/lit/ - Literature

>>14812647
I'm and atheist and honestly? As long as He is okay with me jacking off every day, idc if God exists or not

>>14812653
But if you accept the possibility that he might exist than you are no longer an atheist?

>>14812647
Why not? You probably rule out the existence of unicorns and Santa. It is rational to rule out things that have 0.00000000001% of being true.

Not faith. Odds.
Reality requires no kind of god at all. All gods have ever been are provably fictions. What probability is left isn’t that promising for.
Atheism is just a lack of belief in theism.

>>14812647
materialism would pretty much do so, i mean you gotta have faith in your own intellect in the end.

God isn't real. Slave morality much? If none of usbelieved in Sky Daddy, we would live in an anarchist society of Richard Dawkinses, talking in bland generalities about how we have it all figured out. Don't you want that?

>>14812665
Tedious. Get your own name already.

>>14812647
The Distributist had a good video on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CltwD0Ek9Kk

>>14812667
But I do have my own name. Can't you read the namefield, « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj?

>>14812647
No rational person can rule out that you're an alien dog writing this from your spaceship either, just like no rational person can rule out that I'm God ... the chance of it all though, well, it's low enough to practically disregard it.

>>14812658
>0.00000000001% chance
http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/

>>14812661
> i mean you gotta have faith in your own intellect in the end.
materialism falls apart when you do that though:
chemicals can't have faith in chemicals.

>>14812647
I rule out the possibility that an omnipresent being could exist because then I couldn't exist in the same universe as such a being, who would have to occupy all space.

I rule out the possibility that an omnipotent being could exist because it couldn't interact with our universe given that space and time are a continuum and time is entropy, and therefore said being could not be said to exist as we understand the concept of existence.

I do not rule out the possibility that people who feel that God exists are really feeling that way. Feelings do not prove anything, however.

>>14812685
water is omnipresent in the ocean, yet fish exist. And you don’t understand nor can you understand what existence is, or God’s omnipotence. Your faith is against God. Realize the limits of your reason

>>14812658
>It is rational to rule out things that have 0.00000000001% of being true.
Ontologically that includes yourself then.
If looking at materialism statistically, you're more likely to be a Boltzmann Brain simulating material consciousness, rather than all the superfluous stochastic events that occurred with matter that produced the body and brain that houses your mind.

Little do they realize, I am a god.

>>14812687
>water is omnipresent in the ocean,
No it isn't. Rest of your post is a redundancy of this error.

>>14812660
Isn’t that going from the theoretical to the practical sphere though? Not believing in something’s existence doesn’t make it not real. I know the word agnostic implies some sort of trepidation or uncertainty, but in all do practicality if one belies it’s an conclusion with lacking evidence than you say it is unknown.

>>14812691
water is interacting with everything in the ocean in some way. You’re trying to force omnipresence into a definition that was never meant. Do you think the Biblical authors were that stupid? Do you really think they meant that God literally takes up all space such that nothing else could exist? Obviously not. Atheists have no nuance in their thinking. Very childish. And they brag about their escape from religion from a young age. That’s not a decision born from wisdom!

Reason’s last step is to realize that there are infinite things beyond it

>>14812687
>water is omnipresent in the ocean

Do Christians really?

>>14812713

>>14812705
H2O is not omnipresent in the ocean.

>Do you think the Biblical authors were that stupid?
Appeal to authority fallacy doesn't mean anything to me. An omnipresent being can't be rationally inserted into our universe based on what we understand about it now. Back when the Bible was written, people (besides Zeno obviously) probably thought zero / emptiness was real and traversible.

>>14812717
>based on what we understand about it now.
Which is pretty limited. There is nothing from stopping a sky wizard to be in some field we haven't discovered yet, which might not interact with any matter we know.

Just as religious people may be inclined to believe in the hopes of going to heaven, atheists are inclined to not believe on account of hoping that hell doesn’t exist. They do everything they can to keep the fear away

Belief in God retarded because it's just meaningless mental wanking. If God doesn't exist, nothing is changed. If God exists and knowable, he will be eventually discovered by scientific means. If God exists and uknowable, then he may as well not exist.

>>14812723
An omnipresent and omnipotent being within the universe or having an influence on it from the outside is out of the question despite limitations.

>>14812729
not an argument

>>14812732
I already gave you the argument and your reply was that water is omnipresent in the ocean.

>>14812728
>If God exists and knowable, he will be eventually discovered by scientific means
you mean through a materialist process?

>>14812688
>statistically, you're more likely to be a Boltzmann Brain simulating material
How the fuck would you even have statistical analysis of the likelihood of your consciousness being a Boltzmann Brain?

Anyway, as to OP, most atheists don't claim certainty so your point is moot. I am agnostic though.

What's up? I am God. Please give me all of your money and let me molest your sister. Thanks.

>>14812735
Considering God engages with the material world, yes.

>>14812734
>I rule out the possibility that an omnipotent being could exist because it couldn't interact with our universe given that space and time are a continuum and time is entropy, and therefore said being could not be said to exist as we understand the concept of existence.
Makes no sense. A video is a continuum but I can edit it. Also consider the omnipresence of gravity

>>14812739
You’re ignoring the non-material

>>14812728
Read Hume or anyone who’s thought about it more than surface level. Hell, Hume’s a super empiricist. I like the track you are on though, better than most STEMtards have the capability of
> If God exists and uknowable, then he may as well not exist.
Here I can see your process of “indeterminate and not worth my time do to lack of evidence”
Instead of
“False do to lack of evidence”

>>14812745
I get what you're saying, but despite being immaterial, God still engages with the material world. So his effects on material should be detectable.

>>14812742
A video is not universal spacetime. As for gravity, it requires two things; it isn't a "being." Unless you want to tell me next that God is the universe. God is not a being then but more a certain interpretation of life if anything.

>>14812729
Why? Just because it showed no influence yet (or nothing we could've measured) doesn't mean it's not there. Quantum field theory leaves more than enough room for everything we can imagine and more.

While the idea of God is pretty silly obviously, there is nothing impossible about one or many or infinite of them existing.

>>14812765
>A video is not universal spacetime
And humans aren’t god

>he isn't an agnostic
why though

>>14812766
Nothing in quantum theory suggests that such beings are possible here. In fact, what it suggests is that reality cannot be demonstrated because demonstrations aren't possible.

>>14812776
The analogy doesn't work therefore you haven't argued your point.

>>14812786
How do you know that God can’t interact with the universe as we would a video? What we think of time elapsing could be seen as information that already exists to God. He could see all dimensions and all moments in time simultaneously

>>14812765
>As for gravity, it requires two things; it isn't a "being."
Like God and creation?

>>14812802
Also, forces in general, or the laws of nature, are pretty omnipresent, are they not? Imagine still trying to argue that God can’t be omnipresent

An omnipresent God is the dumbest shit ever. "MUHHH GOD IS A MAGICAL FORCE THAT IS EVERYWHERE AND YET MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HUHUHU"

>>14812742
Video is the canonical example of discretization.

>>14812849
embarrassing. Go back

>>14812869
How do you this world isn’t discrete? Even if it’s continuous, why does that matter? If videos were continuous, we could still edit them. Your argument is very unclear

Is God a thinking entity? How can an omniscient being think, when thinking in the first place arises from the lack of information and necessity of analysis. Must we conclude that God is a static, non-living object?

>>14812647
absolutely wrong

>>14812849
thats bc god is a time traveling human, tje bible is the result of the first trip into time

>>14812647
God is a superintelligent AI. If you believe in the possibility of a technological singularity, you have to come to the conclusion that God exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIno-PhSQlM

>>14812900
Redpill me on the fireman helmet religion

>>14812897
The bible is a psyop run by the demiurge

>>14812887
how so?

>>14812900
do you know that your food isn’t poisoned? Yet you eat. Knowledge =/= belief

>>14812913
Masochistic religion where they constantly put out their sole reason to live(fire).

>>14812942
I do, I eat only packaged food and the Jews won't poison me because they need me to be a good goy worker bee.

>>14812951
>packaged food
>not poison
And no employer needs you. You are replaceable.

>>14812951
so you know nothing except for whether or not your food’s been poisoned?

>>14812954
Yes, but 1000 workers are better than 999. Why replace when you can take both?
>>14812955
Are you refering to Socrates' line?

>>14812906
>post graphs from Kurzweil
>doesn't accept Kurzweils opinion on the matter

>>14812667
Don't start arguing with me.

>>14812802
God isn't a being then? God is the universe then, which is pantheism.

>prooving that god exists is the same as proving that the exact idea of what i think god is exists
why are religious people so stupid? you seriously can't think that something that manged to create something so vast and complex as the universe is going to be anything like humans or will let alone have them need to follow some make believe rulebook.

>>14812913
Zoroastrianism

Problem is atheists think God is literally a guy in the clouds with a beard watching you jack off. God is a higher being the being that creates everything but not necessarily the spirit of the universe that could be the demiurge and not God.

>>14812900
Okay you misspelled wisdom on purpose right?

>>14814200
>atheists think God is literally a guy in the clouds with a beard watching you jack off
i suspect religionists are actually much more likely to believe that, given that is the image of god presented by various religions for hundreds of years

>>14814237
True but atheists also believe it and then they think rejecting that is the same as rejecting God but God is something else. Also eastern religions don't necessarily think like that.

>>14814253
>atheists also believe it and then they think rejecting that is the same as rejecting God
"atheists" don't believe this. there might be some individual atheists that do. but there is no central tenet of atheism. the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a god or gods. everything else is down to the individual atheist. begone with your men of straw.

>eastern religions don't necessarily think like that.
that's a bit orientalist. "eastern religions" also have depictions of their gods. hinduism for example has a shit ton of gods. they are intended as representations of physical as well as spiritual beings, i.e. there really is a multi-armed elephant-headed creature that fights demons

>>14814206
>Okay you misspelled wisdom on purpose right?
misspelt*

>>14814314
>begone with your men of straw.
Strange that it is somehow okay to make generalizations about "religionists" but not atheists.

> "eastern religions" also have depictions of their gods.
I never said that. Hinduism has the concept of Brahman which is not like that.

>>14812723
>There is nothing from stopping a sky wizard to be in some field we haven't discovered yet
Yes there is.
>which might not interact with any matter we know.
Then it’s not omnipresent in your stupid sense