/lit/ - Literature

Why believe more than nothing unless there is explicit evidence and reason to do so?

>>3409635
Atheism isn't nothing, it's a belief. You're saying the God doesn't exist when you can't prove it.

great thread we're having here.

>>3409635
Show us your ontological argument for the non-existence of God

>>3409638
>all beliefs are asserted

herewegoagain.jpg

>>3409644
That how logic works, maybe you should educate yourself before acting retarded.

List of common fallacies
Compiled by Jim Walker
originated: 27 July 1997
additions made: 01 Dec. 2009
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

God is the Will to Power personified, and permeates the entire universe.

Prove me wrong.

>proving a negative
>proving something which cannot by definition be disproven
>2013

>>3409656

Why don't we just simplify that to the Will to Power permeates the entire universe since god is now redundant at this point.

Why? It's pretty much proven that if there is a god, it doesn't interfere. Believers can still die horribly etc.
A non-interfering god is no different to no god at all.
If a god started the universe, or started life on earth doesn't matter. A secular society is the the thing.

Also;
>462 posts and 73 image replies omitted.

>>3409654

Occam's Razor: Do not add entities beyond necessity. God is not required to explain anything in the universe, and his existence is said to be external to the universe. Therefore we would be adding an entity beyond necessity in order to explain universal phenomena.

>>3409661
Because the Will to Power predates the universe and is the cause of the Big Bang and therefore God.

>>3409656
(1) Will to Power permeates the entire universe
(2) I, personally, don't want power
(3) Will to Power isn't universal and thus non-existent

>>3409667
>God is not required to explain anything in the universe

You know that for a fact?

>>3409672
>I, personally, don't want power
>he hasn't even read Nietzsche
>he holds opinions on things he doesn't understand

>>3409669
>the Big Bang

are kids still buying the hypothesis of "explosion" these days?

lol

>>3409664

As much as I love Carl Sagan, this is a terrible quote.

In the context of UFO's it's an okay argument, since the universe is so large that it's rather unthinkable that we will ever come across another living thing (beyond our own solar system, at least), but as an argument for the existence of god this is really just a ridiculous quote and can be used for pretty much everything else there is no proof nor disproof of.

>>3409675
Don't reply to me without my permission, nerd. The "Big Bang" is just one possibility.

Lack of testable evidence

>>3409676
But it's true. We could have no reason to believe in Unicorns but then find a Unicorn cave tomorrow.

>>3409674
>he hasn't even read Nietzsche

How do you know what I have and what I haven't read?

>Can't into rudimentary epistemology and logic

Why do we even care about that?
I always see the people on /lit/ as rather intelligent and mature beings opposed to the rest of 4chan, so why do we have the need to argue about this?
I have absolutely no problem with any kind of religios belief or the lack of it, as long as the person is not an asshole and doesn't pester me with his beliefs.

>>3409681
>How do you know what I have and what I haven't read?

Because of your obvious misunderstanding of the Will to Power.

>>3409680

Definitely, but how likely is it? And in the case of god, how necessary is such a being when we today can explain most things in natural terms without having to infer a god? The whole thing is a thing of the past.

Furthermore, the same man once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>3409681
epic cat picture /b/ro xD

>>3409687
Just because it isn't likely doesn't mean the quote is incorrect.

>>3409683

You know, I always thought it weird that discussions about god and creation and so on is so vilified on 4chan and other forums, yet it's one of the most persistent philosophical dicussions in all of history. Why should it be so wrong to discuss it, and how does that makes one less intelligent or mature (insofar as it is done in an intelligent and mature way, which, a lot of the time, it is).

>>3409686
>The will to power describes what Nietzsche may have believed to be the main driving force in humans: achievement, ambition, the striving to reach the highest possible position in life; these are all manifestations of the will to power.

how retarded are you on the scale of 1 to 10? i'm thinking 10.

>>3409690

Nor did I say that. I said that it is a ridiculous quote to use for metaphysical and supernatural claims.

>>3409687
Why is there something rather than nothing? Please explain that to me, in natural terms.

>>3409695
That's what I thought, your understanding is restricted to wikipedia.

Try reading a book.

can we please stop having these threads now they're all the same unilateral garbage and i'm sure everyone involved would do much better in terms of creating meaningful discussion if they were to go and read some literature instead of attempting to boost their egos via having numerous pseudophilosophical cockslapping contests on this board which have all been done before and done better by much more intelligent people than any of us and in the end it all comes down to everyone just regurgitating the same few things from people much smarter than them in a (largely vain) attempt to seem more clever than the person they're opposing so good job guys you're solving the world's problems here and i'm sure if you just keep trying at it maybe in the next fifty identical threads you will eventually find the solution through mindless repetition so keep up the good work you little philosophers you

Sage

Hide

Stop posting about this little war in /lit/. This is babby stuff.

>>3409701

I don't know.

Why is the notion of simply not knowing so incredibly absurd to you? There is no shame in not knowing.

And besides, if you're going to claim that god dunit, then where the hell did god come from? It seems to me to be far better to understand the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and comforting. (Again quoting Carl Sagan)

Again this is a horrid argument. Science can't explain it, therefore god.

>>3409701

beggin' them questions

>>3409716
I must have missed the evidence you posted proving 100% that there is no God. Can you post it again?

>>3409725

How can you disprove that which is designed so as to be impossible to disprove?

>>3409729
So in other words, you can't prove it?

>>3409633
>Prove, unequivocally, that God does not exist.

He's not here now. Proof, therefore, requires faith of his current existence and negates possible extinction. Such as, perhaps He died in 'child birth'. That we are alone is proof in itself.

>Prove, unequivocally, that God does not exist.

No, I really dont care about your imaginary friends. You can say whatever you want about them.

I do not care.

>>3409734

Nope.

Without religion this girl would be dancing at the club half naked and covered in western makeup.

>>3409741
What does religion have to do with political tyranny? People break the rules of their religion every day. Take Catholics, for instance...

>>3409737
>imaginary friends
Huh? The cause of our material manifestation is this imaginary friend's work? Why call him imaginary then?

>>3409748
Their laws are based on Islam.

>>3409754
America's laws are based on Christianity. Your point is flimsy.

>>3409749
I dont care about your mumblings.

This will be my last post. The only reason I posted in the first place is to see how you would react to someone saying they did not want to take the challenge out of not giving a fuck about your shenanigans and such.

>>3409754
And political tyranny can't exist without Islam, is that what you're saying?

You're a dumb.

>>3409764
No they aren't, retard. Afghanistan is literally called "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan".

>>3409766
>And political tyranny can't exist without Islam, is that what you're saying?

Where did you get that? Their aversion to western homosexuality, slutty women, and western lifestyle is based on their religion. They actually follow what their holy book says, unlike Christians.

>>3409764
Protestant Christianity, to be accurate.

>>3409643
Show me an argument for it first, since, you know, thats how logic works.

>>3409664
We are not saying that. We are saying you must first offer an argument before we can try and debunk it. If you dont offer an argument, it doesnt mean that we have disproved God. Its far worse for you, there isnt even a possibility to speak of God, much less show him as non-existent, since we dont even know what you mean by the word God.

>>3409775
>western homosexuality
>homosexuality is a western phenomenon
lel

>>3409775
>Afghanistan is literally called "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan".
Wow, a name means everything.

So USA, means we're always United at all times. Those petitions for cessation were made up.

This guy's a toad.

>>3409775
Bro you know homosexuality is rampant in major parts of Afghanistan right? Right?

>>3409656
What a qt.

>>3409785
It correlates with western consumerism and narcissism, read some Freud. In fact, even Marx recognized that homosexuality is bourgeois.

>>3409788
We have a separation of Church and State, and our laws are not based on the bible.


>>3409791
Pederasty and banging men dressed as women is much different than homosexuality.

I'm hiding this thread. Stay here, kids. And have a good time. No more threads for today, okay? Good "discussion" to all of you. I hope you prove yourselves right in the end, call me later for the answer(not really, please).

>>3409801
Trolls will always be fed. Always.

>>3409782
No, you're the Atheist. You believe in the non-existence of God. Show us the arguments for your belief, faggot.

>>3409797
No, it is not men dressed as women.

It is men going up to men and telling them they should fuck repeatedly. Ask anyone in the military who has served in Afghanistan recently.

>>3409823
No, im a Buddhist. And even if I wasnt, it wouldnt matter. You need to prove, or at the very least, define what you want me to disprove.

I mean think for a second. Youre asking me to grade a math test and show your mistakes, before you have even taken the test.

>>3409836
Prove scientifically that God doesn't exist.

>>3409836
All this does is push the question back a step. Who created the quantum mechanics that birthed the universe? Why is there something rather than nothing.

>>3409837
Fine. Disprove transcendence

This is an obvious troll thread, and I am disgusted in every single person who made a genuine effort to respond to OPs ludicrous trolling.

I'm ashamed of you, /lit/. I thought you were better than this.

>>3409848
Is there something?

>>3409848
>Who created the quantum mechanics that birthed the universe?

Quantum mechanics isn't some type of code that the universe runs on. It's a model that describes the universe.

>>3409695

But that quote is wrong. According to Nietszche, you are nothing BUT will to power. Every single drive in you individually wants to express itself thus manifisting its power. min mor er en luder

Disprove God, eh?

If this doesn't do it you're living in some extreme denial, my friend.

>>3409886
I ironically enjoy Jersey Shore and Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

>>3409886
Who, but God, could write such a perfectly divine joke? Admittedly at our expense.

This debate is much less important than people seem to think it is.

>>3409890
Like that black guy in the background ironically makes stern and disapproving eye-contact with the camera?

>>3409876
Is there really a significant difference in the two?

In that case, it becomes even less of a refutation of God's existence, since God would inherently be apart from the universe.

This is a bad thread and everyone who posts in it should feel bad.

I already feel bad so I feel comfortable posting in it without feeling worse.

>>3409899
do you feel worse now?

>>3409900
Nope. Why should I? I didn't say "if you already feel bad, you should add to the amount of bad." Just that if you post in it and don't feel bad you should feel at least somewhat bad.

If you go to your fridge and it's empty you should probably buy groceries. If you go to your fridge and already have enough groceries, you don't need to buy more.

Posting in this thread is like going to your fridge, and feeling bad is like having groceries.

Proving god by disproving atheism;
That's just like proving that, because there is an animal behind it must automatically be a sheep.

>>3409909
So if I posted in here and did not feel bad I should go to the store to buy more bad feelings?

>>3409913
Nah. Going to the store to get groceries is equal to starting to feel bad.

>>3409915
But going to the store is usually a conscious action that requires planning and navigating several other smaller actions along the way like driving and making a list or whatever of what you need. Feeling bad just happens like weather.

"While Aristotle wrote that a true definition gives the essence of the thing defined (in Greek to ti ên einai, literally "the what it was to be"), new-atheism denies the existence of such an 'essence'. In this, new-atheism purports to represent an evolution in human evaluative orientation. In new-atheism, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that--descriptions--which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe. According to my new-atheism, language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone. According to new-atheism, the content of all knowledge is structure, so that language (in general) and science and mathematics (in particular) can provide people with a structural 'map' of empirical facts, but there can be no 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language (map) and the empirical facts as lived through and observed by people as humans-in-environments (including doctrinal and linguistic environments).

Two important characteristics of linguistic maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. ... If we reflect upon our languages, we find at best they must be considered only as maps. If words are not things, or maps are not the actual territory, then, obviously, the only possible link between the objective world and the linguistic world is found in structure, and structure alone."

-Richard Dawkins

>>3409918
You can consciously make yourself feel bad by thinking about what you've done wrong. If you don't feel bad as a result of posting in this thread, consider associating this thread with a bad memory.

>>3409924
Well no I already felt bad, I am consciously associating this thread with a distracting memory instead. I still think groceries is a fundamentally more complex task than feeling bad.

>>3409931
I can see that. Every comparison reaches a point where it breaks down. I was just trying to communicate the idea that you don't have to add badness if you already feel bad.

>>3409947
Oh yeah, that makes sense, but I was asking if your post ending (and luckily mine as well) with doubly repeated digits made you feel worse.

>>3409951
Why would it? It happens one in ten times.

>>3409956
Pretend I am explaining in a verbose and dry manner, the cultural significance of "dubs" and that is the reply I would like to have typed for you.

>>3409969
Yeah, but I don't really care about them one way or the other. This thread was already terrible. Turning it into that kind of thread wouldn't make it any worse.

>>3409973
I think it might have made it a little better, personally. As long as it was ironically being that kind of thread.

>>3409975
One might argue that an "ironic" thread and an earnest thread are equally shitty, provided the content is the same.

>>3409999
One might even be right. But I feel better when it's sarcastic. Or at least I am not aware of feeling as bad.

>>3410004
I was laughing so hard at your quads that I forgot my sage.

These two faggots sucking each other's cocks is way worse than an Atheism thread.

>>3410009
They're more embarrassing than the atheists.

We don't have access to Reality because we are invariably subject to human perception. Science is an ideology and hence an interpretative framework for understanding our perception of "reality".
It's a pretty good one, but it doesn't really mean anything

>>3410018
They're more embarrassing than my parents when I was in highschool.

>>3410028
Let's not get carried away.

Prove, unequivocally, that the Great Omnscient Anteater Who Lives In A Teapot does not exist.

GOAWLIAT: 10000
nonbelievers: -0

>>3409633
Let's designate as A1. Let's define god as "the tennis ball that is in A1's house". Now I have looked for it and there is no tennis ball.

QED God does not exist.

>>3410444
Prove that he does

GOAWLIAT: 10000
nonbelievers: 8000064

>>3409638
>You're saying the God doesn't exist

Are you tying to trick me...

>>3409633

Is that also the definition of theism? OP

Theists think god exists for no reason other than being a solitary retard who floats in space.

>>3409633

>implying nothing existed before something.

>implying there wasn't always something even before the big bang.

>>3409633
Let God be defined as that being that has an infinite consciousness - consciousness of all objects in the universe simultaneously.

If we are to distribute God's consciousness equally amongst all of the objects in the universe, then the limit as God's consciousness approaches an infinite number of objects in the universe is 0; since God distributes 1/infinity of his consciousness to every constituent object, then he is not conscious of any object.

That which is conscious of everything is conscious of nothing; thus, God doesn't exist.

QED
/thread

>>3410444
Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
The anteater is omniscient, therefore does not doubt
Therefore does not think
Therefore does not exist or have any discernible talent.

QED no DFW

>>3411087

theism = A belief in a god whose existence makes no sense without human beings.

Without human beings, god's existence would be meaningless because he would just be a retarded recluse floating in space.

What was god doing before adam and eve and creation? He was just being a fucktarded reclusive piece of shit floating in space. If anything is meaningless, it's a fucking god who just floats in space doing nothing

>>3409633
The One-True-God is defined as the uncreated creator. That is, God is not a creation.
Existence is a creation, and existing things are created things.
Ergo, God does not exist.

>>3411110
>anthropocentrism

>>3411077
>>3411110
>has to samefag his grade school misunderstanding of Abrahamic theism

>>3411118


theism is based on anthropocentrism.

Gods tend to look like and act like the people who make them up.

>>3411121
So did you watch Zeitgeist RIGHT before you came to /lit/ tonight, or did you see it previously?

>burden of proof on those lacking a belief in an entity

But Atheism is the stance that there is insufficient evidence to have a belief in a God, not that such an entity is objectively nonexistent.

>>3409633
Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god. That's it. The other beliefs in the OP are what some atheists believe, maybe most, but those claims aren't a part of atheism.

>>3411110
>Without human beings, god's existence would be meaningless because he would just be a retarded recluse floating in space.
Yes, and that's precisely why God created human beings. Seems perfectly logical to me.

>>3411123


>implying I am a zeitgeist fag

I never used an argument from zeitgeist. Moron.

Fuck zeitgeist. It's a stupid 911 truther movie. The religion part of it is based on the 16 crucified saviors which is a book that has already been shown to be false.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wld's_Sixteen_Crucified_Saviors

>>3411127
Theism is simply a lack of belief that there is no god. That's it.

>thinking gnostic atheism exists

>>3411129

If you ask any christian they say that's no the reason why god created human beings. If god was lonely that would have made him an imperfect god

>>3411146


That's not the reason why god*

>>3411135
>>3411135

>Theism is simply a lack of belief that there is no god. That's it.

But that's not the proper definition. Theism is a belief in a God, usually out of faith and intuition. There are arguably logical deistic arguments, but that's a different discussion altogether.

Atheism is the stance that a burden of proof needs to be fulfilled for a belief in a divine power or deity to be justified.

Pure agnosticism, in its typical context, is more of an indecision. It can be boiled down to "I don't know if a burden of proof is necessary or not".

>>3411146
I didn't say anything about loneliness, you dweeb.

But yes, according to Christian thought, God created man so that man would aspire towards Godhood.

>>3411135
Not. It's actually the belief that a god does exist (there's a difference) and that he is present in the universe (as opposed to a deist).

>>3411157

What are you a fucking mormon!

>Man aspiring to godhood

that would be idolatry. faggot

look at first commandment

>>3411161
as opposed to deism, I should say

>>3409633
prove that he created the dinosaurs.

>not being a gnostic agnostic necro-pantheist

OP, the problem is that you can't prove or disprove an idea whose hypothesis is unfalsifiable. You just have to use your better judgment. In the case of a god, any smart person who takes the time to research both sides of the debate will conclude that there probably isn't a god and there certainly doesn't exist the god of any of our major religions.

Pascal's Wager.

>>3411152
>Theism is a belief in a God
Not polytheism.
>But that's not the proper definition.
Right back at ya for your atheist "definitions". Defining it in general in negative terms is a way to play word games and not commit to a position, Most new atheists are doing such things to try and justify statements like "Atheism is the stance that a burden of proof needs to be fulfilled for a belief in a divine power or deity to be justified.", because of course the natural position to take must be your own (the ol' "we're all born atheists" bs). It falls apart when you define theism in the same way, even though it makes the definition for theism slightly more straightforward. You end up being able to put many agnostics into both the theist and atheist camps, and the binary collapses, which fucks up the whole "militant religious crusade" vibe a lot of you guys have going on.

>>3411183
>>3411183

u wot m8?

You can't logically define theism in the "same way". Burden of proof is a logical axiom, it isn't subjective.

At least atheism is the same no where you go and no matter who you talk to.

When you talk to a theist, his theism is different from another theist's theism. One theist believes "dragon dick abraham joo penis" is god while another theist believes "pedo-allah camel fucker" is god.

Even two christians believe in two different theisms. Isn't this evidence that it's just all mythology interpreted differently depending on who you are talking to?


You might as well believe power rangers are real and shit if you are a theist because you are believing in shit that is not true.

>>3411161
>>3411165
Many Christians would count as deists. There's no point in getting too bogged down in lexis here, since Theism can be both an umbrella term that includes Deism, or a specific term with Theism which has specific differences. But this is theism in contrast to atheism.

>>3411200
>One theist believes "dragon dick abraham joo penis" is god while another theist believes "pedo-allah camel fucker" is god.


I am not aware of the names of these deities you speak of.

>>3411187
>Burden of proof is a logical axiom, it isn't subjective.
Please go ahead and describe that "logical axiom" in non-subjective terms. And I mean that both in a way as you seem to be implying, where we can all agree on where the burden lies without any subjective notion, and in the sense that it's a secret idea of burden of proof only you know about because you made it up.

>>3411181
>>3411181

> Pascal's Wager.

Not very rational, unless you assume the conflicting assertions have similar logical support.

The requirements to achieve a desirable afterlife ought to be considered an unjustified limitation.

I could claim that submitting to some bizarre ideology I made up on the spot would require mortally injuring oneself for literally infinite benefits in both potency and duration.

Would be it justified to kill yourself for my wacky pseudo-religion? Although I'm almost certainly lying to you, you are weighing mathematically infinite bliss with a negligible justification against strong justification and meager benefits.

Pascal's wager were logical, wouldn't the former decision be justified?

>>3411211
>>3411211

Are you arguing that humans lack the logical capacity to interpret a burden of proof?

Or that axioms don't exist?

>>3411213
I am asking you to elucidate what you think "burden of proof" is in a way that's coherent with your previous posts.

It's not possible to do this, because you don't have any idea of what you're talking about

>>3411231
>>3411231

>It's not possible to do this, because you don't have any idea of what you're talking about

I'm arguing that empiricism is the only way to grasp reality that has predictive validity. What more do you need?

The "burden" falls on whoever is asserting a claim to knowledge. The "proof" can be sensory experience and mathematical or verbal axioms. Someone may be logically incorrect, but rules of logic are not subjective themselves.

Are you arguing that a sufficient proof for or against theism (or any related ideologies) is impractical, therefore the "burden" is nonexistent?

"We can't grasp the big questions, so it is impossible to justify any related philosophical stances"

>>3411290
>The "burden" falls on whoever is asserting a claim to knowledge.
And unless you're claiming that there is some kind of natural state of "god does not exist", you should have no problem with the idea that theists simply disbelieve a lack of existence of a god. The rest of your post is verbal diarrhea.

>>3411319
>>3411319

There is a "natural state" being a "lack of sensory experience".

"I don't know" is the innate position unless a proof is supplied.

>>3409633
Most thinking theists don't really give much of a crap about that argument. What's that argument called again? I forget.

Anyway you won't really find any religious philosophers or theologians who give it too much thought. They have better arguments.

Proof or the lack thereof is irrelevant to matters of faith. The religious view their beliefs not as a fact without evidence, but as commitment.

>>3411328
If you are making the claim that "god does not exist" is the natural state, please, by your own framework, provide proof. "I don't know" is not the same as this, you are just saying there that one cannot make any claim in regards to the existence of a deity, whether it be belief in, lack of belief in, belief in a lack of, or lack of belief in a lack of.

>>3411338
>>3411338

>If you are making the claim that "god does not exist" is the natural state

Clarify what you mean by "God does not exist".

Why would a claim to knowledge be innate where there is a lack of sensory experience or an axiom to suggest such an existence?

Why does my framework require an innate claim to knowledge? My "framework" can be simplified into "why should I accept a claim to knowledge that has no foundation?".

A God may very well exist, Atheism is merely the stance that there is a lack of a strong proof to suggest it does, therefore an absence of belief is justified. You cannot sincerely believe things that have no logical support.

>>3411338
>>3411338

>, you are just saying there that one cannot make any claim in regards to the existence of a deity, whether it be belief in, lack of belief in, belief in a lack of, or lack of belief in a lack of.

Isn't it self evident that a "lack of belief in" would be the natural state? Assuming that knowledge is obtained through sensory experience?

>implying you can "prove" a "truth" or "untruth" in an existence where we ourselves have created all "truths" relative to human understanding and that there can be a "truth" or "fact" or "proof"

>>3411419
>>3411419

>implying you can "prove" a "truth" or "untruth" in an existence where we ourselves have created all "truths" relative to human understanding and that there can be a "truth" or "fact" or "proof"

If our truths seem to have a level of predictive validity in ways that are relevant to us, why not just "go with the flow"?

>>3411428
There's no purpose in having arguments about the "existence" of any sort of "god" when we ourselves created both of those concepts in our relative understanding was what I was getting at

>>3411379
>You cannot sincerely believe things that have no logical support.
Yes you can.
Logic is inherently self-contradictory. It's a useful tool in some very narrow circumstances, but certainly not a universal framework by which the world works.

(Look up Goedel's incompleteness theorem sometime.)

>>3411164
You're not supposed to reach it. You're supposed to try to be as virtuous as possible.

>>3411379
>Why would a claim to knowledge be innate where there is a lack of sensory experience or an axiom to suggest such an existence?
Let's sort this clusterfuck out first. Claims to knowledge would be in statements like "God does not exist", "God does exist", "I believe God exists", "I believe God does not exist" and variants thereof. The contention seems to be in the negative of the last two statements "I don't believe God does/does not exist", because people for some reason think no positive claim is being made. Insofar as you think the statement "I neither believe God does exist nor doesn't exist" is coherent, and that neither lack of belief is making a positive claim, you're right. If however, you want to privilege one over the other, you have assumed something in your argument that is a positive claim, that lacking in belief in one way is a positive claim and that lacking belief in another isn't, and that must be justified. If the best justification one can come up with is "lack of sensory experience", it's frankly weak. There's lack both ways because there's no objective idea or concept of what "sensory experience of god" or its reverse is. It boils down to subjective readings of experience "I stubbed my toe, there is no god" "I got three green lights, it is a miracle from on high" "there is no need for God in the model, there is no God" "the universe can be modelled so, only a creator could conceive such perfections".

>>3409633
That pic can't into big bang theory. The big bang is the beginning of time, so there wasn't "once" nothing, since once denotes time. And from the beginning of time there was never nothing. "Nothing" is in fact a pretty shitty and dated term as far as ontology goes.

>>3411379
>>3411659 cont
Now here is where you need to get your hand off your dick and hold onto your arse: even if such a concept existed as "sensory experience of god", it still wouldn't matter. My sensory experience of China is about the same as my sensory experience of Middle Earth: I've read about them, I've read stories that come from both places, I've seen people dress up in the traditional clothing of each place, heard languages from each place, seen both at the cinema and on the television. However, I have yet to see any radical groups challenge belief in China, or disbelief in Middle Earth which is rife in our society.

So, to recap:
Atheism and Theism can both characterised by lack of belief
This doesn't mean one, the other or both don't make positive claims
If you want to characterise them by what isn't believed and not make positive claims, you're both a theist and an atheist
Internet Atheist vs Theist arguments like this are dildos, just like China vs Middle Earth arguments are dildos.

>>3409638
Atheism is lack of belief
Theism = Belief
Do u even /lit/ ?

>>3411671
The more you repeat that mantra, the more true it becomes. It's like magic or something.

>>3411660
-->
>>3409675

that said, you must be new here; probably just graduated from high-school with your brainwashed 12th grade instrumentalist opinion that has been squeezed into your throat by the teachers and textbooks

>>3411671
Neoatheism IS belief

>>3409638
Oriental religion says that I am god, saying god doesn't exist is like sayin I don't exist. Saying atheists believe god doesn't exist implies they believe in the Christian god not existing

>>3411695
>new lack of belief
Isn't a belief, it contradicts the word much like how the bible contradicts itself

>>3411711
Amen. Keep spreading the good news of Dawkins, brother.

Atheism is most certainly the belief that God doesn't exist. Lack of belief, disbelief --semantics.

>>3411715
Implying Dawkins founded a religion and created a belief system and called it Atheism
It's like you're saying "your lack of my belief is a belief itself" when you don't even know what belief I'm lacking. I could be lacking the belief that Zeus existed or any other entity. Christianity placed the title of god on a dead guy, and while Jesus might have existed, he isn't the only god or son of god or whatever. He was just the first person to say he was god, and so there's this taboo of declaring that you're god. Because no one has the power to create miracles. But in the Far East if you declare to be god they'll say "how wonderful, we're glad you found that out"

>>3411730
>the belief that god doesn't exist
And what is god? Are you talking about Jesus Christ? He may have existed but the white bearded man in the sky doesn't exist

>>3411735
Who is the founder of Theism then? God? You some kind of Pantheist?
>It's like you're saying "your lack of my belief is a belief itself" when you don't even know what belief I'm lacking.
Speaking in tongues. The sign of a most devout Dawkinite.

>>3411740
Theism is a belief
Christianity is a belief system founded by guess who? Jesus Christ
A dead man

>actually having this discussion

>>3411746
>Theism is a belief
Debatable
>Christianity is a belief system founded by guess who? Jesus Christ
Only if you think he came back from the dead.
>A dead man
Also debatable.

>>3411746
Also implies lack of your belief system which I would guess is Christianity
When there are all sorts of beliefs out there
What is god? Because god to you may mean something different than the god or gods of different cultures
How shallow are you to think your god or your belief is what atheism lacks

>>3411751
When I say I'm atheist, I'm saying I lack a belief. I haven't even begun to explain what it is I believe and you say I believe in the nonexistence of your own god

Ha ha holy fuck are we children?

Reading this thread, I am convinced this board is mostly children.

>>3411183
>You end up being able to put many agnostics into both the theist and atheist camps, and the binary collapses, which fucks up the whole "militant religious crusade" vibe a lot of you guys have going on.

Y'see, this is where people get all confused about atheism and start treating it like it's a religion of its own and go around asking atheists to prove their belief in the non-existence of God and all that.

You approach it like atheists are really Atheists with a capital A, with a Church and a Bible and Sunday Congregations and an Agenda and all that. When in reality, an atheist is merely someone who doesn't think any more of your particular God than anyone else's particular God.

I'm not part of some "militant religious crusade", I don't even have a problem with Christianity. Hell, once people start going on about how atheists can't possibly be moral because who would be moral without the threat of Hell or promise of Heaven all I can think is "Wow, you're a closet sociopath... sure glad you found Jesus".

>>3411761
Nope. I'm saying you're a devout follower of new atheism, it's you that is assuming what I believe with no knowledge.

I don't believe in new atheism if you haven't guessed, so leave of your religious dogma like "Atheism is a lack of belief" and other moving the goalposts rubbish.

>>3411771
>devout follower of new atheism
U better be trolling nigger
Who do I follow? What is it I believe? And don't contradict yourself by saying "you believe in not believing"
Otherwise I'm done with this thread

>>3411769
You'll note that that post refers to "new atheists". You know, the ones that have things with titles like "an atheist's call to arms"? There's a very clear ideological, dogmatic and somewhat militant about their whole thing.

>>3411711
The neoatheistic movement, if you haven't noticed, has taken extreme measures; turned itself into the opposite extreme of fundamentalist thought and belief, and have successfully brainwashed a shit ton of people. Prime example of said propaganda - a bunch of videos on Youtube under the names "Dawkins thrashes X"; "Dawkins demolishes Y"; "Dawkins supreme intelligence is unbearable for Z". Naive kids, lacking skepticism and the inability to comprehend the discussion itself, especially the opposite party, which requires /some/ knowledge of the history of philosophy, taking a glance at the gazillion comments with the seemingly consequent correlation of the video's description, the poor kid comes to a revelation

>OMFG IT MUST BE TRUE, TSO EDGY I MUST HOP ON THE BANDWAGON, OMG ILL BE SO SMART.

Typical teen these days, spouting nonsensical shit as of his freshly obtained belief

>BRO U STUPID OR SMTHNG, LOL U BELIEF IN IMAGINARY GOD SITTING ON A CLOUD?lol SO PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL, EVER HEARD OF BIG BANG/// BRO QUANTUM FLUNCTUATIONS... CMON... THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS LOL U MAD

Good job, Dawkins.

Atheism does not mean antitheism
Your beliefs aren't being attacked so quit bitching about your god and what not.

>175 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

/lit/ what is wrong with you

>>3411776
>Atheism is lack of belief
>Theism = Belief
>Atheism isn't belief
>The Bible contradicts itself
>Dawkins didn't found a religion
>Dawkins didn't create a belief system
>No one knowing what your specific beliefs are makes them not beliefs
That's the weirdest one. Oh wait there's these three:
>Jesus might have existed
>But he invented Christianity
>But he also died before Christianity existed
Then it's more Atheism is... Theism is... mantras, and telling me what I believe when I have said nothing on the topic, beyond some snarky remarks about Dawkins and new atheism.

>>3411776
surely you have some sense that there is a given set of behaviors/perceived beliefs that place you in a category with other people who share the same tenets of life?

Not talking about an organized thing so much as a generalized system of beliefs about 'reason' and science and the way they should shape a person's life/decisions.

Holding said views places you in the community whether it means the same thing as being a follower of a religion or not

>>3411780
>Good job, Dawkins
>Pretentious teens being pretentious
>Blaming Dawkins

>>3411790
>can't into cause and effect

>>3411790
nah, dawkins is pretty awful too

>>3411777
Actually, he refers to "new atheists" as being the ones who are not being ideological and dogmatic about it.

>Defining it in general in negative terms is a way to play word games and not commit to a position, Most new atheists are doing such things to try and justify statements like "Atheism is the stance that a burden of proof needs to be fulfilled for a belief in a divine power or deity to be justified.", because of course the natural position to take must be your own (the ol' "we're all born atheists" bs).

Which is super hilarious, because that's not really a new stance. And the presumably "old stance" of trying to slay the gods and all their believers or some such, is more often just a straw man tossed about or some extra edgy teenager.

>>3411801
Are you a new atheist? Because that's clearly stating new atheists are dogmatic and ideological. Maybe you just don't want to/can't see it because it's your own ideology and/or dogma?

And yeah, that's a new stance.

>>3411795
That's just a matter of opinion

>>3411801
new atheism is often but not always associated with XKCD, a dogmatic devotion to fedoras, ill-fitted coats, and men's rights advocacy

>>3411806
In my opinion it's objective fact. And it's objective fact that that's my opinion.
So that's a ratio of two objective facts to each my opinion, which means it's 67% (rounding off) objective fact.

>>3411794
>Dawkins causes teens to be pretentious
Teens acting pretentious is inevitable

>>3411816
how about
>dawkins is an ill-read ahistorical shitbag and his writings do not reflect anything that even approaches useful, philosophically speaking

There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:

1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused

The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.

Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.

It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.

Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.

I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who agues for the eternal existence of God?

>>3411818
Well philosophically speaking neither do you

>>3411818
Dub dubs confirms it.

>>3411816
Some adults fall for his shit too, you know. I know plenty.

>>3411820
I... I uh..

oh no.

>>3411822
YouTube Alan Watts - This is IT become what you are

>>3411822
please don't even try to justify the existence of a being that can transcend logic more or less instantaneously and effortlessly on a logical basis.

>>3411810
I'm indifferent to the God(s), so I am whatever label that makes me.

It's just easier to say atheist, because the whole "well justify your non-belief!" argument is less tedious than being proselytized to.

Pretty sure the stance of "I'd like some empirical basis before leaping into a silly belief" is as old as the Greeks themselves though.

At the very least it was Socrates' favorite troll.

>>3409633
How does anyone prove anything to not exist?

>>3411822
Confirmed for not understanding deep physics.
There are hypotheses for how the universe could have been created without "outside" help, such as through a flux of virtual particles.

This is the problem with the universe we live in. Our understanding of it isn't complete by any means, but we have gotten so far that the normal person has no chance of understanding.

Bad things happen to good people.

>>3411863
>How does anyone prove anything to not exist?
You can't, you can only speak of probabilities of something existing.

>>3411906
>understanding deep physics.
>such as through a flux of virtual particles.

the instrumentalist dogma and the impotence of metaphysics is strong in this one

>>3411822
/thread
The atheists have nothing for you.

>>3411822
>The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

That's a nice dogma you have there. Would be a shame if someone were to not accept it.

>>3411972
But how can something exist without having been caused?

>>3411972
>That's a nice dogma you have there

w-what the f-fuck?

how is it a dogma if causation and effectuation is empirical, a sound conception, thus perfectly applicable for this universe?

>>3411978
Why should it need a cause?
There doesn't need to be a consciousness behind the cause of something even if there was a cause.

>>3411996
>There doesn't need to be a consciousness behind the cause of something

Yet we are conscious, therefore we must share the same quality with the causation

>>3411978
Things just happen, dude.

>>3412007
>we are conscious, therefore we must share the same quality with the causation
Why must we? I cause poop but it doesn't share the quality of consciousness.

>>3412013
Why is there something rather than nothing?

>>3412013

>>3411978

>he never read The BFG

'Giants isn't born,' the BFG answered. 'Giants appears and that's all there is to it.

>>3412013
>WHEN THE TRUTH IS FOUND
>TO BE LIEEEES
>AND ALL THE JOYYYY
>WITHIN YOU
>DIES
>DON'T YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO LOVE
>DON'T YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO LOVE
>WOULDN'T YOU LOVE SOMEBODY TO LOVE
>YOU BETTER FIND SOMEBODY TO LOVE

Fuck the crystal palace.

>>3411691
I referred to the picture, which can't into big bang theory, whether it is dated or not is of no relevance.

But I'm not that well versed on the subject. Which theory is currently in vogue?

>>3412034
Why not?

>>3411988
>how is it a dogma if causation and effectuation is empirical, a sound conception, thus perfectly applicable for this universe?

a) correlation does not necessitate causation. Correlation can be empirically established, causation is a part of a model, not of a set of data.

b) If you establish a principle based on apples, cars, behavior of animals and other things, that does not mean it necessarily applies to the origin of the universe... This hypothetical 'event' is so far removed in terms of scale that it might very well not follow the same laws. This is how Newtonian physics are fine at the speed of a car, or human, or a falling apple, but not if you get near the speed of light.

>>3411906
>Our understanding of it isn't complete by any means, but we have gotten so far that the normal person has no chance of understanding.

While this may be true, the question was about the logical fallacy. It seems to me that the logical position of 'God works in mysterious ways' and 'Our understanding of the universe is incomplete' are both ways to brush off inconvenient queries. Declaring that regular people would not be able to understand (and therefore no clarification is needed) seems an awful lot like mysticism to me.

>>3412078
>If you establish a principle based on apples, cars, behavior of animals and other things, that does not mean it necessarily applies to the origin of the universe...

no, not necessarily, but it IS a sound conception, as our universe is material, such as our apples, cars and behavior of animals (if thought (origin of any particular behavior) = matter)

inb4 200+ replies, oh wait.

>>3412106

I am going to ignore
>>(if thought (origin of any particular behavior) = matter)
for a second and just point out that 'the universe' seems to contain the entirety of space and time. In this way, it would be completely different from apples, cars and animals, which do not consists each of their own temporal and spatial dimensions and their contents, but actually inhabit the temporal and spatial dimensions of our universe. Actually, our conception of causation is based on our understanding of time and space (barring perhaps some really jazzy theoretical physics shit, but that is not what the other anon meant by 'causation', as he is clearly appealing to common sense), so there is really some sort of a category mistake here: Causation is a relation between different phenomena WITHIN time and space, and not time and space in some abstract sense but time and space as present WITHIN our universe. A relation between our universe and 'something else' would be an entirely different matter, it is unclear whether such a thing can be meaningfully said to exist, what it would 'look like', whether we should still call it 'causation', but most of all it is completely useless to try and argue for the existence of such a relation by means of a common-sense conception of causation.

>>3412028
So you're basically saying that something unconscious, like Poop, created the universe?

Though poop _is_ conscious, albeit, not in the quantity of our brain, as in comparison to poop, rock or a banana the capacity of our brain has the ability to self-reflect to Consciousness; Self-reflection in poop is inane and "sleeps", at best.

>>3412147
>I am going to ignore

2deep4u anyways, champ!

>>3412155
>So you're basically saying
No, not saying, asking. Asking why you think consciousness is necessary to create the universe.
>poop _is_ conscious
Proof, please.

>>3412174
->
>>3411087

Nevertheless, "poop is conscious" is a hilarious concept

I need feminism because when fat ugly bitches grope me it's not socially accepted to kick their assses.

>>3412172

It's not too deep, it's just a whole different can of worms.

>>3412202

feminism still wouldn't let you kick an aggressive female's ass unless you were sufficiently handicapped.

>>3412251
True, but I think he's just proposing it as a trolling method.

Does gods god exist? does gods gods god exist? does...

>>3412338
wut

>>3412034
Is there even something?

H-hi guys. umm, Y-yes I do exist, I'm just shy and socially awkward so come out much. K-keep praying to me though, your desperation is all I live for now.

>>3412346
if there is a god there is a god of that god and so on

>>3412351
Well, no. The point of "God" is that it's a self-creating, non-contingent being, whose very purpose is to exist.

We will soon realise that a God is necessary for the creation of the universe. In 200 years, Google will manufacture a God (Google's Objective Designer) and send him back to before the singularity using quantum tunnelling. God then creates the universe in 7 days and we can exist to create a God.

>>3412367
So the point of God is to be something that is pure nonsense?

Everityme you post on a "Christians vs Atheists" thread, a baby gets raped.

>>3412429
word

>>3409633
Prove that he does, dumbass.

wrong, atheism has no burden of proof, don't try to make it seem like it does

>>3412509
That's... a really stupid picture. If you made that I hope you feel REALLY bad about yourself.

>244 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click here to view.
Why, /lit/.

the long line of sage posts were kinda funny but all in all this thread is pathetic. i mean, if you were ironically debating this shit then sure, but you people are totally fucking sincere! do you enjoy debating this over and over and saying the same things, most likely to the same people? don't you ever get bored of replying to thoughtless troll posts?

>>3412612

Because it is as accurate as the original picture regarding the respective belief?

If you ask me, it demonstrates very well, how this is all based on ridiculous straw men, anyways.
Whoever created this "Atheism" picture in the first place apparently needed to resort on strawmen due to an utter lack of knowledge, to an extend even, that he disregarded it was not atheism he misrepresented, but rather the established results of modern science.

So you might be better of feeling bad about yourself for some moments.

>>3412666
>rather the established results of modern science.

Wow, so magical! What are the results that you speak of? Are you one of those kids that daydreams about the vastness of observable space all day long?

>Guise did u know that there is a star 100000x times bigger than our sun??? OMg so progressive right ?? radical man,, its Hardcore. Science is so Kewl. amayzing :O

>>3412686

Ah, if there is no way to argue against it with one's obviously inferior mind, how about some ad hominems, because in a troll-infested atheism vs. religion thread, you can never be wrong this way, right?
Pathetic, quite frankly.

I am religious myself, and science is in no way contradicting it.

Anyways, it is blatantly obvious that the original image is misrepresenting things like the big bang, evolution and abiogenesis. And these can only contradict with your belief if you read whatever tome is the constitution of your religion word for word, neglecting that it is a multiple millenia old piece full of ancient allegories and metaphors.
Science is the result of the scientific method, a systematic approach to gather knowledge that arose from the philosophical thought school of epistemology. What the people creating religions did was no different, they tried to explain the world, just with more inefficient methods, whose results they then declared the unequivocal truth.

If you want to follow god's tracks in this magnificent masterpiece on a universe, do not stick to a book claiming to be the truth because it says so in the book, because that was as far as your predecessors got, while you can get farther, standing on the shoulders of their knowledge.

>>3409633
> am troll
> prove me wrong

>>3412735
>obviously inferior mind
stopped reading here. you are so superior than me that it is brutally shocking, man.

>>3412735
>big bang, evolution and abiogenesis.

Got some empirical evidence on these 3 fairy tales? Or are you just engaging in wishful and imaginary thinking?

>because that was as far as your predecessors got, while you can get farther, standing on the shoulders of their knowledge.

Probably the most stupidest idea I've heard this week. You are severely delusional.

>>3412744

Aww, do not fret, the definition only applies to you, if you act inferior, which is coincidentally exactly what you are doing.
But hey, there is nothing more refreshing than some ignorance in the evening.

>>3412764
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunng%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
i think this is you, buddy. keep accumulating useless knowledge and calling everybody inferior and ignorant. stay cute!

>>3412762
Implying we haven't observed microbial evolution in labs.

>>3409633

Christianity

The belief that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more.

And they mock proven science.

>>3409638
Assuming that a thing which there is no evidence of doesn't exist, isn't believing. However assuming that something exists when there's no evidence of it is a belief and it's you who has something to prove for claiming such a thing, not us.

>>3412762
>big bang

stfu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CosmiMicrowave_Background_Radiation

>>3412762
>implying there's no evidence for evolution
Go back to elementary school, you shouldn't be on 4chan.

Haha, the /sci/ babies are finally emerging.

>>3412798
Lol.
>>3412998
>Some unknown thermal shit observed by telescope, therefore Big Bang!!!1
>>3413002
>Regurgitating brainwash accumulated in institutions of brainwash; Bawwwwwww I can't think on my own!!!111 bawwwww i'm determined for inescapable retardation, without my own realization

>>3413238
>DURR I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT THEREFORE IT'S UNKNOWN!!

you're a fucking idiot, go back to /x/

Is there actually any proof that man evolved from apes?

Isn't there still a 'missing link' and nothing but speculation?

/lit/ is officially /b/-tier

>>3413273
Understand what exactly? There is nothing to understand you brainwashed teenage faggot.

>>3413312
>what is physics?

>>3413286
>Proof
Not yet, perhaps only when we'll be able to simulate the whole thing it will become clear. Now? Just a shitty theory, some fossils (the transformation of skull A to skull B is too far to distinguish any affinity) and caricatures by artists.

>>3413286
>Isn't there still a 'missing link' and nothing but speculation?

No. The problem is in anthropology. Every time we find a 'human like' skeleton we have to categorize; Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo erectus, Homo habilis..., We can lay what he have in a row and see a clear progression from ape to man, but some people (usually extreme fundamentalists) reject it on the classification.

So we can take the Homo heidelbergensis remains that we have found and line them up in progression with early Homo sapiens, but because they have to be regarded as one or the other, some fucker will always cry missing link.

Pic related is a Homo heidelbergensis skull, with perfect muscle structure and a layer of fat modelled onto the face to show what it would have looked like.

crawl back into your holes, the sun has risen.

>>3413353
OK, I'll rephrase it:
I'm not debating the biological similarities. They are evident.
What's not so evident is the explanation for the huge gap between the ape mind and the human mind.

>>3413353
>We can lay what he have in a row and see a clear progression from ape to man, but some people (usually extreme fundamentalists) reject it on the classification.

Hahahaha. Calling others fundamentalists while being one yourself. Dogma after dogma.

@ op's img dump

nothing could not exist, we living here is the proof of that.
but that doesnt mean nothing never existed, its fairly likely that there was nothing (note: nothing i nothing, it has no color is not black or white and no matter).
however if it ever existed it should implode within 10 billionth of a second. creating some kind of big bang. you probarly all know the rest of the story.

another posibility would be other universes, wich created our own.

far less likely would be that there is some kind of lame god (who was scratching his balls for an infinity of time before he decided to create our planet.

Humbled by God's grace doesn't even cut it...but flat on my face grace... that's more like it. It's so amazing to be amazed sometimes :)

>>3413370
>What's not so evident is the explanation for the huge gap between the ape mind and the human mind.
It's not that hard to comprehend. That heidelbergensis in the pic is about 700,000 old, and was virtually a human. He was suing tools, had 25k genes the same as us, 99% DNA match. Taking seven hundred thousand years to get from a creature that can hunt with spears to one that can debate philosophy isn't really a great leap. I think you are overestimating human intelligence.

>>3413371
What?

>>3413429
>however if it ever existed it should implode within 10 billionth of a second. creating some kind of big bang. you probarly all know the rest of the story.
>another posibility would be other universes, wich created our own.

Yeah, the pop-scientific theories are always the most solid ones, GUISE!

>>3413429
>far less likely would be that there is some kind of lame god (who was scratching his balls for an infinity of time before he decided to create our planet.

I think our universe is a particle in Gods celestial fart. He doesn't even know he created us.

>>3413440
>a creature that can hunt with spears
Do you have any proof that all this creature could do is hunt with spears?
And did apes go from being regular apes to hunting with spears and being much smarter?

God:= an all powerful, all seeing, benevolent entity.

Let us assume for contradiction that God exists.
However evil also exists, which is incompatible with God. Hence we have a contradiction.

Q.E.D.
God does not exist.

>>3413440
>What?

You're realizing that you're prepetuating the same theory over and over again thus making it as dogmatic as possible? It's just a theory you fucking moron. Sheer abstractness.

God exists therefore God does not
/Thread

>>3413463
Humans have free will. There is no love is slavery. Evil is man's choice, and the price you pay to be truly loved by God, which is to be granted freedom.

>>3413502
False, free will is an illusion.

>>3413505
Just as the theory of evolution is an illusion ;)

>>3413482
>You're realizing that you're prepetuating the same theory over and over again thus making it as dogmatic as possible?
>HOW DOES FALSIFIABILITY WORK

confirmed for 10 years old

>>3413505
Prove it.

>>3413505
I wouldn't say it's an illusion.
It's just difficult to acquire a perspective from which you could debate "free will" in a meaningful way.

>>3413508
What? What does this has to do with falsiability you fag? Repeating the same mantra over and over again is dogma and a belief.

>>3413459
>Do you have any proof that all this creature could do is hunt with spears?
I guess they could have done more. But so far no crossbows or anything more sophisticated has been uncovered and dated.(Radiocarbon dating is accurate to 5000-8000 years)

>And did apes go from being regular apes to hunting with spears and being much smarter?
It's not so much smarter. Mitochondrial Eve is traced back to about 150,000 years, that's as far back as we go until all of humanity stems from the same female. And she wasn't an intelligent girl, but it's thought that she could have learned to speak and function as a human if she were in modern society. Her brain is the same as ours. Also the reverse; if you took a modern baby and let it be raised by Mitochondrial Eve it wouldn't really be any different from them. Our knowledge gets passed down and built upon, we get socially conditioned and educated because of the past, but feral children have a mentality just above an ape. They don't ponder metaphysics, they resort to primitive survival imprints. We aren't different from 'cave men', we have just spent thousands of years collecting information, passing it down and building upon it.

>>3413463
You know, the problem of evil has been addressed by theologians like a million times.

Evil is not incompatible with God because God wants us to have free will.

Religion is about answering existential crises, like

is there life after death?

do our sufferings have meaning?

and,

is there final justice?

Now, lots of people don't like the answers "no, no, and no" so they turn to spirituality. Which makes some people very butthurt, for some reason.

Why can't more atheists be like Zizek?

>>3413534
I think you're just mad this guy shit on thousands of years of religious and theological discussion by solving the fundamental problem of life in less time than it takes me to piss Shame we'll never know the name of the man whose bold adventuring thought has carried mankind to a new age of godless rationality.

>>3413584
Not the guy you're replying to, but the question of evil is ludicrously easy to solve if one accepts life after death, which is pretty simple if you already believe in an omnipotent deity.

Today a few Christians set up a table in the student center of my community college and they were giving away bibles. One of them said to me "Would you li....", and I abruptly cut him off and said "No thank you".

That's all the input I got. I'm so edgy.

>Prove, unequivocally, that God does not exist.
why?

>>3413660
see
>>3411329

That's "strawman religious logic."

>>3413655
>saying "thank you" to a brainwashed religious moron
I'd have punched him in his retarded indoctrinated face. All religious people deserve to be crucified like their dead, non-god Jew lord. They're all slaves who deserve to be treated like slaves. And you said "thank you" to them?! You fucking disgust me.

Number one, let's just examine this logically for the moment. And really, let's not even bother with advanced science, because the religious side of the argument rarely does. Does it really make sense that in all the universe, an entity that is so large that is literally impossible to mathematically comprehend, of all the planets out there and all the species that could exist, does it really make sense that we are right? And let's assume that yes, humans are privy to some secret knowledge that no other planet in the entire universe has. Well, then which group is right? There are thousands of former and currently worshipped Gods on Earth. Any believer has decided, often for arbitrary reasons, to follow just a tiny handful and in most cases only ONE GOD. Of thousands upon thousands of different Gods, they believe in a particular one. And Atheism, well, we don't even necesarily say that yes, God cannot exist. Most of us do, but for those of us who are agnostic atheists, we leave the possibility open. Maybe, out of the uncountable planets in the universe, we are right. Maybe of all the religions, Christianity is right. But they are but a billion or so people on a planet of billions. This planet is one of trillions in our galaxy. And our galaxy is one of trillions if not quadrillions or more in the entire universe. And yet they still bet on those odds. And then have the audacity to call Atheists equally close-minded. No, we're not. We simply bet with the odds that are the most likely and seem to be backed up by historic performance, like anyone who examines the odds. Historically, every God up to the present day has been abandoned. Why not give up just one more?

>>3413673
Your trolling is shallow and pedantic. 4/10.

>>3413858
Or it could just be that he wasn't serious? Did you consider that? Probably not. I imagine you're one of those anons who assumes that any joke made in a thread is a serious trolling attempt.
I laugh at you, sir.

>>3413845

>>3414123
>I laugh at you, sir.

Fucking cringe.