/lit/ - Literature

Fuck them all

Ignosticism ftw

>>1672424
I almost lost my shit

>>1672424
Ooo evil atheists ooOOOOooo

One thing that is absolutely fact is pondering this is pointless. Grow up, guys. Monkies should worry about monkey problems.

I think its a pretty big deal, specially since a lot of people rely on this shit to get through their lives.

>>1672447
>being trolled
Come on, bro. I think we've all been on 4chan long enough by now.

when you say "God doesn't exist," you need to specify which god. there are thousands.

otherwise you end up arguing for the existent of a god that no one is claiming exists, which is pointless and stupid... and, therefore, why agnosticism is pointless and stupid.

There are plenty of higher powers at work. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Go ahead and worship these life-shaping forces, if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect them to perform any miracles for you.

agnosticism isn't exclusive from atheism or theism, you're either:

gnostic theist
agnostic theist
agnostic atheist
gnostic atheist

>>1672431
still agnostic atheist

blah blah blah

>>1672460

>ignostic = agnostic-atheist

Do you even know what ignosticism means?

i'm a Christian for obvious reasons

>>1672467

>i'm a troll for obvious reasons

ftfy

I don't believe in gods. I have no reason to suspect they exist. If real evidence is ever found I would reconsider. I am an atheist. I don't use the word agnostic because I don't see any use in it.

>>1672464
oops, read it as apatheism, my bad.

>>1672467
I thought Christians believed that atheists are going to hell and burning for all eternity. A small room with a chair doesn't seem so bad. Can I take books?

>>1672467
>>1672467
I'm an Atheist for obvious reasons.

>>1672464
Yes, but he was correct. It's still just agnostic atheism.

>>1672481
to each his own

>>1672488

>we can't (uniformally) define "God", so there's fuck-all point in arguing over it
>I don't think "God" exists, but I'm not necessarily sure

The only thing these definitions have in common is that they both come under the umbrella term of irreligion or non-theism.
The latter begs the question of a God in order to deny it, the former says straight off the bat "What is God?"

I'm not going to argue any more because I can't be arsed.

>>1672481

Who say's there's a stool?

Isn't atheism a religion in itself?

>>1672501

No faggot it's a state of realization.

>needs a god

yeah no

>>1672501

Is bald a hair colour?

What do you call one who isn't concerned with the question of God?

>>1672506

Apatheist

>>1672506

Sane.

>>1672489
Does that include all the people Saddam killed for not being the right type of Muslim? All the deaths caused by Muslim extremists? All the stoning throughout history of Islam and Christianity and Judaism? All the honor killings? The inquisitions? All the Indians in Mexico and South America slaughter and conquered in the name of Christianity and the pope who claimed all there land in the name of god for no reason once it was discovered? French Wars of Religion? Thirty Years War? Taiping Rebellion? Milhemet Mitzvahs? Jihads? In the Sudan in which the Muslim regime committed genocide against both Animists and Christians? Witch killings, over 1000 people a year are still killed for being witches, did you know? Where they counted? Nah...

>>1672514
all that is probably what, 10 mil total, if that

I'm a Christian, though unable to fully believe in all Christian texts, I have pulled much strength from them.

>>1672522
Over the last 4000 years? Probably nearer to a billion.

>>1672532
not even close
come back when you have some actual stats

>>1672514
the point is that it counters the silly "religion has called all evil and death in the world" sentiment

though some people may just be listening to too much John Lennon

>>1672557
>called
caused*

It's personal. People can be whatever they want, but if they want to talk about it, they should have thought about their decision to be either one thing or the other and be able to explain themselves.

Generally discussing religion with people is a bit of a moot conversation because you won't convince them that you're right and they won't convince you that they're right, so why spend the effort.

To me atheism makes the most sense. It's right that you can't disprove god, but I like to work with things that a plausible. Is it impossible that some sort of god exists? I suppose not. Is it implausible? Very much so.

I don't need religion to defend my morality, a, from a religious viewpoint, "good" morality, but some people obviously feel like it is the only way they can align themselves with their existence, in which case I won't be bothering them. It just upsets me when they bother me, or act superior or cocky because of their religion.

I am a theist, but I agree that science neither proves nor disproves God.

>>1672594

WHICH GOD?

Don't you get it? You can't just make up some random god that no one believes in. You have to be specific. Science proves every conventional God irrelevant.

The new age bullshit is just an adaptation that creates a thinner God of the Gaps.

>>1672607
I can't tell if you are serious or sarcastic, just saw OP's post and responded to that.

And by saying God is neither proved nor disproved by science completely avoids any kind of God of the gaps logic...so I think you should calm down.

Also since you ask I am a Christian, I hope I have not offended you by answering your question to be more specific.

>>1672607

>Science proves

Confirmed for both scientifically (and theologically) illiterate

>>1672607
Is there a problem with that? Or do you just absolutely need something to be right about all the time?

>>1672626

meh
semantics, if you cant catch the meaning, you are a moron, or you just like to argue

>>1672633

The problem is that a claim of a non-specific, unrecognized God cannot be proven either way is completely without substance.

Sure, nothing can be proven 100%, but there is certainly no God performing any kind of miracles. There is no bearded man behind the curtain healing the sick. There is no heaven, there is no Hell.

There is no soul.

If you want to claim there is a soul, then you need to render a conceptually coherent explanation of how the metaphysical aspects interact with biological components.

Of course, you may argue that the soul dies with the body, as Aristotle believed, and play with semantics... but then you are, once again, left in a position that is irrelevant for asserting the possibility in the divine.

This is why agnostic is just a cop out by wimps to afraid to stand up for common sense. There is no substance behind the shield of agnosticism.

>>1672636

>implying science can "prove" that an incorporeal, transcendental and non-contingent being does not exist
>u r asshole troll for semantics lol!

>>1672645
You are responding to the wrong person, my answer was given to you right after you asked it.

But I will agree with the above posts that you are both scientifically and theologically, and apparently philosophically illiterate. You are making a fool of yourself just quit while you are behind.

>>1672645

>If you want to claim there is a soul, then you need to render a conceptually coherent explanation of how the metaphysical aspects interact with biological components.

I'd love to. I wish I had the instrumentation to test something like this.

Saying that "there's no soul" means that consciousness and experience appear from nothing, and disappear back into nothing. Which, considering the rest of the universe's laws regarding conservation of matter and energy, make little sense.

There's got to be something else going on, and it doesn't require an active all-powerful deity.

As long as you're not militant, I don't care what you think.

>>1672654

I believe that anyone who claims knowledge without proof should be shot in the street, is that wrong?

>>1672620

The Old Testament is full of lies. The Israelites were never enslaved as an entire race in Egypt. The God El is a Canaanite God and the Israelites and Judahites were pagans who worshipped El, among others.

The story of the Garden of Eden is an allegory for the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians, and, during the Babylonian Exile, the theology of the Jews was interpolated over older stories and laws.

The only extra-biblical mentions of Jesus in the 1st Century have all proven to be forgeries. The Gospels were not written by the apostles, but by people pretending to be the apostles two generations too late.

The story of Jesus is largely borrowed from Serapis, Dionysus and Mithra, whose stories were also largely borrowed from the various cults of the same region.

There is goo evidence to suggest that Nazareth never existed in the time of Jesus, and the current Nazareth was placed based on guesses about what the Gospels describe. Maps of pilgrimages undertaken by early Christians pass very close to Nazareth, but do not stop there.

It goes on and on. All religions are the product of cultural syncretism, people pray to heal cancer but don't pray to heal a severed limb, the laws of nature in old religious texts proved to be very innacurate, proving they are not of divine origin...

In the end, a religious person can only fall back on faith generated by their personal upbringing and their religious experiences. Religious experiences have been studied extensively in many forms and the universal aspects have proven not to generate similar wisdom or truth. This is know as the Problem of Inconsistent Revelation.

In short, Christianity = Fail.

>>1672656
Yes, it doesn't tackle the problem properly.

You should be wanting to shoot anyone who accepts claims without proof. If you did that, people who made claims without proof would never convince anyone of anything, while people who made claims and had proof were listened to.

>>1672652

That is a load of horse shit.

The smallest unit of import in the brain is the electron. Specifically, it is the valence electron. Neurochemical activity operates under the basic laws of chemistry. Nuclear chemistry doesn't even enter the picture. To believe in a metaphysical soul outside of the material interactions in the brain is silly, and, again cannot even be described, in theory, by anyone.

Consciousness evolved out of the need to predict the behavior of others, and that ability has been turned inward to create a sense of self.

Consciousness and experience arise from signal transduction and our ability to perceive, store and process information according to abilities of our biology.

There doesn't "have to be" anything else going on. That is the worst argument I have ever heard.

If someone has a certain part of their brain injured, the abilities that arise from that brain matter are affected. By gouging someone's brain, we can eliminate their ability to see.

Can a soul see? How?

By gouging out the portion of the brain that processes sounds, we can eliminate a person's ability to hear.

Can a soul hear? How?

Some brain injuries can destroy a person's ability to learn. Can a soul learn anything? Can it remember anything?

Did you know there are some people who have lost the ability to navigate through a room around obstacles? If there is a biological reason for an individual's ability to walk around a chair, then how would their soul orient themselves, move from one place to another, etc?

Your argument doesn't work, and a lot more is known about consciousness and the experience than you seem to want to admit.

All belief is a matter of hypothesis.

Their truth lies entirely in necessity.

I lack the necessity, so I abstain.

>>1672663
I wasn't sure before, but now I am sure you are a troll, to which I respond well done I guess, I raged for a bit there.
I shouldn't dignify you with a response, but I will anyways. Literally everything you said is wrong. I would point to a lovely device called google in which you can actually see the ancient documentation that Ramses II dictated on the Jews being essentially set free.

There are innumerable secular sources documenting Jesus. You are not even arguing the right points. You should be arguing if Jesus was the son of God or if he performed miracle not if he existed as there is ample proof of the latter.

There is not good evidence that the ancient town of Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, in fact quite the opposite.

Your idea of people not willing to pray for a severed limb has no bearing whatsoever on me believing in God. You are so full of logical fallacies it is absurd.

I politely responded to OP's post here:
>>1672594
You decided to take it upon yourself to further question, I responded and said I was a Christian, and now I get this? ,Perfectly intelligent and kind people are atheists, in fact 2 of my closest friend are atheist.. You, however, are a complete imbecile.

"Consciousness evolved out of the need to predict the behavior of others, and that ability has been turned inward to create a sense of self."

Can you describe to me the biological process that allows life to will evolution?

There is almost no biological advantage of most the religious morals so why would humans make it up?

And why do you try to quantify and comprehend the "conscious world" with the rules of the "real world"?

I think agnostics are poorly read, and I don't believe atheists when they say they're happy.

I agree with you. ^

I don't see how agnostics think they're different from atheists. I think they don't really know what being an atheist means. They seem to think that atheists are dead sure that God does not exist and think it's a fact that he doesn't. That's not the case; merely, atheists don't believe that God exists because there's no real evidence. That's it. They don't believe he exists...They don't think it's a fact he doesn't, because it's not a fact.

Factually, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God....Thinking this does not make you agnostic. Do you believe that God exists? Theist. Don't believe he exists? Atheist.

Not going to say one way or the other because his existence can't be proven or disproven? Then I'd say you are almost definitely an atheist.

>read this thread
>vaguely cogent debate

I've spent too long on other boards.

>>1672951

What about Anselm's definition of God, then - ie The Most Perfect Being of Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived etc. etc.
Then you're getting into arguments that perfection requires existence and so a perfect being has to exist.

Despite trying to prove god, to me these argument just muddles the issue altogether. How far and transcendent is "the greatest"? Is it surpassing our perceptions of existence altogether? To me God is in this bracket whereby its existence is so distant from ours that our ideas of Purpose and even Existence just become irrelevant and inapplicable. I can believe or not believe God is there, but either way be safe in the knowledge there is no link between me and it.

The Christian God could one day exist, but I could still argue there is a being greater than it.

Does that make me an Atheist?

These days I try to keep my worries on the one level of existence I'm pretty damn well convinced is real.
The question's a chess game, and the board's imaginary.

>Ramses II dictated on the Jews being essentially set free.

Not true. It is possible there was a small contingent of Canaanites who escaped and discovered a new God on their way back to Canaan.

If indeed Ramses II, pharaoh from about 1290 to 1234 BCE, set the Israelites free as described in the Bible, then he was not the pharaoh who pursued them and was drowned in the Red Sea, since he died peacefully in Egypt and his body was buried in the Valley of the Kings. In fact, over 90 per cent of scholars are reported to say that there was no Exodus from Egypt, as described in the Bible.

Bible's Buried Secrets
http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895565/

>There are innumerable secular sources documenting Jesus.

There is Josephus and Tacitus, who both proved to be forgeries, since Christians who quote their texts use them as evidence, but completely forget to quote their "golden passages" referring to Jesus.

"The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."

– Catholic Encyclopedia on Josephus.

Pliny doesn't actually mention Jesus, though he is used as a source. Ironically, the numbered letteres that he uses goes up to 97, and 96 and 97 were the ones Chrisitians use as evidence, leading many to beleive that the last two were forgeries. The other 95 letters prove he is ignorant of Christians.

Seutonius is also used as evidence, but 'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek.

The bottom line is that you are grossly misinformed about the evidence involved. Easy as it is to say there are "innumerable source," but much more difficult for you to provide any examples.

>Can you describe to me the biological process that allows life to will evolution?

Are you suggesting that evolution has a will? Because that sounds awfully like religious nonsense. Evolution is random, and is not moving in a pre-determined direction.

I recommend you read the first 10 pages of Guns, Germs and Steel if you want to know more about the progression of early man in laymen's terms.

>There is almost no biological advantage of most the religious morals so why would humans make it up?

Total bullshit. The system of belief that allows the largest group of people to work together towards one cause is the one that allows for the highest propagation of our species.

On the level of interaction with individuals, basic rules governing behavior allow for a stable hierarchy of relationships. It is only logical that people would come up with explanations for why they should keep things copesthetic.

>And why do you try to quantify and comprehend the "conscious world" with the rules of the "real world"?

The conscious world is mostly illusory and, at best, a rough estimation of reality by a single individual. It has, time and again, proven to be unreliable.

Theists claim there is a god. Atheists make no such claim. Guess who the burden of proof is on?

>>1673517

Don't get mad.... People still don't understand what "evolution" is.

Thanks to retarded Christians, it has taken on a whole different meaning. You have to make it clear for retards that it's not the "decision" of certain species to just up and change. It's randomness and variation in traits that were survivable and, thus, passed on. The lizard that walked tall outlived it's brother who walked low and was slow and got eaten by ants. It then mated with another survivor who was tall, and then their offspring walked tall... Simple as that. It wasn't that they figured out to walk tall to survive, they just won the biological lottery in a sense and then the gene was passed along. Randomness is the key to it all, not "decision." People are dumb and think "well then why aren't monkeys still changing into men?" when it has absolutely nothing to do with that... Fucking Christians are speedbumps to progression.

>>1673517

Guns, Germs and Steel is a book that everyone should read.

http://www.mediafire.com/?mymrlnmnyel

>>1673554
wow, what a coincidence
just got my hands on that book and wanted to ask around about it

>>1673522
Both sides. Though, it appears atheists have some ground.

>>1673554
it's alright
that said, be wary of getting your anthropological inquiry from a trained ornithologist

>>1673554
>>1673542

I watched a documentary of the author making a visit to Africa and all also. Pretty moving and lots of symbolism from the book. He rides an old train across the continent.

lol
Christians

I have literally zero respect for agnosticism. Science doesn't need to disprove god, religion needs to prove him. So, you're an idiot, and if you want to be agnostic and say "Well, I don't know" then don't fucking talk about it in public you ignorant faggot.

1. Realize that most interesting people are in hell.
2.win pascals wager

all are one.

btw hell is not a pit of fire, it is just desolation from god.

>>1674057

Try explaining that to the Pentecostal congregation I attended as a youth.

>>1674078
for angels who have seen the face of god mere desolation is the highest torment.
for unshaped people, pain of the flesh will have to do.

I'm a mono-theist. Probably because of my Parents, but I've looked at other religions, mine seems reasonable as long as I keep my mind open.

I don't shove God in the face of atheists, though I do get rubbed the wrong way by it. I don't really care what someone believes. I won't shove God at them, as I hope they don't shove whatever they believe on me.

Believe what you will, we all die. I'm just making a bet on a horse rather than sitting it out.

>>1674110

lol, it sounds like you are saying that you believe in God because you *might* be rewarded

I've got a huge dick.

I believe there's no afterlife since death of the body means death of the mind

>>1674110

no religion is reasonable
the simply appear to be reasonable at first glance
often, what is reasonable is non-intuitive

I'm an atheist.
If I were to be presented with compelling evidence I would give it serious examination. It would have to be scientific data, though. Not Jesus' face on a grilled cheese sandwich. On a more personal note, I find the idea of the sum of humanity's accomplishments being the equivalent of a bearded, caucasian god's ant farm utterly depressing and perhaps even insulting.
But really, as long as you're a good person and don't use religion as an excuse to be hateful, pushy, or ignorant, rock on! I mean, you have to keep in mind religion has inspired some of the most beautiful art, music, and literature in existence. It's also inspired people to become more peaceful and loving, Malcolm X come to mind. But for every wonderful religious person I've met, I've had the misfortune of knowing five unpleasant ones. It really is subjective and just depends on the person.
I find ALL mythology and theology from around the world utterly FASCINATING, funnily enough. I have a bookcase taller than me nearly filled with books on the subject I've collected.

tl;dr version of my views:
Anyone has as much right to disbelieve as someone does to believe.
Religion itself is NOT a bad thing, but people so often MAKE it a bad thing.
Your faith is NEVER an excuse for intolerance, rudeness, or ignorance.This goes for both believers and nonbelievers.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
NEVER push your religious or nonreligious views on ANYONE.

>>1674317
>I'm an atheist.
>If I were to be presented with compelling evidence I would give it serious examination. It would have to be scientific data, though. Not Jesus' face on a grilled cheese sandwich

The other day my colleagues and I confirmed the face of Jesus that appeared in a petri dish on 3/19/2011 at 9:34 am at the Eck Institute. An account of these events and our subsequent revelations from the Angel Gabriel are fothcoming in Nature.

Athiest.
Forget all the philosophical reasoning; there's no payoff to agnosticism. Leaving that possibility open is ignorant. No religion will accept, in the end, that you were holding out for more confirming evidence. In fact, a basic tennant of most religions is that one should have faith without complete proof. Why leave that possibility open when you can just be athiest? It isn't a life sentence. Until death nothing is written in stone and you can change later if the evidence suits you or if you find that evidence isn't as important as what religion has to offer you.

>>1675254
so would you become religious if you were given enough evidence or would you stand by the thought that you should have had enough faith from the get go?

>>1673505
why /lit/ why?

I think I better stiop even clicking on these threads, they are just filled with ignorant shit like this. Atheist here, and you are fucking dumb I hope you are just a Christian troll trying to build a strawman.

i have no idea what to think

>>1675293

>>1675293


Great understanding of the big bang theory, cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution.

>>1675289

I don't get it. Where is the strawman?

>>1675296
you can prove infared and xrays exist nigger

>>1675281


>Implying my mom isn't an atheist
>Implying my mom had TV when she was a kid
>Implying she would have been distraught over not being able to watch something that doesn't exist, like god

>>1675335

Don't worry, bro, he has no clue what he is saying.

I have the proof everyone has been looking for. Refer to picture.

>>1675356

>>1675296

That's right Stagolee. Atheists hate physics because they are afraid of it. Atheists would never study physics because it would challenge their world view. That's why none of the great physicists of the past 50 years were atheists but in fact were christian. Like Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.

>>1675378

lol, nevermind the pagans who ruled the ancient world or the christians who "tamed" the americas by killing 50 million natives.

never mind the Inquisitions

Are there seriously Christfags on 4chan? How strange is that?

>>1675378
Shouldn't that be labeled "victims of poor farming methods," because that's what killed the vast majority of people on that chart.

>>1672424
HAHAHAHAHAH
hitlers not an atheist he was a christian ocultist and stalin was a solipsist argueably

>>1675378

Don't forget, most of the murderers in US Prisons are actually Christians. You should add them to your chart.

Add these deaths to the chart, too bro.

>>1672424
Sorry, wait. Back the fuck up.

Why is Vonnegut adjacent to Hitler and Castro?

>>1675433
I guess some people don't dig Player Piano.

All kinds of wrong with that list. Einstein should not be in the Theist category.

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.

- Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands.

Need to add that to the list.

>>1675466
You mean a list that puts Kurt Vonnegut and Sarah Silverman in the same category as Adolph Hitler isn't well balanced?

17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany.

Also can go on that list... hmmm, looks like Christians, alone might surpass that "atheist" death toll

In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar -
orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did
nothing to prevent them.

Apatheist. I used to be a 'militant atheist' when I was younger, but now I think people that behave the way I used to are faggots.

Mao openly supported the idea that he was the son of GOD (In Chinese, it is called Tianzi"). So, not an atheist.

>>1675479

What would the world be like if atheists didn't speak out at all against religion?

Hitler=Roman Catholic. Richard Dawkins is not a "founder" of Atheism.

>>1675490
A lot better, IMO. People like Dawkins and Hitchens do and say the most outlandish and stupid shit--like trying to get the Pope arrested on his visit to Britain.

>>1675490
Less contentious.

Leading by example is better than entering the shit throwing competition.

>>1675508
>>1675502

wrong and wrong

The scope of conversation is what is important. Consider the time and effort wasted on the debate against homosexuals in the US. If people had actually been paying attention to the issues that effect everyone's quality of life, we could have prevented a great deal of the current mess.

By leaving the scope of conversation regarding science in the realm of "maybe God does something here or there to make this happen" we wouldn't be making any progress at all.

If we let the religious people determine the scope of conversation, we would be living like the Muslims under Sharia law, or whatever other ridiculous things that are prescribed by religious texts.

Most Americans still believe that the US was founded by only Christian Founding Fathers with the intent of maintaining a "Judeo-Christian morality."

Of course, this is totally false, and one only has to look at the reason George Washington stopped going to church while he was President, and why Jefferson equated the story of Christ with the "myth of Jupiter."

The scope of conversation determines a great many things in society.

>>1675532

We shouldn't be 'converting' people to atheism. That's treating it like a religion.

It should only be applied to the debates that it's relevant in. The gay issue should be a secular one. If people bring up religion in defense of their views, they should be told it's not relevant.

People will change for themselves if the climate is right for it.

>>1675544

True. The problem is exactly as you say. People turn to their Bible's for answers that plague society, despite empirically proven methods that have proven more effective in other countries.

Sex education is a prime example. Peopel against abortion should accept the fact that better sex education results in less teen pregnancies and, therefore less abortions. They want everyone to just stop having sex... as if that is a solution.

There have been attempts to pass laws to prevent unmarried people from having sex in several states. If the Mormons had their way, they would outlaw masturbation. Not shitting you.

>>1675568
And thats when you remind them of separation of church and state. Or show them evidence of the multiple other marriage like polyandry and open marriage that have existed for thousands of years in some cultures.

A constant campaign to get people to become atheists only plays into their siege mentality.

>123 posts and 39 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

this never fail

>>1675580

ridicule is helpful in that it changes attitudes better than evidence

people are more likely to change their minds if you manage to use their social buttons

being subject to ridicule and animosity has worked for the other side, might as well use it right back against them

being raised in a religious area in the US as an atheist is very scary

it shouldn't be that way

What the fuck, man...
What's this shit doing still alive?

a shame 4chan isn't popular with Muslims

YEAH BRO, I'M PRETTY SURE IF STALIN WAS AN ATHEIST HE WOULDN'T OF REVERSED BANS ON CHURCHES WHEN HE WAS ALREADY IN POWER.

There is evidence that Stalin was spiritual and not an atheist, and that he just abhorred organized religion.

>>1676489
>>1676475

Stalin incorporated the Russian orthodox church as part of his totality.

His religion was marxism, anyway.

There is nothing to indicate that atheism is the source of human atrocities. Culture, regardless of how divine icons appear, is the result of violence. There are currently Christian terrorists in India and Ireland. This does not make every Christian a terrorist.

To assign human behavior to any specific ideology is foolish, since the dark side of human behavior exhibits itself under every ideological system ever attempted.

The least violent systems have all been wiped off the earth by cultures willing to commit violence. Pacifists conquer no lands.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH HAD BEEN AROUND IN RUSSIA A LONG TIME PRIOR TO STALIN WAS EVEN BORN

Athiest/agnostic are pretty much the same fuckin thing to me.

Either way: religion isn't important to me and has no place in my life.

It's less of a teetering with "I don't know", but more of a "I don't really care."

It's really fucking absurd in theory, I mean, man makes up a story, then claims "prove or disprove it". Do you realize how fucking stupid of an exercise that is? It's like saying there's a set of dinner plates on Pluto. Surely you'd scoff at the idea because I clearly just made it up, but, hey, I strongly believe there is while you don't. Prove there isn't dinner plates on pluto.

And then people carry this shit through life as if it's important, living their only chance at a conscious life limited by another's rules, gambling on the thought of an eternal life that awaits them answer as long as they follow these very off-the-wall and trivial rules.

For example, there's the popular "being gay" or "having sex/children before marriage", or even the concept of marriage itself. In this vast ocean of darkness that surrounds us in the universe, do you REALLY think a "God" would punish these insignificant forms of complex molecules that partake in activities that have NO impact on anything whatsoever?

In the blink of an eye we'll be gone, but people choose to worship a god that gives man free choice during this fleeting moment of existence only to offer up an infinite experience of "pleasure or torture" based on any set of unknown correct/incorrect results to life experiences? Nigger please.

The whole fucking thing reeks of man, the proof is there in the vast expanse of logical hole in the WHOLE fucking thing.

TL;DR: God is a stupid concept to waste time on. There's more important things in life to discuss and experience.

>>1676549

Unfortunately, there are billions of religious people who feel otherwise.

I'm an agnostic theist. I believe in God but I can't say for certain whether he exists or whether we will ever or can ever known for sure.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

>>a shame 4chan isn't popular with Muslims

Any religion that attacks America is frowned upon...

>>1677608

i thought it was the other way around... silly me

"Do what thou will" seems to be a pretty infallible principle to me..

I don't disagree with the New Testament parables though, they can teach some people a thing or two about being nice.

Agnostics are the most reasonable people I've ever met. Atheists and theists tend to be very, very annoying and self righteous... at least agnostics are just elitists...

>Better than scientology.

>>1677659

of course they seem reasonable, they take the stance that doesn't piss anyone off

the only atheists you find annoying are the tiny minority that are vocal about it, and few of those exist in everyday life

>>1672424
>einstein and voltaire theistic
>yeah right

>>1679193
DMX IS THE BEST RAPPER

>>1679230
Atheists are so desperate to get people to agree with them that they press gang a group of people who are definitionally easy to confuse.

I'm a Christian agnostic. Means I don't know for sure, but I chose to have faith, because shit sounds legit.

Amen niggers.

>>1679239
>SHhh...just let it happen.

>>1679230

Wrong.

1. believes there is no God
2. believes there is
3. doesn't know if there is or not

That doesn't even define your FAITH, it just says how highly you regard your capacities as a mammal.

Agnostics are the smartest because they're the only ones who don't think oh so fucking highly of themselves.

I too am an agnostic Christian btw. I have faith in God, but I don't know for sure that He exists.

Understand this: it's not about KNOWING, cunts, knowing is for gnostics, and that's bs. Even atheists DON'T KNOW, they just THINK THEY KNOW, like theists. Agnostics merely THINK THEY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

God tier: agnostics
Mid tier: theists
shit tier: atheists

captcha: ainesti belief

>>1679239
in other words.... a faggot.

>>1679241

>you're wrong, now I'm starting to explain this image.

You just described another point of view, but not the reason why the first picture is wrong.

>>1679236
this reminds me of what jews, christians and muslims have been doing since they exist...

fuck me, all /r9k/ retards are on /lit/ now

>>1679257
>Oh, look! The news!

>CTRL + F
>"Deism"
>No results

/lit/, I am disappoint.

>>1679278
deism is idolatry for the sake of idolatry.

deism always seemed a little wishy washy to me
upon proving that key founding fathers were, not only not Christian, but were against Christianity in subtle ways, i have found Christians saying:

"Well, they were Deists."

Upon further investigation, I discovered that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed in "providence." Now, am I to believe that someone who believes in "providence" must also believe in a deity?

Is deism believing in a deity, or is it believing in divinity? Are either one synonymous with believing in "providence," which I interpret to mean "fate."

Personally, I consider physical determinism to be a form of fate, so I don't agree with the comparison.

just sayan

bumpan with truth

>>1672420

So what you call a man who wants everybody to live in peace, happy and without hordes of foam-mouthed idiots to tell him what to believe in?

>>1679423

anarchist

>>1679423
a monster

>>1679423
a dark knight

>>1679423
fascist

i love what is implied by this sign

I believe it's like what Marcus Aurelius said, If God is just and worthy of worship he will only judge by how you lived in virtue. Otherwise, why worship him?

So I don't care.