
Now my claim is, you believe in a god, this claim is either true of false without a middle ground, if true, theist and of not true, atheist.
You cant just throw away logic when it feels like its in your way.
>>768411321
>implying atheism made her a bitch and not the opposite
>>768418014
>has a great deal of math involved
It has math, it must mean something
>No, your interpretation was completely different.
Some people saying something within the science community doesn't equate to scientific fact. Argument from authority isn't a thing in science.
>Literally the voice of the scientific community
They claim to be the voice of the scientific community because they are not able to do actual work.
The voice of the scientific community is actual scientific work.
>M theory, existence of a multiverse, string theory and the likes
These things have little to do with ACTUAL scientific work. They are not falsifiable and have pretty much nothing to do with actual research.
These things are used to bedazzle the plebeians. Nothing else.
>>768418462
"Belief" is very strictly defined in many religions. For example, say you both "believe and don't believe" in a Christian god. Christianity demands that you believe in Jesus and his resurrection. Not speaking for all denominations of course, as there are more strict "standards" (in others you have to have faith and get baptized, or have faith and do works to prove it). The point is, if you don't do these things you are NOT Christian. Your own, personal belief in God doesn't really matter as it isn't you who defines what's Christian and what's not in any case, except if you found yourself a denomination that accepts this position of "being between belief and non belief" as valid belief.
>>768411321
Are fucking Christians raiding b? Get the fuck out of that board, cheeky holy cum-licking bastards. I am tired of your slapable crying bitch face.
>slapable crying bitch face pic related
I think there is a difference when it is said “an atheist believes there is no god” vs “an atheist doesn’t believe in the claim of god”
>>768418911
>A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
As a semanticist who often formalizes language into logic this makes no sense to me. Let me introduce you to the idea of "truth values" - which in classical logic are black and white as you suggest. But that's not how people think or speak. If I say "The king of France is bald" it can be argued that there is no ultimate truth value for the utterance. This is because France doesn't currently have a king - a nonsensical presupposition prevents us from giving the statement a value of true or false. This is what Frege's theory of reference is all about.
>>768419393
The question is malformed. He made it so he cant be wrong.
>>768415308
Well, atheists are certainly smarter on average; coming to this conclusion requires more critical thinking. But anyone who makes their religious views a central tenant of their personality is unmitigated cancer.
>It has math, it must mean something
M-theory, if it were true, would mean quite a bit yes. Please don't try to strawman, it makes you look dumb. Stick to things relevant to your initial point if it helps.
>>768418963
>doesn't equate to scientific fact.
I never claimed it did, you're straying again.
>Argument from authority isn't a thing in science
It sure is when people don't understand the scientific method or the specifics of a scientific study. Authority is the means by which information is disseminated.
>They claim to be the voice
They don't claim, they literally are. Maybe you don't listen to them, but most people do.
>These things have little to do with ACTUAL scientific work. They are not falsifiable
It's funny because work at the LHC is on the verge of falsifying M-Theory. Please stop straying from your point, it makes you look bad.
>>768418014
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand the concept of science and that you are an asshole.
There are no voice for the scientific community. The only way one can define a scientific community is by including all that are using the scientific method. Which are people with different theories, different views on the world, and different religions (or lack thereof).
There are no scientific spokespersons. There are no scientific authorities. There are some that try to explain things for laypersons and there are people dominating some fields. Not the same thing.
>>768419451
>malformed
So you're saying it has no truth value of its malformed? Whatever malformed is? Tell me, why can't someone's belief in God be malformed?
>>768419393
>formalizes language into logic
>doesnt know of the logical absolutes
bitch please
Sure if you want to look at it like that we can never make any sense of anything god related because nobody can tell us what a god is, but when it comes to simple belief it really is just that black and white, it doesnt matter if there is a god or if the king is bald, what matters is you believe the claim.
I love watching religious retards bitter at the only logical position, that being an Atheist. There is no compelling evidence that your god exists. THE END
>>768419716
>Tell me, why can't someone's belief in God be malformed?
of course it can, you can for example think you believe in a god when in reality you dont, or the other way around, but even there you would just get a malformed answer, the truth still is that you either believe a claim or you dont.
>>768419633
>atheists are certainly smarter on average
This description of atheists (IQ I'll presume) is a bit poorly-informed. I don't have the graph so I'll explain it as well as I can.
The distribution between atheist IQ is crazy imbalanced, a big part of it is around 70 IQ, then it takes a steep way downward till around 100 and then rises back up to 130 almost as big as it was in the 70 IQ distribution.
Christian IQ distribution is roughly the same in all levels, though centered around 100.
So, you're more likely to talk to a literal retard when you're talking with an atheist than a retard when you're talking with a Christian.
>>768419715
>There are no voice for the scientific community.
Oh, so everyone just looks at studies directly huh?
>The only way one can define a scientific community is by including all that are using the scientific method.
Or they could be people who are familiar with the scientific method and are thus trying to explain the results that might be concluded by using it.
>There are no scientific spokespersons.
Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku
These are people who have a voice of authority. People assume they know what they're talking about. That's why they're so popular.
>There are some that try to explain things for laypersons
This is exactly what I'm talking about, it is exactly the thing.
>>768420158
that is not even close to what the data shows. see, the dishonesty of the believer?
>>768419633
except the fact that you're actually getting baited on a bait thread retard
>>768420291
we know
>>768420177
>Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku
they do have authority, but only in their own fields, Neil for example is an astrophysicist, but when you ask him about gender neutrality you are just asking another person.
>>768420114
No, that's a malformed answer. A malformed belief would have no truth value. It would be a belief that makes no true or false claim.
>>768419986
>when it comes to simple belief it really is just that black and white
Classical logic is black and white. People don't think in classical logic (as I demonstrated and described using Frege's theory). If you insist on thinking of this in terms of pure logic though, I would say human beliefs are much better defined in terms of multi-valued logic, like fuzzy logic.
>>768420252
>the dishonesty of the believer
Wasn't meaning to give bad data. Show it yourself.
>>768420158
Yeah, I'm not quite sure about that statistic, but I can see the general trend being an inverse bell curve. Believing in religion requires you to have the cognitive capacity to "understand". That being said most retarded people likely lack any religious belief for or against so I'm not totally sure that counts as atheist.
>>768411635
That isn't how catholicism works
>>768420440
I didn't say they were all knowing, and I'm not sure who would assume they were. They do however move a little bit out of their fields sometimes in order to explain the absolute basics of another field (such as a methodology being employed and its limitations). In this way people consider them an authority for all sorts of things, probably more of an authority than they deserve.
http://www.strawpoll.me/15686995
Vote and stop arguing, will post results when i hit 100+ people
>>768420533
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs
>>768411321
The harder you try to convert her, the more she's going to fight you because she needs to continue to convince herself she is right.
Just live your life faithfully and if she respects you she'll stop being an edgelord. If she continues to be an insufferable nag every time you do something even remotely related to your faith, give her the talk.
>i converted to atheism
literally what
>>768419639
Obviously you have no scientific education beyond highschool. Considering my point is very clear cut and pretty much consensus within the scientific community.
Considering you missed the point the entire conversation I'm happy to loop back to your original statement.
You said
>science claims of the multiverse
Either you assume the claim is false in which case your entire argument falls apart, you assume it might be true or it might be false in which case it also falls apart or you assume the claim is true in which case
>I never claimed it did, you're straying again.
this shits a contradiction(*).
>Argument from authority isn't a thing in science
It sure is when people don't understand the scientific method or the specifics of a scientific study. Authority is the means by which information is disseminated.
Just no.
People who don't understand the scientific method or the specifics of a scientific study are not IN science.
They are not part of the scientific process.
Also
>it makes you look dumb. Stick to things relevant to your initial point if it helps.
>you're straying again.
>Please stop straying from your point, it makes you look bad.
Resorting to ad personam this hard because you can't into science. Fucking humanites at it again.
You contradicted your intial claim(*). Here I marked it for you. Which was all I cared about.
Now go back to your history channel level debate
>hurp durp
>quantum physics
>magic is real
I'm out.
>>768420476
>It would be a belief that makes no true or false claim.
what? a belief is not a claim.
>I would say human beliefs are much better defined in terms of multi-valued logic, like fuzzy logic.
and i would agree, but we arent talking about human nature or how we deal with beliefs in general, we are talking about 1 specific belief, the belief in a god and no matter how you try to change the subject, you cant argue against me when i say you either believe or you dont without a middle ground.
But since you have tried i would suggest looking in a mirror, question yourself, why exactly are you looking for excuses, why are you dodging it, why cant you just accept it? what is holding you back?
>>768411321
who cares what she believes? She's the one who will burn in hell for all enternity
>>768421227
there is no hell you soft brain retard
>>768419716
What I meant is the statement you made can’t be refuted by default. It’s like saying anything and adding 2 and 2 saying it equals 4 and saying it can’t be refuted. I took a shit this morning and afterwards I felt relieved. Whether you believe I took a shit or was relieved doesn’t change the truth.
Fuck you all, give me one, ONE, example that God exists besides your garbage fagbook
>>768421005
>what? a belief is not a claim.
A belief can be defined in terms or propositional logic, and would thus be considered a claim.
>We are talking about 1 specific belief, the belief in a god
Right, so for instance, if I only had the belief "God may or may not exist" and I did not think about it further, that proposition is necessarily and trivially true. I'm assuming that's not what you mean though. Instead I'm assuming that you mean that the belief must entail meaning related to God. It doesn't.
>why exactly are you looking for excuses
I like to help people understand things that confuse them. I think it makes me a better teacher.
>why are you dodging it, why cant you just accept it?
Hmm, I guess the main thing that stops me from seeing this the way you do is the many years I spent studying the topic in uni.
>>768421547
You're thinking of truth in a different sense than "truth values" entail. I'm not making a claim here. I'm attempting to equate a proposition to a binary metric and finding it impossible.
>>768421754
I second this
>>768421754
thirded
Pray for her to A, the god of the Atheists, to let her go.
>>768421754
Quadrented
>>768421754
Fuck you, give me one, ONE, example that you exist besides your garbage posts that could be from anyone or anything.
>>768421754
>inb4 i-it feels nice, it gives me a sense of purpose in this cold, cold world, a-anon. Let me have this one, p-please.
>>768421974
>ONE, example that you exist
you responded. ta da!
>>768421974
Kek you perceive him and thats all that matters is my conculsion anon
>>768422081
>implying I exist
>>768422097
Fuck your conclusions they don't exist either
>>768422183
Solipsism faggotry
>>768422183
No fuck you. Your saying i dont exist made me stop existing reeeeee
>>768421974
The fact that i write these posts is a proof, btw don't try to attack me and try to proove your belief
>>768422183
I saw you respond
>>768422097
He saw you respond.
peer review faggot
>>768421772
>A belief can be defined in terms or propositional logic, and would thus be considered a claim.
belief (or the lack of it) is the RESPONSE to a claim, how high are you?
I too hold the belief that god may or may not exist, but that has nothing to do with the claim "god exists" or the belief of that claim, its a different claim, another subject yet again.
Even if you had never heard the word "god" you would still either believe or not believe the claim, not believe in this case if you needed that clarified, but since i can already see you going there, sure you could believe in some sort of a god without ever hearing anything related to it, maybe it came to you in a dream.
> I think it makes me a better teacher.
please never talk about atheism, agnosticism, god or the logical absolute in your class room before you do the research on it, which you will if you truly are a good teacher.
>many years I spent studying the topic in uni.
did they talk about this specific topic? or how about how people believe all kinds of things, for weird reasons and rarely apply logic in their thinking? Im guessing the latter.
>>768422265
>>768422269
>>768422297
>>768422356
Think as you will, act as you must, I'm still God and I say none of us exist.
Kek thread went from bitchy atheist Gf to we dont exist.
>>768422428
You're god?
I have questions
Anyone listen to Harmontown?
>>768422457
>complains about atheist gf
>op used to be theist-cuck
>op is now existentialism-chad
>>768422428
Found God here kek
>>768422722
Dubs have spoken. Existentialist Chad is OP now.
>>768422788
Fuck yeah my dubs confirmed ur dubs
>>768422788
quads separated by the divine 7
Guys im making coffee anyone want some?
>>768422909
please
>>768422645
Infant annihilator or GTFO
religious humans are garbage humans
>>768422941
On it /b/rother. Kirkland Signature 100% Columbine coffee supreme bean negro roast fine grindr ok?
>>768422397
>belief (or the lack of it) is the RESPONSE to a claim
In contemporary mathematical logic, we generally ignore philosophical distinctions like this.
>Even if you had never heard the word "god" you would still either believe or not believe the claim.
Claim: God exists
>there is a being such at it is God and it exists
Belief: God may or may not exist
>(there is a being such that it is God and it exists) or (there is not a being such that it is God and it exists)
You're asserting that the Belief entails the Claim, when it in fact it's the claim that entails the belief. Just because I believe God may or may not exist, that does not mean I believe God does exist. Instead the belief that God exists entails the belief that God may or may not exist.
>please never talk about atheism, agnosticism, god or the logical absolute in your class room
I'm not talking about belief systems, I'm talking about logic. The nature of your claims doesn't change suddenly because its related to religion.
>did they talk about this specific topic?
I've taken about 20 units on semantic logic yes.
>>768423188
that'll suffice my my dude
>>768423007
Ok Mr Bond. Im on it.
>>768423260
James is fine
I have a headache. Maybe I'll pray for it to go away.
>>768423473
Kek no tangents in this thread.
>>768423287
Maybe /b/ isnt that bad.
>>768423473
don't do it; religious humans are garbage humans
>>768423599
More dubs. Kek is with you.
>>768423599
nah nigga I took acetaminophen, ya know shit that actually works
>>768423238
>God may or may not exist
is irrelevant, like agnosticism, you are mixing claims again.
we are only talking about 1 claim here, us being able to admit that we might be wrong believing either way has nothing to do with it. Also did i forget to mention that agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive? im both, i dont believe the claim "a god exists" and i do believe the claim "god may or may not exist".
This whole conversation can be ended here.
>Just because I believe God may or may not exist, that does not mean I believe God does exist.
correct, but do you believe that a god does exist? judging by your response i would guess no and that is how we define an atheist and that is all im trying to talk about here, how many times have i said so far that agnosticism is irrelevant when we talk about the god claim and our response to it?
i gotta go soon so im gonna make this simple.
Do hold the belief that the claim "a god exists" is true, yes or no?
Do you still think belief in no god OR the belief that god may or may not exist are relevant when talking about just this 1 claim?
>>768411321
Cheer up. Look for another that believes what you do or will put up with it.
>>768422874
two dubs is quads now?
WTF summer math?
>>768424174
This guy:
>>768422874
Meant this guy:
>>768422722
>>768424174
two dubs by definition are qauds retarded aids monkey. WE own these boards now.
>>768424058
>is irrelevant
The person's belief is irrelevant? Also you seem to be confused, this isn't my belief. I'm an agnostic theist. I gave this as an example to counter your assertion that everyone must either believe or not believe in God, black and white, binary value. We stopped using that model in propositional logic over 100 years ago.
>Do hold the belief that the claim "a god exists" is true
I believe it, but I also know that it's possible to have no belief either way.
>Do you still think belief in no god OR the belief that god may or may not exist are relevant when talking about just this 1 claim?
It clearly is.
>>768424432
No coffee for you man. Thats just gay summerfaggotry.
>>768424507
fuck your covefe
>>768424489
>We stopped using that model in propositional logic over 100 years ago.
you abandoned the logical absolutes 100 years ago, cool, its kind of hard to be logical without them.
>I believe it, but I also know that it's possible to have no belief either way.
so this brings it back to the definition of atheism then, its the lack of belief, not the belief in no god, thats called anti-theism.
Let me ask another question, If i say i dont believe in a god, does that mean i believe there is no god?
>>768424725
>If i say i dont believe in a god, does that mean i believe there is no god?
sure doesnt
>>768411321
Only one solution
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1526168506512.webm
All these newfags replying to the same old bait.
These threads with picture have been around for many years on 4chan,this is just a troll spam thread.
Ignore it,and move on with you day.
The more you reply to this OP,the more enjoyment he gets out of you anons falling for the bait.
>>768424783
So if we define a theist as someone who believes in a god and an atheist as someone who doesnt, it logically follows that one who is not a theist is by definition an atheist?
>>768424938
only old fags who think its cool to have been here for longer than a month would think they cant tell people what to do and not get fucked in the mouth with a shovel
>>768424725
>you abandoned the logical absolutes 100 years ago, cool, its kind of hard to be logical without them.
Logical absolutes still exist, they just aren't a property of propositions (ie beliefs). Instead propositions are claims which can be true, false, or neutral.
>thats called anti-theism
I'm not talking about anti-theism. I'm talking about a neutral stance on Gods existence justified by agnostics convictions.
>If i say i dont believe in a god, does that mean i believe there is no god?
>Claim A: I do not believe in God
Could be written in logic using one of two existential markers. The meaning is ambiguous.
>Claim B: I believe there is no God
There is no ambiguity in this sentence. It is the same as one of the possible meanings of the previous, but also different from the other possible meaning of the previous.
>>768425012
correct
>>768424507
I agree and make mine regular, thanks.
>>768425111
>agnostics convictions
is contradictory
>>768425205
Believing that something cannot be proven is as much a a claim as believing it can be proven.
>>768412166
>Atheism is a religion
Atheism by definition means she has no religious belief, or belief in a higher power.
It is more of a philosophy than a religion.
>>768425258
no it certainly isnt
>>768425258
a belief is not a claim... a belief is when you accept a claim as true, its a response to a claim, i could believe literally anything without ever claming anything, all i need to do is keep my mouth shut.
>>768425381
I believe 2+2 cannot be proven is a claim that would require some serious evidence.
I believe that God's existence cannot be proven is likewise a claim, it simply has no evidence to the contrary.
>>768425111
I dont have time for this, just answer the question.
If i say i dont believe in a god, does that mean i believe there is no god?
>>768425526
>a belief is not a claim
In propositional logic they are the same. Don't get too hung up on this, I'm just saying they can both be defined using the same logical constructs.
>>768425535
your belief is irrelevant, there is what is true and what is not and have good and bad methods to determine what is and is not real thus 2+2 can be demonstrated to have a correct answer whilst "does a god exist" can not.
>>768425586
>If i say i dont believe in a god, does that mean i believe there is no god?
You don't have time to understand where your point breaks down huh? Alright, I'll be less formal and more specific your point:
>~(belive(god))
>believe(~god)
In propositional logic these statements are the same. Both have the same truth value.
>>768411321
>when bugs... become real! nicee
>>768425614
then maybe you need to chuck propositional logic.
You cant just treat 2 different things as the same exact thing in conversation just becuase your school says they can be treated the same way.
Have you forgotten how to communicate? we have 2 different words here describing 2 different things with different definitions, they obviously are not the same.
>>768425949
no i dont have time to see you dance around the question.
Its a simple yes or no question, save me a lecture and just spit it out.
>>768426002
>talk about claims in logic
>get told definition is wrong outside of logic
>get told to throw away logic
You're the one who's forgotten how to communicate. Context is key.
>>768426104
I literally answered it. I said they were the same in propositional logic.
>>768411321
Fuck of pasta dipshit
>>768425012
So if we define Blue as something that is Blue and not-Blue as something that isn't, it logically follows that something that is not Blue is by definition not-Blue?
I'm not a genius, but I think it's right...
>>768425949
>>~(belive(god))
>>believe(~god)
this is completely meaningless
>>768426289
I could write using more formal notation but he doesn't have the time for it. Since he says he's familiar with logic I'm assuming he at least knows what the tilde operator is and how scope works.
>>768426289
Are you implying that this entire Thread have any meaning at all?
>>768426449
well I dont cause im not onecool so its meaningless chicken scratch
>>768426677
In propositional logic a verb can take arguments. In this case the verb believe is taking the argument God. The tilde operator ~ means not. The second entails the first, but both have equivalent truth values (meaning if one is true, so is the other).
>>768426167
just a simple yes would have been enough.
This settles it, you are wrong, propositional logic apparently cant be used to solve this or you are using it incorrectly.
With your logic, if i made the claim that you have an odd number of blades of grass on your lawn and you didnt believe me (you have no reason to believe me), it would mean you believe the number to be even.
now why the FUCK would you believe the number to be even with no evidence what so ever?
The answer is really simple, you dont. you dont believe the number to be odd or even, you just dont know, just like i dont believe there is a god but at the same time if you made the claim "there is no god" i would not believe that claim either because i have no evidence.
Im done here, its 3AM, good night.
>>768426895
You drop the mic, but I told you from the start that there are two meanings for the first statement because it's ambiguous. Your analogy is likewise poorly defined.
For instance, in the logic I gave, if I believe the number of blades of grass are not odd, then I must have a reason for that belief. Given this reason I know them to be even.
What you are advocating is actually my point, there is a neutral belief - there is no evidence to support either. Like in my very first post "The king of France is bald" - there is a false presupposition. Namely, that the number of blades is known. Because of this false presupposition, the claim has no truth value. It is in this way that a belief may not hold God's existence as true or false.
>>768427305
There is a neurtal position, agnostic atheism.
It doesn't get any more neutral than that.
>>768427864
>agnostic atheism
The belief that God does not exist but this cannot be proven is less neutral than the believe that God may or may not exist and it cannot be proven either way. Atheism is not neutral.
>>768428298
thats not at all what that means guy
non theist anons, it's dumb to argue faithful people. Faith means believing without proof, so you can't bring proofs or logic against them.
It's that simple, they have an internal reason to believe (wich isn't logic) and until that reason disappears or some hardcore shit happens that contradicts their beliefs, they won't change.
So stop getting baited and keep filling b with porn or any interesting shit.
>>768428353
atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As apposed to no belief on the existence of God or Gods.
See the difference?
>>768428395
>Faith means believing without proof, so you can't bring proofs or logic against them
accurate
>>768428298
>The belief
its not a belief by definition... its the lack of belief, you are talking about anti-theism my man.
but if that is not agnostic atheism (it is) then what would you call someone who doesnt believe in a god?
>>768428438
>lack of belief
>no belief
uh no there is no difference here
>>768428438
>no belief on the existence of God or Gods.
is equal to
>lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
also not believing A does not equal belief in B, whatever school you went to must not be very good.
>>768411321
Perform a frontal lobotomy on her, that's the only way she'll believe that nonsense.
>>768428514
It's the terr orist faux-logic to recruit/attack neutral people "if you don't help us to destroy the government then it means that you are on THEIR side"
or making it simple "if you're not on MY side then you're AGAINST me"
Just drop the subject, it'll make you happier (or at least less miserable since it's /b anyway, noone here is happy)
>>768428514
>what would you call someone who doesnt believe in a god?
Also an atheist. Both mean the same thing.
>>768428514
>>768428637
>>768428671
There is a semantic distinction here, and I understand the urge to resolve it by changing definitions. It could indeed happen over time, this is how language evolves. However, There is already a term for someone who doesn't believe in God but also makes no claim regarding God's existence: Agnostic atheist. Just because an atheist isn't agnostic doesn't mean they stop being an atheist.
>>768411321
You get her a boyfriend who isn't a total flaming homosexual and perhaps she'll be happy again. Her beliefs have nothing to how you an't please her you faggot. Of course she's mad at you, you're a cock sucker.
>>768412166
>You can't fix stupid.
>Athiesm
>>768428984
This whole thing is about you thinking not believing in a god is the same thing as believing there is no god.
its not, its just not.
Believing A does not equal belief in B. There is a god and there is no god are 2 different claims, we are only talking about belief in A, stop bringing up B, its dishonest.
>>768429243
he cant, he literally cant without muddying the waters here. because there isnt a case to be made for the demonstrable existence of any gods
>>768429243
Atheism is a disbelief in God. Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence is unknowable. One can be both atheist and agnostic, meaning they don't believe in God but they also recognize this belief is unfounded. Likewise theists can be agnostic. These terms have been in use in this way for decades. What's dishonest is trying to make atheism seem more reasonable by saying it is inherently agnostic.
>>768429474
Nor is there a case to be made for demonstrable existence of no Gods.
>>768429671
>Nor is there a case to be made for demonstrable existence that I didnt build a time machine, go back to the beginning of time and see if any gods existed. They dont.
>>768429243
Agnostic Atheist just means without knowledge of, there for you don't hold a belief.
Suppose I had an actual unicorn. You have zero knowledge of this unicorn and therefor say: I don't believe in unicorns because I have no knowledge of unicorns existing. My unicorn still exit, in this hypothetical, but you don't believe in unicorns because you have no knowledge of unicorns exciting all the same. In other words, it doesn't matter that my unicorn exist of not, you simply have no knowledge of it existing and therefor do not believe in it.
This is why we dont prove negatives and only prove positive claims. For example if we were to say NO GODS EXIST that would be a positive claim requiring evidence.
This is why Atheism isnt a belief in no gods but rather an position that there is insufficient evidence to support a belief in any gods
>>768429586
yes we agree on what agnostic is and what theist is, and while i would agree with the definition of atheism you gave, you seem to think disbelief means the belief in the opposite, this is the dishonest part, this is the problem.
Also i would say that atheism (atleast how i define it) IS inherently agnostic, but anti-theism isnt.
those terms are not mutually exclusive either btw, you can be all 3 at the same time, agnostic, atheist AND anti-theist.
you cant be an anti-theist without being atheist first tho.
>>768429981
ergo a neutral position
>>768429780
If you're trying to say negatives can't be proven, I'd like to direct you to evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl, Modus tollens, and logical proof
Proofs of impossibility.
>>768430099
in the god question the bowl is the whole universe, possibly even outside the universe or even the spacial dimensions we can observe.
>>768430099
Im not saying we cant, what im saying is there is a reason we tend not to attempt to falsify every claim.
It takes far less energy and resources to prove a positive than to falsify a negative.
How is it that you cant understand this?
disprove my time machine story and i will disprove your god hypothesis concurrently.
>>768430099
yes, but we know the bowl can be filled with milk because we know milk exist.
Just try and fill a bowl with God. Ever here of falsifiability? It really doesn't look like you have given the statement you just made.
>>768411321
Just show her all the luciferian shit going on in the world and the events it creates and let her come to her own conclusions.
>>768430879
lol what?
>>768430000
>atleast how i define it)
I take issue with your personal definition. Agnostic atheists might be more common than simple atheists but that doesn't mean the terms are redundant. I can prove with pure logic that disbelief means belief in the opposite given binary values. Given that we treat the issue of atheism/theism as binary, we must conclude if one is not a theist then they are an atheist.
>If B = T or F
>and B not T
>Then B is F
>>768430352
>>768430379
>>768430458
You assume I'm ignorant after listing all the ways negatives can be proven? There aren't many, so it's clearly much easier to prove a positive, but because it's not impossible my point stands. Before going on a rant about how dumb I must be, perhaps ask what that point is? The ability to demonstrate the existence of God has no relevance to my argument.
>>768411321
Become pagan so she can respect your coquettish naturalist gods, and you will have the dual benefit of escaping Reddit atheism as well as gay self-hating religitards.
>>768430981
>because it's not impossible my point stands
some are absolutely unfalsifiable. What are you talking about?
Are you saying if some things can be falsified ALL things can be falsified?
>>768430933
Seriously do you even pay attention?
The Holy Trinity Church in Marylebone, Westminster, built specifically to celebrate the defeat of Napoleon, hasn't been used as a place of worship since the 30's, but that didn't stop artist Paul Fryer from making a religious statement by hanging this terrifying statue of Satan inside.
Google: The Pope Speaks From The Mouth Of A Snake
Google: Illuminati opening ceremony of Gotthard Base Tunnel
Google: New World Order
Lurk /pol/
Get on the right page man
>>768430981
You're the one making assumptions, I came to a conclusion based on what you said. I didn't assume anything. Only intellectual midgets make assumptions. Hello assumptive faggot.
>Before going on a rant about how dumb I must be
where?
It doesn't exit.
Just give up, you're clearly not on my level. Shoo fly.
>>768431347
>Lurk /pol/
lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
everything you said is 100% retarded
>>768431214
If I was I would have said it. My argument regards lexical definition though, not the nature or absence of God. Even if God's existence was falsifiable, it wouldn't change the definition of atheist.
>>768430981
>I take issue with your personal definition.
its not MY definition, its the definition all atheists use, or atleast all atheists i know.
>I can prove with pure logic that disbelief means belief in the opposite
so you are trying to prove to me that if i dont believe the number of blades of grass to be even i must then believe it to be odd?
no i dont, your logic is flawed and i find it amazing that you dont see it, its common sense ffs.
Not believing A does NOT mean belief in B.
This gets even more ridicilous when we consider the fact that earlier you said that belief equals claim.
so you somehow get from "i dont believe the number to be even" to "im claiming the number is odd".
and you are a teacher? No wonder americans are poorly educated.
You can't convert her back; it's too late!
There is only one way to stop this plaque and bring justice for her crimes:
Kill her while she's sleeping!
>>768431499
so you're over here talking about definition while the rest of us are over here debating the topic at hand ie whether god is real or not.
Myabe thats because your position is indefensible and you know it. Apologetics rely heavily on dishonesty and slight of hand.
>>768431394
You realize I was responding to three posts right, not just yours?
>Only intellectual midgets make assumptions.
It's foolish to claim only x does y without evidence, and more foolish to make that claim in a context where y isn't even relevant.
>>768431527
>it's not MY definition
It is, you said it was, and it contradicts the definition provided in most dictionaries.
>your logic is flawed
Oh please, point out this flaw in my logic! Or maybe you should take a look at your own, since mine comes right out of a basic intro to logic textbook. You claim my argument is the same as your grass analogy: It's not.
If you claim the number of blades on grass is not even, then you must believe it is odd. Either that, or you can choose to be agnostic and make no claim either way.
>>768431650
No, I've been arguing with this guy for half the thread about the topic: >>768431527.
>>768432151
alright so catch me up...
what is your position and what are you arguing?
>>768432151
be specific and concise...
>>768432268
>>768432307
He claims that being an atheist entails being an agnostic, and any atheist who isn't agnostic is actual an anti-theist. I say that agnostic atheists are more common than simple atheists but the terms aren't redundant.
>>768432552
I just realized, what would he think if I called myself an agnostic anti-theist? Meaning I believe there is no God but I don't believe I can prove it.
>>768432552
ok from what I understand there are a few categories...
Strong(gnostic) Atheist
Weak(agnostic) Atheist
Strong(gnostic) Theist
Weak(agnostic) Theist
the strong position here being the position "I Know"
and the weak position being "I dont know"
strong being
>>768432552
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Py1Bz8XOo
anyways im getting captchas now so im fucking off, good luck gents. Next time you all can call me Bond, James Bond. till next thread.
>>768433020
Strong in weak in this sense are replacing the term agnostic in order to be more descriptive than simple agnosticism. The fact that they are at all relevant means atheism does not entail agnosticism as he suggests it does.
>>768433082
Thanks, I hope he watches it.
>>768432852
i would believe you, im an anti-theist myself when it comes to the christian god.
>>768433082
i was thinking of directing him to Matt also, but didnt bother, it would be a good call tho.
>>768433310
atheism is not a positive belief, of course it entails agnosticism, how can you claim to know something if you dont even belief that something?
knowledge is a subset of belief.
>>768433752
>atheism is not a positive belief, of course it entails agnosticism
So if I believe there is no rain, it entails then I must also believe that the existence of rain cannot be proven or disproven?
No, these are two distinct claims.
The problem is that she's yelling at you in the first place. Yelling at somebody is classified as abusive behavior. Whether you want to believe it or not, that abuse is having an impact on damaging your psychology. She's not wife material. Because of her toxic immature behavior you need to break up with her and find a more suitable level headed girl for you.
Jesus you show up every week.
>>768433909
>So if I believe there is no rain
that IS a positive belief and therefor irrelevant, agnosticism is also irrelevant.
watch the video, call the show, get educated.
>>768433752
I believe in the omniscience paradox and so I know there is no God. I am an atheist.
I think the existence of God is unlikely but I'm not certain, I'm an agnostic atheist.
Get it?
>>768434019
>there is no rain
>positive belief
>there is no god
>not positive belief
okay pal
>>768434029
>I believe in the omniscience paradox and so I know there is no God. I am an atheist.
but more accurately an anti-theist.
Im an agnostic atheist myself so i do get it.
Why?
>>768434095
>there is no god
strawman
Its "i dont believe in a god" and NOT "i believe there is no god".
is it strawman city in this thread?
>>768434205
You can call him an anti-theist if you want, an atheist is still different from an agnostic atheist. Where as anti-theist and atheist are the synonyms.
>>768434268
You're making a strawman by taking my argument out of context. I don't think you're trying to though, I think you just don't understand or want to.
>>768434444
>atheist is still different from an agnostic atheist
what? an atheist that is not agnostic would be gnostic atheist.
Did you not know that agnostic also has the opposite? this must all be so confusing for you.
>>768434444
>You're making a strawman by taking my argument out of context.
Sure, after you twisted what i said to be the opposite of what i actually said.
I know what you mean, but its not relevant to what i said, "there is no god" IS a positive belief, but nobody here is saying they believe that and assuming they do because of your weird use of the word atheist is very close to a strawman.
>>768434551
I'm aware. I am actually saying that agnostic atheists aren't gnostic atheists. This seems pretty simple right? An atheist is not inherently gnostic or agnostic, that is the point I'm arguing.
>>768434647
Could be worse. Could be another fucking trap thread or log thread.
Good, God, this place has really gone down the shitter.
>>768416212
And doesn't want you to jack off. Or eat shellfish
>>768434727
>weird use of the word
You mean the definition and commonly accepted usage as espoused in the video you agreed with without watching.
>>768434647
Twilight :)
>>768434748
an atheist absolutely is inherently agnostic, knowledge is the subset of belief, sure not all atheists are agnostic, but for those we have a better word, im sure you know that by now.
Gnostic atheist by itself makes no sense at all. Gnostic claims to have knowledge, knowledge in what?
>inb4 knowledge in there is no god
yeah thats the anti-theist part i was referring to.
>>768434785
I suppose.
Do you think these guys actually realise the person they're arguing with is likely a troll who agrees with them anyway?
Read any one of these threads and you can competently argue both sides.
>>768435021
Except for the fact that religious people are mentally challenged
>>768434849
just because they use it in an absurd way over where you live doesnt mean its "commonly accepted"
also what video? you mean the atheist experience one? that video agrees with me, i have taken the definitions i use from that very person in that video and then i have later noticed that all atheists agree on these definitions.
>>768420595
Agreed. Rape them instead
>Top Kek
>>768434992
A gnostic atheists claims to have knowledge, such as the omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence paradoxes.
>>768435160
It's funny because no, they don't agree with you. They literally say that agnosticism is separate from atheism.
>>768435174
knowledge in what? paradoxes that show why there is no god? so they know there is no god, so they believe there is no god aka are anti-theists.
>>768435283
yes, anti-theists, aka gnostic atheists. By George I think he's starting to get it.
>>768435257
and im saying that too. i basically disregard gnostic people on both sides as ignorant.
Yes im linking agnosticism with atheism, but im NOT saying they are tied together forever, it IS possible to be a gnostic atheist, i just would call that person an anti-theist to avoid confustion.
>>768435147
Doesn't mean you can't imitate them.
Reading these threads is like watching a drunk couple argue in the street at 2am.
'You can't prove I did'
'Well you can't prove I didn't'
'Fuck you, you're an asshole'
'Fuck off bitch'
ad nauseam. Throw in a liberal sprinkling of STRAWMAN and you're there.
>>768412166
*sigh* replying to the neverending shitpost.
>Only a complete idiot believes that there is proof that there is no God.
There is no proof that there is no god. It's impossible. But that doesn't mean any belief in god has to be taken seriously.
>Athiesm is a religion. It requires the biggest leap of faith and is grounded in arrogance.
The biggest leap of faith? We've been looking for proof of god for millennia. I'm pretty sure if there had been such proof, we'd have found it by now, and everyone would be jumping up and down pointing to it. As for arrogance, how about claiming that there is a god, and it made us to look like it, or claiming to know what it thinks?
>>768435337
yes anti-theists are also atheists by definition.
What exactly is your point here?
>>768411321
FUCK why is this face so fucking annoying
>>768435413
So i take it you aren't:
>>768434992
>Gnostic atheist by itself makes no sense at all.
>>768435545
i am, is the term anti-theist confusing you? or maybe you dont get how all 3 arent mutually exclusive? What is the part you dont understand?
>>768435654
I'm saying that agnosticism/gnosticism is separate from theism/atheism. Thus, atheism is not inherently agnostic. Agnostic atheist is not redundant. I understand wanting to distance yourself from atheists who look at a paradox and assume they have the answers, but as a theist I feel the same way about fundies that take the bible at face value. It doesn't mean I can pretend theism is inherently agnostic.
>>768435479
Because she's the poster child for the newest form of cancer to infect /b/?
>>768435897
>I'm saying that agnosticism/gnosticism is separate from theism/atheism.
i agree, but a lot of these fags dont, i constantly run into people claiming agnostic is between theism and atheism.
>Agnostic atheist is not redundant.
it is if you acknowledge the term anti-theist, but many dont, so i still personally use agnostic atheist, even tho i think agnosticism is still very irrelevant, it should be assumed, the retards who are not agnostic will quickly make it clear to you so you can slowly back out of the room.
>>768435993
>newest form
this shit is like 2 years old.
>>768436142
It's a bit offensive you know, as an agnostic theist. Most theists I know are agnostic, but atheists assume otherwise. Rational thought can support both views, and rational thought lends itself to agnosticism. Saying only one view implies this rational thought makes me a bit upset.
>>768436396
ie not all theists are bible thumping fundies who throw logic out the window
>>768436396
So we can agree that agnosticism is logical, but if you dont count personal experience, i would totally claim that atheism is more rational than theism, how can you have a positive belief in anything without a good reason? i have personally heard a shit ton of reason to believe in a god, but not one good one.
>>768411321
>y those have $0!!?
>>768436396
>>768436675
>without a good reason?
I believe God is the creator of what is essentially a simulation, and many scientists think the simulation hypothesis is both logical and worth investigating. Further, I believe that being a theists is healthy and this is supported by a very large number of scientific studies. This is why I choose a theist perspective.
>>768436894
I also gave about 4 logical evidence based arguments if you'll scroll up.
>>768436971
>>768437036
Aww, did my opinion make you upset? Are you questioning your own assumptions? How cuuuuute.
>>768436971
I have heard a lot about this simulation theory, but its just an idea among others, its lacking any actual proof tho i would admit it does sound nice and logical, but thats not enough to convince me.
>I believe that being a theists is healthy and this is supported by a very large number of scientific studies
can you site any of those studies? because the thing i have learned about healthy is that the more true beliefs and the fewer false beliefs you have the more likely you are to survive and false beliefs tend to feed other false beliefs, like how religious people are more superstitious and believe sudoscience much easier, like healing crystals for example.
When it comes to mental health its more about belonging to a group and being part of a society than it is about believing in the right god or no god.
>>768437174
I think you have me confused with the guy you were 'arguing' with. He left by the looks of it, probably because you succeeded in boring him to tears.
I'm just here telling you no-one cares what you think.
Thread is dead, time to move on.
>>768411321
Hit her with a shovel and try to cause brain damage. You can't fix an objective thinker. Sorry christfag.
>>768437498
I get where you're coming from, but a theistic perspective doesn't have to support pseudo-science or superstitions. I certainly don't believe in any of that. I was an atheist for years and I retain most of the beliefs that led me to that point in my life, but I also see utility in being a theist. The community aspect is nice, but it's more than that. There is a peace of mind and reduction in stress that scientific nihilism just can't compete with. An improved attitude has greatly enhanced my life.
>>768437528
I did not confuse you with anyone. I think I was pretty spot on.
>>768437498
As for sources, I've seen a lot but don't keep links handy. A quick search found a new one for me, a meta analysis on adolescents: https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(05)00078-9/fulltext
>>768438011
>did my opinion make you upset?
>It's a bit offensive you know
>makes me a bit upset
I made no comments prior to telling you to fuck your feelings. I don't argue religion on the internet, I leave that to morons like you to do it for my amusement.
