/lit/ - Literature

Defence: Discordianism

>>1516319
Not much of a defense.

I dunt belive n god becuz i hate my parents

But really, I do not believe in God.

>>1516329
I believe it is. For me it is the perfect defence.

>>1516269

2.3/10

I believe in God, but I don't feel the need to defend my beliefs. Likewise, I don't think it is all right to try and belligerently profess your beliefs onto another, so I never talk about God unless someone asks me something directly relating to my beliefs.

So yeah.

I believe in a non personal higher power. My defense is Albert Einstein. Yes he was a philosopher (it's on wikipedia so it must be true).

I am ignostic and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

i have the basic intellect to know that since you can't prove or disprove god, its an irrelevant and useless question and we should stop asking it

yup; i was a miserable, bitter atheist...

(nightmare mode cheats): kierkegaard, tillich and jaspers

ernst bloch.

also
>defend
chill out, nigger. it's not some sort of contest

bumping for mad

>>1516396
>Only an atheist can be a good Christian and only a Christian can be a good atheist
by bloch mah man

>>1516377

Me too bro

I do believe in God.....but I'm moving away from being Catholic.
I guess if you had to describe it, I'm a Deist.
I believe that there is some entity that created everything, but I don't believe that whatever it was has as much influence in our lives as Catholicism says it does.

Yes I do-- coincidentally I do not believe in plate tectonics. That's just something the liberal media came up with.
I'm a cartographer. I know about these things.

>>1516426
I know you're satirizing something, but I don't know what.

Atheism and religion are both like dicks. Everyone's proud of theirs and wants everyone else to choke on it.

I believe in God because it provides explanations for more phenomena than not believing in God does, and leaves fewer questions unanswered.

Discordianism does provide a good way to allow for the idea of God, but also explain the existence of evil and chaos in the world, as a side note.

I have a pragmatic belief in the existence of God(s). I believe the concept of "God(s)" is so pervasive in in its influence and so rhetorically powerful that it's better to employ it in the course of constructing a philosophical system than to attempt to do away with it. Think Spinoza, Liberal strains of Christianity, neo-paganism.

Yes, I believe in God. And no, I don't have to defend my belief - what for? Would any atheist be convinced by my reasoning, especially if he read it on 4chan? Well, I don't think so. I just believe, in the same manner that you don't, and we both can do it without fear of being oppressed, so let's just nice to each other or something.

>>1516444
So flawed unprovable explanations are better than not attempting them? No.
Where did the universe come from?
A. God
B. The Big Bang
Where did God/The Big Bang come from?
A/B Shut up and stop persecuting me.

Neither explain anything except by presentation of other questions.

>>1516486
>So flawed unprovable explanations are better than not attempting them? No.
Bitches don't know about Fideism. Fideism all up in this bitch.

>>1516499
>My idea makes no sense so I'll argue that truth needs no logic THAT'LL SHOW THEM HOW SMART I AM AHAHAHAHAHA.

>>1516510
>Cite a well known school of thought contrary to the position
>ad hominem out of ignorance

>>1516486

Big Bang can be explained by modern science

just if you ask the average person; or rather, the average atheist, then they will have no understanding of it. The majority of people who believe or object to the Big Bang theory could not understand the science and maths behind it.

>>1516515
"explained" by "modern" "science", yes...

yes. because I want to so fuck off.

>>1516515
The only explanations I've ever read/heard is expanding from singularity. This does not really explain the origin of the universe, as singularity must have come from something.

Am I wrong, and if so can you point me in the right direction?

>>1516515

The Big Bang can be explained by math and science, but then physics also can't explain why bees can fly

>>1516525
There are a number of other theories, like Brane theory.

>>1516446
That's stupid. You shouldn't just believe something because it's convenient. You're stupid.

>>1516345
Well...have fun with that. Doesn't really make any sense as far as I can tell though.

OR IS THAT THE POINT?! HURRR HURRRR?!?!

>>1516526
There are many theories that can explain why bees fly, such as Brane theory and M-theory.

>>1516514
A well known school of thought that is widely opposed. I fail to see any reasonhaw to have Fideist views. The only philosopher I've read with fideistic views is Kierkegaard, but have heard others' second-hand. The notion of justifying insane behavior (ie. sacrificing Issac) by not needing reason for faithful acts, is terrifying, as a person. An oft used reason for murders by those deem dangerously mentally ill is following voices' orders.

Your use of 'ignorance' is also helpful. Citing ignorance to a subject that deters using evidence is hilarious.

>>1516530
Brane theory is in the realm of String theory yes? I've been meaning to get deeper into reading of it, despite my dislike for TOEs. Thanks.

>>1516552
M-theory, yeah

>>1516526
>but then physics also can't explain why bees can fly
DERP.

>>1516561

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060110_bee_fight.html

HERP DERP.

>>1516545
You're using a lot of words there, but without defining them.

So I'm just gonna say, the only real choice is a radical choice (as someone like Rawls would use the terms), such as Fideism promotes.

>>1516563
>bee_fight
We're talking about flight bro.

>>1516444
>I believe in ghosts because it provides explanations for more phenomena than not believing in ghosts does, and leaves fewer questions unanswered.

>I believe in Earth visiting Aliens because it provides explanations for more phenomena than not believing in Earth visiting Aliens does, and leaves fewer questions unanswered.

>I believe in magic because it provides explanations for more phenomena than not believing in magic does, and leaves fewer questions unanswered.

>>1516444
>>1516444

>Discordianism does provide a good way to allow for the idea of God, but also explain the existence of evil and chaos in the world, as a side note.

well, if it provides a convenient solution for you, who cares if it's true or not, right?!

>>1516567
Prove that science ISN'T magic.

inb4 you can't

>>1516575
Sciencefags:0
Everyone else:1

>>1516515
>God can be explained by modern theology

>just if you ask the average person; or rather, the average theist, then they will have no understanding of Him. The majority of people who believe or object God could not understand the knowledge and reasoning behind Him.

"blubber blubber I dun need to defend my beleefs"

The dumbshits who post crap like this actually do feel the need to defend their disgusting beliefs and lifestyles. Except they know, deep down, that anything they say about their faith will be completely stupid. Religion is, at its core, about being stupid enough to think gods and afterlives and other such shit could ever be real.

It's always a great moment when one of these "gods are real" dumbshits is dying, when they feel themselves growing colder despite clutching to beliefs that are supposed to keep them warm and fuzzy inside, and when they feel their graves being trampled on by a world that no longer cares for their bullshit.

No belief is defensible. Everybody go home.

>>1516575
Define Magic.
Define Science.
Otherwise your great and worldly wise challenge is nothing more than childish wordplay.

I'm agnostic, I don't need a reason.

may i ask a question?

for all the monotheists out there, or any religion that claims to have a benevolent creator;

how can your god exist as all the things you say he does?

i know it's been said many a time before, but i really just do not understand how a omniscient, omnipotent being can also be compassionate

i often get the rather vague "you just don't understand god" response when asking close friends and that may very well be true but can one of you who knows of these inner workings inform me just how?

it would mean all the world to me

>>1517669
>agnostic
shitstorm maybe imminent? but there is no such thing as a "true agnostic"

sorry, you can be both an agnostic and a theist, or an agnostic and an atheist

see vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4&

>>1517672
you realize there's a massive history of christians trying really hard to come to terms with this, right? perhaps you should read, like, any work of theology instead of asking 4chan to answer. The seeming paradoxes of Christian belief are well-known.

To attempt a brief answer - god can simultaneously be omnipotent and all-loving because human beings have free will.

>>1517680
alright then, there is still much i have not read you are right

could you recommend me something?

your answer makes little sense to me as well, as god cannot have given man free will whilst retaining his omniscience

Apatheist atheist. Although I don't believe God's existence, even if one or many did exist, it still wouldn't be relevant to my life.

>If it's old, it isn't valid!

Ecclesiastes 1:9, motherfucker.

>>1517678
Nah, man. Straight up Agnostic. There is no way that a human being can ever know about god.

>>1517680
Why would an all powerful being create such an imperfect world? Why would an all loving being send his creations to unending suffering for the faults he created?

Also I very much doubt free will exists.

>>1517672
I've got to ask the same question sometimes, Fabulous.

But this is really the answer:
>>1517680
>you realize there's a massive history of christians trying really hard to come to terms with this, right?

There are thousands of scholars throughout the centuries who dedicated their studies to justify something man created. It's called theology, the most useless piece of crap ever.

>>1517693
>your answer makes little sense to me as well, as god cannot have given man free will whilst retaining his omniscience

why not?

>>1517714
>Why would an all powerful being create such an imperfect world?

how the hell should i know

>Why would an all loving being send his creations to unending suffering for the faults he created?

he didn't create the faults, he gave us free will, the faults are our own. and he's not sending us to suffer, we all deserve to suffer, he's mercifully offering us a way out.

>Also I very much doubt free will exists.

that's perfectly valid

>>1517708
I am sad to inform you that such a thing does not exist

well it does now, yet i would not take you very seriously if you told me that in a few years maybe because by then one should have learned of the workings of theology

agnosticism deals with knowledge, theism belief

you cannot be a "straight up agnostic"

please watch the video

>>1517717
the most amazing thing about the question is that no one has an answer

not that i haven't learned to love my little friends of christ

>>1517736
>why not?
well you have to take everything into consideration

an all knowing god would have known even before giving man free will what would have become of that will and it's alleged freedom

god would have had to forfeit one or the other

>>1517739
I watched the whole video. And I do not believe there is or isn't a god, I just simply don't know, because I believe it's impossible to know. Why do (I'm guessing) Christians have to go and make everything difficult?

>>1517746
like i say, there are a lot of seeming paradoxes inherent in christianity. it's a hard faith to understand in the more technical bits. i recommend you read chesterton cause he is cool. all i will say in response to your specific objection is that there are many theologians who have argued in interesting ways that free will and divine omniscience are in fact compatible.

>>1517736
>he didn't create the faults, he gave us free will, the faults are our own.

Except evidence shows our decisions are primarily shaped by genetics and environment. If free will exists it lives in near irrelevancy.

At any rate, God is all knowing which means he knew exactly what would happen when creating humans a certain way with "free will." This means he chose to destine countless lives to eternal torment and suffering. Taking this into account I don't see how he's much different than the devil.

>>1517754
>Except evidence shows our decisions are primarily shaped by genetics and environment. If free will exists it lives in near irrelevancy.

all i'm saying is that free will is a sine qua non of christianity as i understand. i'm not advocating christianity, i'm attempting to explain it as a belief system. if you don't believe in free will, that's not my bag.

>At any rate, God is all knowing which means he knew exactly what would happen when creating humans a certain way with "free will." This means he chose to destine countless lives to eternal torment and suffering. Taking this into account I don't see how he's much different than the devil.

He may have known what humans would choose, but it was still their choice. Even if he created them with free choice knowing they would fall, it was still their decision to fall and in some sense their responsibility, d'you see.

>>1517751
alright i'll look into Chesterton, thanks for giving me something to walk away from this with (sorry if that sounded passive aggressive)

>>1517750
you don't get it

you don't have to know anything to be an atheist or theist

you're guessing really

if you had to guess which would you guess on theism or atheism?

if you say you won't guess that doesn't make you an agnostic, that makes you a fence sitter, to be blunt

>>1517739
>the most amazing thing about the question is that no one has an answer
C'est la vie, right? But it's weird, it's absurd to them to even consider atheism or anything beside their own beliefs, but one would think that they have an answer to life (even if fabricated), but no, not even that.

>>1517757
What about people who suffer from tumors on their amygdalas causing uncontrollable rage, resulting in violence? Are they responsible for their choice and deserve to suffer in Hell for all eternity? What makes such a person different than anyone else with genetic and environmental factors beyond their control?

I know you are not professing these beliefs, but you seem to be clarifying and defending the faulty logic.

>Nightmare Mode: Use a philosopher from the past 200 years, no one cares about your stupid historians fallacy Thomas Aquinas hurppa theodurpila or St Hurps Condurps
The ultimate St. Hurps Condurps of all literate folks is Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Even Einstein and Freud, even Stalin and Lukacs, all greatest representatives of the modernist Godmongler movement were trying to dupe everyone into reading this shit.
I for one was very amused. I'll link a chapter from which Lem got all the jokes
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov/Book_XI/Chapter_9

>>1516269
Yes God exists and it it provable.

>>1517760
I can't guess, because I don't know. It doesn't make me a fence sitter because wether he exists or not it still wouldn't be known. No religion has any proof that they have seen their deity or whomever they worship. Atheism most definitely has no proof, trying to tell civilization that earth came from nothing. Shit like that is just NOT knowable.

Also if you don't mind me asking, what is your religion?

>>1517778
I'm an agnostic-atheist

i do not claim to know that there was never a god

>>1517785
Finally someone of reason in this thread.

Agnostic Atheism is the only way to go unless you wish to seek the path of the all-knowing herpderp.

>>1516269
i dont think that you can disprove god, but i also dont think that you can prove god either. Thats the whole point of the concept that it relies on faith...sure. But the problem isn't really in the idea of god. the real interesting question is why do people think they need the idea of god. One answer is that it comes out of our socratic/theoretical/scientific culture and its belief that existence can be known in terms of empirical knowledge. The problem is the fundamental principle that grounds the sciences is that subjectivity/self/you/me distort reality by observing it. Because of this the scientific method is based on removing all elements of subjectivity, and anything thereby gained can be deemed as knowledge. The problem is that we now want to define our self/character/personal-understanding around knowledge that is fundamentally divided from our experience. This is where cartesian doubt comes in; this divide becomes palpable, we begin to see ourselves as islands of subjectivity stranded in an ocean of knowledge that we are not connected to. We go crazy and fill that gap with faith...with god. This isn't just a philosophical concept that only applies to people who think about it. That is not true, it comes up no matter what but people think its different things because they talk about it in different ways. Christians justify it as god. atheists as not god, sometimes science.

>>1517785
So you don't believe in god, but you don't believe that there isn't a god? Wut?

>>1517797
I don't know that there was never a god

I don't beleive that there was

>>1517797
An Agnostic Atheist does not personally believe in God, but never makes the claim that there is no God. The basis is that it is unknowable/impossible to know whether God exists or not.

If a god exists, it apparently wants me to think it doesn't.
I'm happy to oblige.

>>1517802
a bit redundant, no?
if you don't believe, then obviously you don't know.
you atheists get dumber by the day.

>>1517797
I guess what im tryin to say that its a stupid question that doesnt have an answer. its more fruitful and interesting, i think, to ask why people choose to believe either options (god, not god). un-chain your intuition from your method, but have enough sense to not fall into barbarism.

Does it matter? So somehow God is proved to exist, you wake up the next day and everything is the same.

This question is outdated.

>>1517802
But that's what Agnosticism is...

Not denying there is a god, but also not denying there isn't one?

>>1517831
it's the new athiest *thing*.
they attack agnostics and tell them they are not really agnostic by linking to youtube videos.

>>1517790

You do realize that your statement is impossible to read with those titties looming there to the left.

>>1517757
So I was created knowingly faulty, then told I will be tortured for eternity for having faults. Why? Because god works in mysterious ways?

>>1517837

You have to wonder why atheists are so desperate to draw everyone they can into their category of belief even if their beliefs are obviously different.

>>1517842
they think something called science, which is simply a method of discovering facts, has all the answers about man's questions.

>>1517842
>>1517841
>>1517837
>>1517810
wait

are you all fucking serious?

>>1517846
i am

I haven't read this thread, but has an atheist started trolling by confusing and mixing (attempted or by mistake) relligion, catholisism, god and God yet?

Because that's a fucking classic.

>>1517846

Dead serious.

Also, you should remove your trip, it makes you look like a cunt.

>>1517846
i don't believe God exists, and i don't know it either?
are you serious?

>>1517850
i dunno, only read about half

read the posts above yours

apparently i'm an evil conspiring atheist for trying to explain pic related

>>1517852
>>1517852
you're a gnostic theist
>>1517851
depending on which of the posts was you you're a fucking retard

>>1517857
can you know the sun exists, and not believe it too?
what do your pictures prove? use logic please.

>>1517846
You mixed your words mister, what you tried to say is: I know there's no way of knowing if there's a god, but I lean to think there isn't.

>>1517860
the picture is out of focus, i'll fix that

but of course you cannot

you can, however, beleive the sun exists yet not know it

are you fucking 12 or just plain stupid?

is this really the first time you've ever heard these things?

>>1517861

And here's a perfect example of >>1517842

>>1517861
that is essentially what i said, yes

agnostic atheism

>>1517857
>Agnostics are most knowledgeable

>Agnostics are just Atheists who don't know about Russel's teapot

>>1517857
Seriously...

Belif is not the same as the abilty to know...

>>1517864
>>1517869
you donkeys always spew the same stupid pictures and arguments

oh god the fucking retards ITT

i can't handle them all

why is no one helping me in this catastrophe?

i will remove my trip if it means introducing some rationality

>>1517869
OH LOOK, here comes the first atheist mixing catholisism and god in the same argument. This is gonna get good.

>>1517874
nigga, ain't no catholic believe the bible is the infallible literal word of god

>>1517873
Because no one agrees with you and you're not right. Suck it up.

>>1517872
Maybe because no one can counter-act them intelligently?

I have a new order of belief.

Gnostic Theism -- Agnostic Theism -- Agnosticism -- Agnostic Atheism -- Gnostic Atheism

There are people who admit that they just don't fucking know one way or the other.

>>1517878
yes they can. im not 12. ask away.

>>1517857
vastly stupid
falliabilism isn't a rejection of knowledge, fyi

>>1517875
English please.

>Implying anything is transcendental

>>1517881
of course it is.
refuted by >>1517852 and >>1517860

>>1517877
has no one who browses this board ever heard of these concepts?

do you all truly beleive that agnosticism is an alternative to theism/atheism ?

>they debate about god!
>such is the life of a virgin!

>>1517887
yeah, pretty much.

>>1517879
Your middle agnosticism is called Apathetic agnosticism.

>>1517886
you are blindly posting pictures of other people's failed logic. think for yourself. 0/10

>>1517890
>>1517890
that;s called apatheism and is very different
>>1517891
okay, i feel relieved now

it's just a troll

you had me going for a while too

7/10

No

>>1517895

How is someone saying they don't know one way or the other NOT a valid position?

>>1517886
>do you all truly beleive that agnosticism is an alternative to theism/atheism ?

No. How could you have an alternative to theism and atheism? It's impossible, just like having an alternative to sexual and asexual is impossible. Have to be one or the other.

>>1517898
Because no one knows if god exist...

>>1517898
that's a valid position

but knowledge and belief are two very different fucking things

>>1517899
good...

>>1517901

Some folks claim they do.

>>1517901
then every chart posted was futile lol
0/10

>>1517902

And how is that not agnosticism?

>>1517902
so if I don't know, and I believe 50% and don't believe 50%?

>>1517898
It's not a question about whether god exists or not. It's a question if you believe god exists or not.

>>1517912

That's just pure semantics.

If someone doesn't know one way or the other then it's impossible for them to believe one way or the other.

>>1517906
It IS agnosticism, but one must choose to be agnostic or gnostic and one must also choose to be atheist or theist

hence the agnostic-atheist

seems like you people really think that if nontheism is empirically contingent then agnosticism is somehow favorable to simple nontheism. this is just stoopid. are you people agnostic with respect to voodoo as well.

>>1517901
generally, when there's literally zero proof of something's existence. It's safe to assume that it doesn't exist. Regardless of how many people insist that it does exist.

Especially when the odds of proof eventually surfacing sometime in the near or distant future is also nil.

>>1517911
You 50% believe in god? I'll pretend that makes sense, so you are a theist then..

>>1517918

Sure. I have no proof that voodoo gods exist one way or the other.

>>1517917

That's false. If one does not have the necessary knowledge to choose between theism and atheism, how can they be classified as theist or atheist?

what kept you up at night and made you look under your bed when you were 4?
did you know that the boogeyman was under your bed, or just believe it?
what is the difference in terms of your actions?

ITT: Atheists grasp at straws to call as many people as possible atheists

>>1517926
>no proof
science and for that matter all knowledge, even mathematics, do not operate on foundationalist proofs. you need to rethink this thing

>>1517926
it's not about knowing it's about believing

oh well, you are all much too dense (and no offense, but it seems like young) to argue with, i am going to bed

>>1517937
watch out for the boogeyman

>>1517917
Yes and?

Everyone knows that we were ponting the retarded words you choose to express that.

I don't know, but I believe; instead of I have no way of knowing but I lean to think...

>>1517916
>If someone doesn't know one way or the other then it's impossible for them to believe one way or the other.

Doesn't require a belief to be an atheist you idiot. All it requires is not believing in god/gods. If you don't believe in god/gods you are an atheist.

you people are so fucking stupid, though i shouldnt expect much from 4chan.

there are many ways to 'disprove' any of the abrahamic religions. every singly proof offered for a god ie argument from miracles is completely indefensible.

seriously it seems the only argument i ever hear or read for a belief in such a god (note: god ie a creator god, not an einstinian ideal of god) is "he helps me through my own personal struggles".

>>1517943

atheism

–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

>>1517945
disproving a religion doesn't disprove a god
0/10

>>1517945
You call people stupid, but you haven't even heard of the stoics...

>>1517961
It disproves the specific religions dogmatic mandates in thinking that their God is real.

So in a sense it does.

>>1517943
if an agnostic thinks he can't KNOW god, why should he considere a BELIEF?
0/10

>>1517967

>disproves one specific religion

>disproves all notions of god

pick one.

>>1517942
And this is important because knowing/not knowing is diferent form being able to know/not being able to know.

Saying "I don't know" is not fully comprehensive of what agnostism is.

This thread just proves this image right.

>>1517955
>the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

0/10. I'm sure there are some atheists who have an active disbelief in god/gods, I would say no more than 5% of atheists.

>>1517967
Everytime science makes a new argument it disproves reality then? By your logic, I mean.

>>1517980

Sorry I'm gonna put my trust in the scholars who put together a dictionary.

>>1517979
Sagan was an atheist. He didn't believe in god/gods.

>>1517986

Nope. He said himself he was agnostic. Any further argument is unnecessary.

>>1517970
It's their notion of God; I never said all notions of God.

If you prove to a Christian that Jesus was not divine then that pretty much fucks over everything for them. Since they actually think he was God. Or if you prove that every divine or miraculous thing in the Bible is false. It makes the God they believe in not so credible anymore.

>>1517990
Yep, what about it? go on please.

Why is this relevant to the notion of God?

>>1517982
Religions rarely ever adapt their dogma to cope with modern reality. Noah's ark is complete bullshit, but people will still believe it no matter what.

At least in Science things evolve and change willingly when more information is discovered.

>>1517994

What of religions that do change their dogma to fit with the times?

>>1517994
Not only are some Christians scientific, they are religious as well. Problem?

>>1517993
It's not really relevant to the notion/concept of a God. It is to a personal God though.

>>1517984
Well you're an idiot. Atheism is not necessarily a belief in the nonexistence of god/gods. If that were the case no one would be an atheist because it's fucking stupid.

Here you go, straight from another dictionary:
1. A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.

Further from another website:

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

>>1517994
But does it disproves reality? Yes, no?

Because if no, it's stupid to think disproving a relligion disproves god.

I know the Church killed your parents, enslaved your brothers, raped your teddy bears and married your grandma, but any grunges you hold against it are on another level, which means, the not prove nor disprove God.

>>1517999
Then i'd say it's somewhat opportunist to try and justify their backwoods beliefs. Christians saying they can believe in Evolution and the creationist fable for example. Sure they can do so but it doesn't make them right.

>>1517988
He was also an atheist because he didn't believe in god/gods.

>>1518009
Something can be created and then evolve, no?

>>1518004
>If that were the case no one would be an atheist because it's fucking stupid.

Well atheist themselves are pretty stupid anyway.

>>1518010

He said himself that he couldn't know one way or the other. You're incorrect.

>>1518009

>complains that religions don't change to fit with science

>complains that religion changes to fit with science

>>1518009
Science has the right to change... relligion does not... and you complain it doesn't. Hmmm...

>>1518005
Of course it doesn't disprove God if you disprove a man-made religion. But even the concept of God is man-made as well. It's an easy thing to throw it out there because it can never be proven or disproven.

Not much of an argument to me.

>>1518014
>He said himself that he couldn't know one way or the other. You're incorrect

That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if he doesn't know one way or the other, no one does. I don't know one way or the other. But I don't believe in god/gods. Why? Because there is no evidence for god/gods. Do they exist? Who knows? But I'm not going to believe in them without some evidence. That makes me, and Carl Sagan, an atheist. Because we don't believe in god/gods, because we aren't theists.

>>1518024

Nope. He said he didn't necessarily disbelieve in some concepts of God.

>>1518020
>>1518014
NOPE.jpg

What I was saying was the reasoning behind changing. I said religions may change dogmatically with modern thinking in order to justify their beliefs. There's nothing to believe with in Science, it's scientific fact not faith. You don't have to believe that we are in the Milky Way galaxy, we just are–and there's nothing that can be said otherwise.

Yeah, I'm talking out of my ass here and I'm half asleep but whatever.

And I never complained religion doesn't fit with science, I complained that they TRY to fit with science and fail miserably everytime.

>>1518029
science and ethics/morality don't mix well anyways.

>>1518029

>god causes evolution

How does that fail?

>>1518025
Yes, he says some may be possible, but he doesn't know. There is no evidence. So he doesn't believe in them. He is open to the possibility, but he has no active belief in them. Just like me. Yet I am an atheist, and so is he. I know what Carl Sagan believes. He identified himself as agnostic because he though atheism always implied strong atheism, but it doesn't.

>>1518032
phew. tell your fellow athiests.
/thread

Panentheist, because the mystics from every age and tradition document the same experiences with different cultural flavorings.

>>1518032

Nope. You're agnostic.

>>1518030
I would say they do. They certainly don't come from God.

>>1518031
and there's absolutely no evidence of a God, hence you can say he caused evolution all you want–doesn't make it right. Actually it doesn't really make it wrong either because there's no way in knowing at this point.

So it goes back to the individual and what he/she thinks is right. Fuck it.

>>1518037
Athiests also have no proper definitions of intelligence, consciousness, or God, yet they choose not to believe in them?

>>1518037

Yay I got you to say what I wanted you to say. I win!

>>1518036
Yep. An agnostic atheist. You're a fucking genius.

>>1518042

Nope. Just agnostic.

>>1518042
you can't know, but your guessing?

>another 'Derp atheists' thread
>179 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view
/lit/. /lit/ never changes...

>>1518037
>Actually it doesn't really make it wrong either because there's no way in knowing at this point.

It makes it blind faith though, and almost definitely wrong.

>>1518035
Gotta believe them all or none of them right?!

It is true though, so many similarities mythological wise and creation myth wise. But maybe that's because the human species were all in Africa at once, perhaps? Sympathetic magic is the starter, than we all branched off into the world with the same basic myths and they were transformed into whatever the fuck.

>>1518049
>almost definitely wrong.
>An affirmation.
>Based on an assumption you don't know either.

Based on your statements I concluded you are almost definitely wrong.

>>1518044
There is no guessing you idiot. I don't believe in god. I didn't say it's not possible or that it can't be true. The same with the afterlife and invisible beings that can't be smelt, felt, or detected in any way.

>>1518056

You're just an agnostic, then. No need for the atheist label. Unless you just want to fit in, I guess.

>>1518049
Well yeah, blind faith when it comes to dogma. And yeah blind faith in the way of KNOWING there's a God.

Fucking impossible, please stop. Just be happy with doubt over complete certainty.

>>1518055
>Invisible leprechauns guided evolution. There is no way to know. You think not? You are almost definitely wrong.

>>1518056
So you think you are intelligent right?
You are a product of the Universe. Do you grant it intelligence?
After all it contains the design of Man within it. Otherwise you wouldn't exist.
So now do you believe in Intelligent Design?
Could this be God?
What do you believe? Clearly no.
Your mind is made up, instead of unknowing.
Good job, atheists.
/thread

>>1518059
No, no need for the agnostic label. That's the useless part idiot. You don't even know what agnosticism means.

>>1518056
It is guessing, since you don't know.

I don't know what this box have, but I believe it has a toy. Guessing. Toyist.

I don't know what this box have, it could be anything. Agnostic.

Thread reminds me of this picture.

>>1518067

I'm an agnostic gnostic.

>>1518063
That depends if you think the Universe has any kind of traits like intelligence lol. Universe doesn't give a fuck whether we exist or not, it doesn't know–it's not a god damn being.

Man is not a design, get over it. We could have easily ended up something completely different through Evolution.

I believe in God as a social construct.

>>1518070
You can't just say you think it's logical, there has to be an explanation. One can explain Jupiter's gravity. You can't logically explain God no matter how hard you try.

0/10

>>1518073

>implying the concept of god requires that god to be intelligent

>>1518078

Logically explain gravity.

>>1518073
>We could have easily ended up something completely different through Evolution.

We didn't. That's a fact.

I dont belive in God, nor im a raging atheist. Obviusly religious God is a fake, therefore even if the God exists, he/she/it doesn't need your worship or whatever. So why care in the first place?

>>1518073
So the Universe can *create* intelligence and consciousness and beings, but yet not contain any of it itself, somehow? And you KNOW this, but choose not to BELIEVE?

>>1518082
Trascendence and the divine plan. Read Marcus Aurelius.

>>1518079
>people and their annoying greentext

So what is God the universe now? Or is God outside of the universe? If God isn't intelligent..oh wait, you're one of those force fags aren't you.

>>1518063
That post makes no sense.

>So you think you are intelligent right?
Somewhat.
>You are a product of the Universe.
Yes
>Do you grant it intelligence?
Zero sense made.
>After all it contains the design of Man within it.
No it does not. Evolution has no goal or designs.
>Otherwise you wouldn't exist.
It doesn't and I do exist.
>Could this be God?
Evolution? Random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift? Can't see any handy work in it.
>What do you believe?
About what? About god being involved. I have no reason to believe such things. There is no evidence firstly. Second, it doesn't add anything to evolution. It's just an unsupported assumption that adds no explanatory power.
>Your mind is made up, instead of unknowing.
I don't know for sure, I said there was no reason to believe in it.

>>1518086

Could be any of them.

And the force is very similar to taoist beliefs.

>>1518081
>We didn't. That's a fact.

And?

>>1518092

It's meaningless to speculate about "what might have been."

>>1518073
FOOL. The Universe created us in order to become self aware. We are the Universe.

>>1518083
There are strong (or at least intellectually engaging) arguments for the existence of god.

This is not one of them.

This is an argument for the existence of an extra chromosome or two in your cells.

What I'm saying is you're mildly retarded.

>>1518092
>And?
You used it as an argument to disprove a desing and I called yoir bullshit. You tell me.

>>1518088

Intelligence is not properly defined.
Consciousness is not properly defined.
God is not properly defined.
Universe is not fully understood.
What is beyond the Universe is not fully understood.


So then nothing makes sense, but you choose to believe in no God.

Like I said: Good job atheists.
/thread

>>1518097
this kid is trolling on speed

>>1518095
Sorry, but an automated car factory must have the car designed into it, and heence be more complex.

If that assertion makes me retarded, then fine.

>>1518098

I think he's the only logical person in this thread.

>>1518094

lol 10/10 would read again.

>>1518065
God damn it. You can't understand a basic ideas because some idiots had to start using agnostic as something it wasn't. No one knows if god/gods exist. If they believe they do, they are a theist. If you aren't a theist, you are an atheist. It's pretty fucking simple. The guy who doesn't know is an atheist. I'm an atheist. A newborn baby is an atheist because he isn't a theist, he doesn't even have a concept of god so he can't have an active belief in something he has no concept off. And you are probably an atheist too. You are also dense as fuck.

>>1518108

Nope. Atheism is active disbelief.

>>1518107
and for the atheist Carl Sagan fans:

Given enough time, hydrogen becomes self-aware.

So you agree with Sagan, yet don't. OK.
I'll be the retard. Thanks

>>1518097
I don't believe in the nonexistence of god. Yet I am an atheist.

>>1518094
We are the universe in the sense that we are stardust, i guess is what you are getting at? Sure. But to think that we LITERALLY are the universe, come on. Earth could be destroyed and all life on it gone, and it wouldn't matter. Upon the billions and billions of stars in the billions upon billions of galaxies, you think that we really matter that much?

We are nothing to the universe.

>>1518109
Nope. You don't know the definition of words like agnostic and atheist. I use to think like you, and I was wrong. You are wrong.

>>1518115

no u

>>1518102
Well then you are samefag or an idiot.

>>1518118

umad?

The universe isn't conscious.
Nature isn't conscious.
Evolution isn't conscious.
Stop anthropomorphizing EVERYTHING. It's like humans can't deal with something unless it has a defined purpose or a goal. Nature and the universe don't care about you. They can't care, they're not even alive. It's such a useless thing to ascribe some metaphysical purpose to these things.

>>1518123
actually you can't know this until they are strictly defined.
all science has proven is that the human mind is capable of universal computation, and this threshold is easily met.

You wish to ignore Aquinas, why? And Euripides, why? I am an athiest, but i know alot from the bible, why? Because i think one needs to read it to make up your minds. I then let reason dictate my approach. Ppl tell me religion is simply faith, not logical, but how can a person expect otherwise? I have read the bible, gone to church and infact am reearching Aquinas right now, havin finished the Confessions of Augustine. But i have no belief in God- i follow the morals i wish. And that is the point, many associate religion and morals, which i find insane. There is no connection, great philosophers have dictated morals for millenia, as has religion.

>>1518108
Basicaly you are saying being an atheist is either, not believing in god or not having any argument about it. That's wrong but I'll let it slip.

Then you say not knowing equals to atheism, and that's were you went full retard.

I could admit I live inside Plato's cave and still believe there's a god outside, and I'd be a theist; or not and I'd be an atheist.

In fact, no one knows, but not everyone is an atheist, some choose to believe, some decide they don't and some say they don't care.

>>1518112
We are not separate from the Universe. It's Universal. We are the Universe. We are self aware, thus, the Universe is self aware.

>>1518123
If we take the metaphysical out of us too, we aren't alive either, just a bunch of matter.

>>1518134
but u r a bunch of matter. u ok?

>>1518134
>implying there is metaphysical IN US
no. no. no. no. no

>>1518131
that is exactly what scientists had to face when they discovered quantum mechanics. they are unavoidable participants, and not observers.
the consequences of QM were first described thousands of years ago in religious texts.
its come full circle in many ways, but that was not my original point when I brought up the Universe.

>>1518125
Diamonds are in rocks
All diamonds are carbon.
All rocks are carbon.

>>1518147
>>1518131
Hahaha, oh wow, failed linking on my part

>>1518147
cuz that makes total sense is relevant.

>>1518153
It was stated that because we are conscious and in the universe, the universe is conscious. That's not logical at all. Just because something is related in one way doesn't mean they're related in all ways.

I like to think back in the beginning of human time there were many gods who appeared for different races. The Jews had a god, the Assyrians had a god, the Egyptians had a god, and so on and so forth.
But these gods aren't really gods. They are aliens that are technologically advanced to the point of creating life and traveling faster than the speed of light.

These gods used us humans as pawns to a larger game and that game was war and conquer. Each one of the races had their perks and drawbacks but what it really boiled down to was the ability for their creation (a human race) to adapt and survive the game of war.

Once a certain god's children had been exterminated by war that god simply packed up and left to go play another game of war on some other fertile planet or moon with other aliens.

The Christian God entered the game late with the introduction of jesus and the creation of whites who had the capabilities of surviving the cold. This god created the most adaptable species of man and we still see evidence of that till today. But this god made a grave mistake he loved his jesus and when the je.ws threw him up on the cross he threw a huge shitfit and left earth. But he came back and resurrected jesus with alien respawn abilities. Then jesus and god said fuck yall niggas and bounced. At this very instant it is probable that jesus and the christian god are somewhere in the universe guiding a new created race and species that is competing in the game of war against other god created races. I bet they are raping shit.

>>1518161

But at this moment there are only two god's left in the world. The Je.wish god seems to have taken the lead as they manipulate the Christian followers of their long gone savior.

And then there's the Muslim god. He's a sleeper pick.

I believe though that if the White's could break away from the dead and gone christian belief and united under one banner they could become their own god of this planet and be contenders. But that would require for the white's to break the control of the Je.wish influence as they have them fight their battle with the muslims for them.


There's a lot of war left to be had. We'll see what happens.

>>1518156
>durr we aren't in the everything

no. we are not "in" the universe. we are the universe. the carbon/rock syllogism doesn't work here at all.

the universe is everything
we are something (and conscious)
we are the universe (it is conscious)

No, but I don't believe it's possible to defend either believe in God's or its non-existence. The only logically tenable religious stance is Agnosticism.

The End.

>>1518187

HURR BUT YOU CAN'T JUST BE AGNOSTIC DURR YOU HAVE 2 BE THEIST OR ATHEIST

>>1518187
If you are agnostic/atheist and when you die you discover that there IS God you're fucked
If you are theist and when you die you discover that there is NO God you're still fine!
The only logically tenable religious stance is Theism.

>>1518162
>>1518161

Good sir, this is the most retarded load of horse shit I have ever read in any religion thread to date.

>>1518212

Unless of course you happened to believe in the wrong god out of the 40,000 there might be.

Nightmare Mode: Think for yourself.

>>1518218

OP here, thats what I was asking everyone to do

>>1518214

Derp. Pascal's wager. Derp.