/lit/ - Literature

Show me proof of god and I'll at least be agnostic. In my life I've never seen anything that would suggest any kind of higher power.

>>4420883
this.

>>4420883
>>4420891
have you tried opening your eyes?

>atheists
>reason for belief
>movement in ancient times
>relevance in today's society

Nigga, you trolling?

If not, I used to be Catholic, and it was pretty much a combination of reading basic philosophical arguments against existence of God, plus never having really gotten any satisfaction from prayer or any other religious interaction in general other than wisdom from cool priests.

Captcha: Parish exumer

>>4420883
But if you demand proof for god you are no longer an atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

Atheist: the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Because I want to have faith in humanity instead

I want to believe that we have the courage the face anything without the need for an imaginary friend

I want to be able to do as I preach so I deny the possibility of the existence of god

>>4420909
Well yeah, unlike you atheists i actually do my history on whatever movement im part of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

>In western Classical Antiquity, theism was the fundamental belief that supported the divine right of the state (Polis, later the Roman Empire). Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime

It was founded by the rebellious against the establishment, and it continued to be so

Thus, i see no reason why you should be against the establishment unless you're either a teenager in your rebellious phase, or really stupid

>>4420905
Have you tried opening your mouth, so I can insert my huge throbbing atheistic phallus into your moist soft theistic orifice?

>>4420926
totally epic bro :^)

>>4420883
>Show me proof of god
But that would invalidate the whole faith test thing.

I don't believe in any gods but at the same time I don't have any proof that some kind of god doesn't exist, so it would be disingenuous to be totally atheist

>>4420922
So you're admiting that atheism is just a new religion?

>I want to have faith

>I want to believe

>>4420940
It's a better religion. It has no dogma.

>>4420939
>so it would be disingenuous to be totally atheist

Your stance is totally Atheistic [literal Atheism; not extreme/irrationa Atheism where one states, "There is no God.].

Well, it's more Agnostic Atheist, if we're to be exact. Eitherway: it's Atheistic, TOTALLY.

>this thread

>>4420949
>is now a dubs thread
check em

>>4420940

Religion and faith are not non-exclusives

Atheists are just autists. They get in a frothing rage about religion because it's unmeasurable and too broad in interpretation and application for them to handle. The term should just be used interchangeably with Aspergers. If they actually really valued science as much as they claim everybody else should, then they shouldn't have a problem running such a study.

>>4420916

I don't demand anything. The only place I ever even think about god is on 4chan because of threads like this.

>>4420943
Yeah. All the bile produced by the likes of Harris and Dawkins and repeated au nauseum by their little panty-creaming acolytes sure isn't dogma.

>>4420953

who /swifty/ here?

>>4420955
But isnt that a bit hypocritical?

Being against what you advocate for?

>>4420964

Then it is not necessarily dogmatic

Atheism is just the rejection in a belief

>>4420875
agnostic here.

>>4420961
Well ok, i though you were an atheist since you posted in a discussion regarding atheism

That being said, god is subjective

You wont find him until you feel him

Try astral projecting, you'll know what im talking about

>>4420964
I think his point is that atheism on its own has no dogma

I suppose you could also believe in the existence of a god and also attach no dogma to it

>>4420960

Troll

>>4420875

I assumed there was a god during my childhood because that's what was taught to me. It wasn't until my confirmation (protestant ritual where you confirm your faith in front of a congregation at age 14-15) that I started to wonder if I really believed in religion and god. Took me about a year until I decided that I didn't really believe it as I didn't see the hand of god in anything around me. Nothing in life compels me to believe that there is any supernatural agency behind our existence.

Also, I don't have any positive "belief" with respect to the question of deities. I just don't believe that there is any reason to believe that they exist.

>>4420976
To have faith does not necessarily mean to be religions and vice versa

Religion is systematic

Faith is personal

To have faith and atheistic is not a paradox

>>4420978
Typical atheist attempt at subversion. Aren't you people supposed to be the very definition of logic, reason, and correct analysis?

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
...
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

>>4420988

>>4420875
I have never been taught to be a theist. you're assuming one would start from that point or something?

>>4420992

The authoritativeness goes out the window when you don't seek to effect over others

For me atheism is not proselytistic, absolutely

>>4420987
> Someone said something I don't like Imma call trollll!!!

Grow up, you little autist.

>>4421000
checked your trips

>>4421000
Been at the gin again, dear?

>>4421009
huh

I don't know if I am an atheist but I was raised no religion and never converted to any. What does that make me?

>>4420905
*tips menorah*

I see the multitude of religions, the scientific evidence of humanity's origins, and the psychology of humans and religion, and I've come to believe that religion is a convenient social construct that is not actually couched in reality.

Humanists try to take the good parts of the moral and ethical frameworks that have been proposed through religion, and remove the downsides inherent in them, to create a "religion" with no god, only man. As it is a best-fit theory of human relationships forged through evidence and collected wisdom, while ignoring "easy answers" through the intervention of unknowable factors like God, it's not a religion like the ones that existed before. It is one that can be viewed in a scientific manner, judged by efficacy rather than "truthfulness" to an ancient and purportedly-inspired myth or prophesy.

>>4420875
I don't find it necessary to believe in any sort of supernatural power

>>4420905
I was a practicing catholic for 25 years. I have tried extremely hard to let faith and god into me, like born agains. I basically pleaded with the divine for it. Nothing ever came.

At this point im convinced that the nature of the divine is the natural world, and its language is that of science and reason. Maybe physicists who study string theory are closer to grasping the nature of god than any priest. I look to Jesus and the Stoics, perhaps divinely inspired, as my guide to moral law. Maybe I'm a doubting Thomas, but I cannot accept something whole-heartedly for which I have never seen proof, while on the other hand, I see the corruption and evil that occurs within organized faith all the time.

>inb4 fedora, thats not who I am at all.

I wish I had my road to Damascus moment. Paul was a non-believer until he basically got blasted with jesus beams. If I got blasted with jesus beams I would go with it, no questions asked.

>>4421024
sorry bud thats not atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

>>4421025
This is atheism

>mfw atheists don't understand religion

>>4420960
>le angry old man face

>>4421038

What's there to understand?

>muh space fairy
>muh morals
>muh word of space fairy

>>4421030
In the first, you're being an obnoxious pedant to make a distinction between something which differs on such subtle nuance.

In the second, I never identified myself as being "anti-religion", I've considered humanism an alternative to religion. I do not proselytize.

In the third, I'll point out this from the articl you linked to:

> Antireligion is distinct from atheism (the absence of a belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists.

So saying that I am an "anti-religionist" would not imply that I'm not also an atheist.

>>4420964
That actually rarely happens though try using your actual memory instead of just repeating shit.

>>4421038
>mfw theists don't understand religion

>>4420875
It's the default position for me, I was raised by irreligious people. So it's converting that would have to come with reasons and so far I haven't found any proper ones.

>>4421024
This just sounds like a nightmare. Granted religions come with a lot of problems and they do because, not in spite of the fact, they're put together and compiled by human beings. But their one, ironically, piece of genius is they do involve some mythical, distant, abstract whatever God or gods that you can pretty easily just laugh at or ignore. The worst thing I could imagine being conceived of is a religion where some man or men are the ultimate arbiters of morality based on a 'religion' of science. You have to be fucking joking.

>>4421052
He's right. Atheism is a personal position. Everything else you're saying as an anti-theist (or bigot if you prefer).

You can indeed be both simultaneously.

>>4421052
>subtle nuance.

But its a big fucking deal

Its because you cant distinguish among yourselves that people lump you all together, making such topics very sensible, charged with assumptions and experiences, hard to discuss, even from a philosophical point of view

So getting back to your original statement:

Did you know that it was religion persons who were the pillars of science and the scientific method?

At this point in time the scientific community resembles more of a 15yo child who's against his parents (religion)

Stating that religion is no longer in touch with reality is like denying all of the scientific achievements we have today

And also, the laws of thermodinamics state clearly that you cant produce something out of nothing. So in case you want to justify how the unvierse began its existence, you need to include god wheather you want it or not

>>4420875
Because I hate god! I hate Christmas and children and small furry animals.

>>4421053
It happens all the time. Quit being a dumbfuck little Dawkinite defending your precious leader at every turn. It's pathetic.

>>4421069
Whose the actual angry one here?

>tfw when you're around modern western well adjusted people in the year 2013, everything is nice and just before dinner they lock hands and start talking to deities

Freaks me the fuck out.

>>4421072
What's the matter? Did the professor not retweet one of your little islamophobic jibes today?

>>4421074
>Well adjusted

It was because of the rise of atheism in western societies that it degenerated in what it is today

>>4421082

Why are you so bitter?

>>4421083
Are you saying prayer is degenerate? Of course it is it's insane

Just because I'm an atheist, that doesn't mean I dislike religion or like Dawkins. I don't see myself as part of any "movement"

>>4421082
>Accuses me of being a proper academic like that was an insult

You're actually this dumb

>inb4 anti-intellectualist remarks how clever people should burn in hell for their superior cognitive capabilities.

>>4421090
You should, the gay movement

>>4421083
You aren't responding in a sensible fashion. I called those shamans well adjusted, and you said atheists are degenerate.

>>4421090
ever see yourself changing this mindset in the future?

what will make you change it?

>>4421095
That's only an insult if you generally dislike gays.

>>4421074
Yeah. It's terrible that people have a little ritual whereby they indicate their gratitude for being able to eat in a world that is often dangerous, unfair, and loaded with all sorts of compromises and sadnesses.

What a bunch of laughable idiots. You should sit there in future and sneer at them instead with all your lofty intelligence and insights.

>>4421088
Well no, i was saying that lack of faith is what made the west degenerate

>>4420875
Religious people believe that if they obey now, they get rewarded by God with superpleasure later. I don't believe that, so I try to get my pleasure now. Just hedonists with different tactics.

>being a positivist
>the eve of 2014
>not reading William James, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, joining the Pyrrhonian mystic master race

>>4421103
You should, since gays are an inherently inferior version to straights as straights can do everything gays can plus reproduce and raise (healthy) kids.

>>4420922
>thinking god is just an imaginary friend
I don't know why, but this level of ignoramus makes me really mad.

>>4420916
>Atheist: the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
Belief is not something you choose. You can only choose to practice religion or not.

"An argument for the utility of religion is an appeal to unbelievers, to induce them to practise a well meant hypocrisy, or to semi-believers to make them avert their eyes from what might possibly shake their unstable belief, or finally to persons in general to abstain from expressing any doubts they may feel, since a fabric of immense importance to mankind is so insecure at its foundations, that men must hold their breath in its neighbourhood for fear of blowing it down. "

>>4421094
Where did anyone 'accuse' you of being a 'proper academic' in that post?

Are you really that stupid you can't even read properly?

>>4420925

>mfw theists (/pol/) comes in here and try to start shit then immediately become mad and spew insults

/pol/, please leave I come here to discuss books. When I want /pol/ I go to /pol/

>>4421111
Degenerate by the standards of people of faith. It's like someone from Heinz saying a meal is shit without ketchup.

>>4421114
Gays can do that as well. You honestly think homosexuality creates a forcefield around vaginas?

>>4421118
>all of /pol/ is theist

i have some news for you

>>4421103
On the other hand, it's hard to generally like gays, so the insult stands. maybe

>>4421111
Faith in what? I would say the Middle Ages were far more degenerate, have you actually studied what aristocrats did in their boredom? Today if a top politician just gets his dick sucked by a maid he's finished.

>>4421115
Don't take it as an explanation of what god is

I realized I might have been a bit harsh

>>4421050
> What's there to understand?
Tradition, moral system, practice, theology, exegesis, scriptures, sociopolitical reflection, metaphysical reflections and nature of faith..

>>4421114
Can you properly suck a cock?

>>4421112
You haven't the first clue what religious people believe. Typical atheism. Sweeping generalisations and made up shit in lieu of any actual considered investigation. And yet you all scream that everyone provide you proof.

Hilarious.

>>4421098
I doubt it.

I find that some people on the internet (mainly Americans) see Atheism as an "edgy" way to rebel and piss off your parents. Over here, religion isn't a big part of every day life - the vast majority of people never talk about their religion, and most young people are atheist. Apart from one muslim, I have no idea what the religious views of my co-workers are. In my opinion, that's the way it should be - religion is a personal and private thing.

>>4421122
He probably just wants the dirt to be done as secretly as possible like a good Victorian.

>>4421115

Isn't he though? You try to interact with an invisible entity that offers no reaction. That's exactly what kids do when they have an imaginary friend.

>>4421117
You said my professor recognized my islamophobic work. That's something to be proud of.

>>4421118
> calling /pol/ on anyone who disagrees with my established atheist party line that all on the board must subscribe to without question

Niggah plz.

>>4421140
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jzeman/wjames/will_to_believe.htm

>>4421135
I do have a clue, this is just the basic psychology behind it. It would be interesting if the dogma was that obeying God got you into hell, but it's still the right thing to do.

>>4421145
>I'm persecuted by a party line

Fuck off

>>4421144
So, in fact, you are that stupid. Well done.

>>4421156
No u

>>4421129

>start a shit /pol/ style thread in /lit/
>get told to go back to /pol/
>LOL THIS CUNT THINKS /POL/ IS ALL THEIST I GOT SOME NEWS FOR YOU

>>4421154
No it isn't. And I'm an MA in religious studies so I can state that to you as an academic fact.

>>4421119
>>4421122

Faith, regardless

Now we dont have faith and society is culturally and morally degenerating slowly, bit by bit

as you can see in this post>>4421138

Any well researched books against Catholicism?

>>4421165
How did my post show a cultural and moral degeneration?

>>4421162
I feel pitty for you

>>4421165
This is what religious people have always said to justify their insane beliefs and force them down the throats of others.

>>4421018

uninterested? unmotivated?

>>4421145

>not calling /pol/ on shitposters starting an atheism thread on /lit/ WITH NO BOOKS

>>4420974
didnt know she had those shitty porn star tattoos

>>4421140
>implying it needs to be visible
>implying the abstract isn't real
>implying it doesn't react
You know what's dumber than kids who talk to imaginary friends?
Teenagers that say everything outside their immediate experience is not real.

>>4421123
I think that what really bothers me is how a concept that is so big that we still have trouble to even begin to comprehend is reduced to "lel imagin frend u dumb fedora 2class".

>>4421176
>pitty

>>4421174
Just that everyone is careless of their environment

religion in the past was the ultimate teacher of morality, and since people cant learn anything collectivly all by themselves unless you force them to, they will degenerate morally and culturally

>>4421135
> Sweeping generalisations and made up shit in lieu of any actual considered investigation. And yet you all scream that everyone provide you proof.
And even so, you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that we're wrong.

Except >>4421065 which implies that you don't know jack shit about thermodynamics, and are on the level of "because empirical science was developed by religious people, religion is inseperable from science" level of reasoning. And nice sweeping generalization, comparing your opponents to whiny children and producing ad-hominems like >>4421069 and >>4421082.

>>4421165
> Faith, regardless
Because believing in anything, even a noxious and contradictory philosophy, is better than not entrusting your morals to an ancient book?

We've been trolled, everyone. I am going to leave this thread and hide it, and I suggest you do otherwise, because there is no benefit in arguing with this guy.

>>4420937
That's a nice coincidence.

>>4421181
> Being this new thinking that philosophy debate threads that have fuck all to do with books are never started on /lit/.

Nice attempt at quashing debate, atheist cunt.

>>4421190
So what you're saying is that without religion, no-one learns any morals and all atheists spend their days rutting in the streets and killing each other?

>>4421190
No, the earliest Christians thought the world was coming to the end in their lifetimes because of the moral decay of their sorrounding society. Guess what it never happened it's just to catalyze your insanity.

Wake up sheeple!

Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship--be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles--is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.

>>4421135
>religion is all about getting pleasure in the afterlife
the toppest of lels

>>4420925
That's how it came to be, but it isn't what it is about anymore. We don't have "divine right of the state" anymore.

>>4421191

Because it is so big it is very hard to generalize it into any thing that is easily deniable

So the case with it being an imagery friend is to have the effect of it being something that is not necessary

In the end, god simply does not perish but is divided into subsets for digestion

>>4421196
what morals? people cannot learn morals all by themselves because the church teaches them to us with the help of the bible

>>4420875
I've got a variety of reasons for not believing in god, some more logically sound than the one I am about to provide. But this is what finally pushed me over the edge and relinquish my religion. The religious sense of morality is absolutely pathetic. Those in my society used as a way to check out of reality and live their happy little middle class lives. I would try to talk about the possibility of nuclear war and their face would go slack with happiness and say "God will take care of it" They obsess over sexuality and your personal demons. They ignore the mind-shattering atrocities that have occurred on this earth and are occurring. The way my religion placed values on things was just so disgusting, repulsive, trivial, and often harmful I couldn't abide by it any longer.

>>4421222
Morals can be taught by parents or schools without religion being involved

>>4421191
>muh forms

>>4421204
Was going good till the part of atheists

Dont put words in my mouth

Fedorathiests are, in my opinion mentally degenerate because they advocate for freedom of speech, individualism and so on while they themselves are doing otherwise with their dogmas. Because in their view, morallity is something that has to do with religion and the church

Alright alright alright, I read about half of this thread so pardon if this has already been said.

1. Is everyone calling atheists autists trolling or what because although there's your typical reddit fedora kids I think most smart people of the world aren't religious and don't believe in god.

2. I don't like religion as an institution but in the back of my mind there's always that thought of what if. Nature and the universe is pretty mind blowing and it's hard to grasp how it all evolved and how insignificant we are and everything. So have any atheists explained how something came from nothing? What was before the universe? Is science not there yet or what? Also what's at the edge of the universe? I read somewhere that we could never see the edge even if we could travel at the speed of light, light would still appear to be in front of us or something, but that doesn't answer my question. What's at the edge?

Please I am genuinely curious

>>4421203

>debate

You mean asking atheists to explain their reasons for prescribing to an "anti-establishment" "belief" from "ancient times," then calling them cunts and autists when they respond?

>>4421231
And who teaches the parents or schools morality and morals?

This is the thing i like in the orthodox bible, you have these nifty parables and easy to understand examples of how to distinguish and understand good and bad, right and wrong

>>4421196
> Assuming I'm either a theist or the same person as the other people replying in this thread.

What a silly atheist cunt you are.

>>4421239
No, they say morals have a origin that can be scientifically established without appeals to fiction

Is it dangerous to construct objective morals? Yes indeed. However, we do it and have done it since forever in the form of law.

>>4421241
>I don't like religion as an institution but in the back of my mind there's always that thought of what if. Nature and the universe is pretty mind blowing and it's hard to grasp how it all evolved and how insignificant we are and everything.
Atheists are not uncomfortable knowing that there are questions that could not yet be answered

>So have any atheists explained how something came from nothing?
no
>What was before the universe? Is science not there yet or what?
In the context of being an atheist, it is not necessarily the answer that matters but how a question is asked

>Also what's at the edge of the universe?
related to previous

>I read somewhere that we could never see the edge even if we could travel at the speed of light, light would still appear to be in front of us or something, but that doesn't answer my question. What's at the edge?
related to the previous

>>4421247
Yeah especially the ones that tell you submit to authority or be burned to ashes. Come on. Morals are learned in society, taught by the parents, in combination with genetic sense of morality. The church rarely provides genuine morals that actually help society. They just make people feel guilty about things they shouldn't. Not to say it all is bad, but it is a mixed bag at best.

>>4421225
>relinquishing god because of hypocritical idiots
Fucking shit, you people ever get to read the new testament?
Jesus flips shit because of people doing the same thing we denounce christians to be doing.

>>4421239
Do you accept that there's a difference between "fedora atheists" and most atheists? Just as there's a difference between creationists and most religious people?

>>4421241
> most smart people are not religious

The usual atheist nonsense to make themselves out as inherently superior. Reductive, narrow, autistic reasoning.

>>4421241
>most smart people of the world aren't religious
Generalization; a fallacy. Besides, what defines who's smart?

>>4421247

Can anyone give an argument for objective morality without saying "because God exists" or "natural law"?

Most people are far too shallow and cowardly to accept that life is non-teleological. Virtually everyone who calls themself an atheist has a life-denying religion of some kind. They hide their cowardice under oceans of beautiful sounding theories and literature, and the stupider ones try to avoid thinking about it by distracting themselves with entertainment and shopping. A noble, aristocratic class is necessary to impose a life affirming religion and give society a "purpose" and direction.

>>4421256
I am an atheist you don't know shit about me or my personal views. The only thing we have in common with each other is that we don't have a religion and we don't believe in god. It is that simple. Please stop making bigoted bullshit generalizations. You guys are just making yourselves look like asshats.

>>4421246
I have no idea why you're replying to me with quotes from someone else's posts.

Seriously. Stop trying so hard. I know it's euphoric up there on your lofty atheist cloud but try exercise even a little reason. Atheist cunt.

>>4421267
Even if their reasoning is "because God exists," doesn't the Euthyphro dilemma arise, regardless?

>>4421256
I like how you claim to speak for all atheists. Good job.

>>4421275

Why so angry if you are comfortable with your beliefs

If people are so shallow to generalize why do you have to say that oh it's not you they are talking about?

>>4421282
I am making fun

>>4421258
>tell you submit to authority or be burned to ashes
Keep in mind the bible has over 150 versions in english alone, not in mine so idk about this one

>Morals are learned in society
I slightly agree. You have a number of societies that felt it was ok to have x ammounts of wifes to have sex with, just an example

But aside cultural differences, religion mostly tells you a case, and you get to decide what was good and what was wrong

> genetic sense of morality

whats this im reading?

>The church rarely provides genuine morals that actually help society. They just make people feel guilty about things they shouldn't. Not to say it all is bad, but it is a mixed bag at best.

The Catholic church maybe, but even i have several catholic priest friends that preach morals and not their own viewpoint and interpretations of morality and the bible

It depends on case to case

>>4421276
Asshole. This entire thread is nothing but an atheist hate fest where you religious assholes make generalizations about us that simply aren't true. No one actually wants to talk about this. You just want to be assholes.

>>4421268
>life is non-teleological
prove it.

>>4421268
Don't worry. De Botton's on to it.

>>4421262
Yes i do, I dont see a logical reasoning behind both, tho

captcha: dogma relaove

>>4420875
http://youtu.be/E1RqTP5Unr4

I'll let this insufferable fedoraed cunt explain it to you theistic dumbfucks.

LET THE TIPPING OF HATS COMMENCE!

>>4421267
yeah, Stefan Molyneux

>>4421267
Objective morality is the one that gives the best results for society.
Most of it seems subjective but there's a decent amount of proof that a pattern for a definite set of the most effective values on morality exists.

>>4421191
>that we still have trouble to even begin to comprehend
What is your strategy for trying to comprehend it?

>>4421283
It is shallow to generalize and entire group of people. It is not to make an accurate generalization of this thread. I'm angry, because people are perpetuating misunderstandings about my personal beliefs that lead to real discrimination and prejudice in my society.

>>4421287
Oh no. Did I hurt your feelings? Because atheists are usually the paragons of restraint, reason, and genuine interest in their fellow man, right?

Fuck off. You cunts are nothing but full of bile, intolerance, and bigotry and you deserve getting it back at every opportunity. Cry more.

Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, Anti-Statism, Anarchism are RELIGIONS. When people claim that they support separation of church and state what they are actually implying is that their moral code must supersede any mystical moral value system. It is the religion of materialists. All of the rational arguements on youtube about what is the "best" form of government ignores the fact that all of these arguments are over whose moral biases are "best".

>>4421304
To feel and wonder.

>>4421303

Too bad not all societies are the same.

>>4421307
I don't mind myself

Atheism has no place for generalizations

As long as people generalize atheism, it proves that there is equality between atheism and theists
That if nothing else, at least we can all revel in the art of pointing fingers

>>4421315
Good thing not all societies are equally successful and stable.

>>4421286
To some extent, we naturally develop naturally develop morality in the way we naturally develop language. That is what I meant by genetic morality. Not the best use of the term, but I thought it would get my point across.

The point is, though, how do the priests determine the interpretations. It is because they have already developed an independent source of morality apart from the church.

With the burning to ashes part, I was talking about how God burned a city to ash.

>>4421225

I'm being pulled more and more into religion lately, but yes, you have good points and they are things I think about too. When I see on religious forums people pouring their heart out about their dead loved ones or the serious diseases and illnessess that have come into their lives, and the response of the majority is to say a few prayers and nothing more, it doesn't sit well with me. My explanation for this is admittedly none. I could try but I feel I would be grasping. Life is often far more complex than I can even hope to understand.

>>4421308
>>4421308
You are proving every stereotype about the religious assholes. Fuck you and everything you stand for. You are the cancer killing society. Not atheists who just want to be left alone and be allowed to hold our personal views. I wish there was a hell for you to burn in.

>>4421323
Go to bed Ataturk

>>4421273
>>4421265
Y'all boys seem mad, I didn't think that comment would catch anyone attention.
I didn't think it was a generalization I was under the pretense that the majority of scientists and philosophers do not believe in god. That's just what I assumed from my experiences. If it's not true please elaborate.

And to me smart people are people who are well read and educated and have deep knowledge and understanding of the world. In this context I'm talking about the scientists and philosophers whose professions are concerned with things like the universe and how shit works and stuff.

Please don't get mad when replying to this post I'm not trying to offend anyone just seeking some answers.

>>4421323
That chart is the real proof of evolution.

The role and interpretation of Christianity has changed in the Western World over the last 1000 years. At one time, the Catholic church, under Pope Innocent III, was nearly more powerful than the king himself, with the reformation this role in society changed as there was no longer an intermediary between God and man. The state lost its legitimacy paving the way for democracy and decay in western civilization. Western man's desire for redemption now manifests itself with government theory.

I would define myself as Agnostic. Religion plays an important role in many people's lives. I believe most Western men need a deep, core, primordial belief system in order to have Identity, face the mystery of death and assert himself. With the rise of Materialism in the last two to three centuries Christianity has been sterilized to the point of near extinction in much of Western Europe. Look at the moral decay; people have completely fallen apart!

God exists, it just has a different meaning

Consciousness, i.e soul exists, and we are nothing but the universe experiencing itself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgCb85PG-A&list=FL2a5DsCdYL5JcVKHIKVUEPQ&index=7

Athiests CANNOT find proof of god because they mus FIRST FEEL, GET OUT of the small system to the SUPER SYSTEM

Goodluck in the path to finding god my atheist friends

>>4421310
you have it the wrong way around.

>>4421335
>I would define myself as Agnostic.

Agnostic _____? Theist, Deist, Pantheist, Atheist?

I hope you're not one of those trolling idiots who still thinks Agnosticism is a middle-man/mutually-exclusive and/or an intellectual-coward too afraid to own up to your Atheism.

>>4421335
Life is about Death. Man is inherently religious, even when he tries not to be. It is the power of belief that makes a Culture strong and self confident in itself. When the purpose and direction of life transitions to the outward, materialistic realm his values and attitudes change towards death. Life becomes valued by its length, people look for a "happy ending" to avoid the true nature of life: tragedy.

I believe that atheism is the core problem. What we call Christianity today is nothing compared to the power and strength that it once gave our people. Today it is a hobby for most people. Jonathan Bowden has also said much the same thing. It is the power of belief that makes people strong and healthy, who is willing to die for money? Who is willing to stand up and defend their culture if they don't have a strong belief to back it up?

>>4421260
Like I said, this is what pushed me over the edge, not necessarily why I am still an atheist. I've only met a few that truly address and understand the points I've made. They typically tend be really intelligent and far more liberal
than your average christian. I don't really mind this even though we disagree. I don't have problem with religion, just some of the effects it almost always has.

>>4421328

He is being very uncharitable.

>atheists who just want to be left alone and be allowed to hold our personal views.

I'm sure many do, but these are of course largely an unseen and unknown aspect. In both theists and atheists, most often the loudest will garner the most attention, even when often they have very little to say of any worth. This does an injustice to both sides.

>>4421332
I wasn't interested in the argument, I just pointed out that's not a good point of view to stand in as you can't possibly know the majority of scientists in the world. It works through superficial definitions of what's smart, tries to convince you of something by numbers ('if there's more people it means it's the best') and won't get you far.

>>4421319
>The point is, though, how do the priests determine the interpretations. It is because they have already developed an independent source of morality apart from the church.

And nobody says its right. You have a 13th century pope who advocated for finding god via the scientific method, or another one who wanted to burn people alive for not believing what he believes

My advice to anyone who's concerned about morality and religion, is to take the examples of the bible which you can extract a moral example, and make yourself more pious

>>4421351
>just some of the effects it almost always has.

When a man has a cause, any cause, it makes them strong because it takes them away from themselves. But the motivation isn't necessarily the cause for the wrongdoing. People fail themselves, each other, and their beliefs all the time.

>>4421311
How do you tell if you've made progress?

>>4421328
Fuck off, atheist cunt. Everything you say is born of shit, nonsense, and ignorance. Atheists are persecutory and full of hate and are creating serious social issues in countries like Europe and others. Saying otherwise simply demonstrates your kind's capacity to obfuscate and lie alone with your lead henchman, the so called 'man of science'. f there was a hell, it would be too good for any of you.

>>4421370
You blew it.

>>4421318

But there have been multiple stable, successful societies throughout time.

Was the morality of Greek society better than that of Roman society until the Roman's eclipsed the Greeks in power, or was the morality of Roman society always superior? Was Christian morality always superior to pagan Roman morality? Or did it only become superior when the Roman's adopted it as the state religion.

>>4421338

As soon as you stop or disrupt chemical processes going on in your brain, you consciousness stops.

Please spout your mumbo-jumbo elsewhere.

>>4420875

I don't know if anybody has pointed out that
>I honestly want to know what is the reason for your belief
is problematic. Atheists lack a belief as such.
Believing that NO God exists =/= Not Believing that God exists.

OP has shifted the burden of proof, wether intentionally or not.

>>4421436
Also, EVERYBODY in this thread needs to relax.

>>4421435
How's it like knowing there's evidence to prove otherwise and that you're a complete fucking moron for talking before reseraching?

>>4421436
Nope

They BELIEVE in the IDEA that GOD DOESNT EXIST

They still invest BELIEF, thus FAITH, thus SUBJECTIVE EMOTION rather than factual data

not any different than religious belief

>>4421369
I often feel like I had grasped some really important shit about it but then I realize that I can't put it into words no matter how much I try so, not much.

Partly why I always discard everything a philosopher that doesn't believe in god to some extent.
Not because they disagree with me about it but because they seem to be too chickenshit to tackle the issue.

>>4421373
He is kind of right, though.

>>4421351
I've never found an intelligent christian that actually hates homosexuals, for example.

I might be wrong since I'm not to knowledgeable on the doctrine though, I want to convert to Catholicism soon but equating the sin to the sinner never seemed reasonable.
It sounds like it's completely contradictory to christianity's idea of forgiveness; like, hate killing but not the killers, you know.

>>4421455
>They still invest BELIEF, thus FAITH, thus SUBJECTIVE EMOTION rather than factual data

Lack of belief is not a belief. Do you have faith the Big Brown Splurph doesn't exist? Faith and Evidence based ideas are fundamentally imposed. Faith is the suspension of evidence.

>>4421464
>missing the point: the post
He means the fedoras, that put their faith on god not existing.
Most atheists, hopefully, just don't care or haven't got enough evidence to belief.

captcha: rhetorical ncancil

>>4421464
>Lack of belief is not a belief

Not until you devote your ideology of believing in a disbelief, i.e in an idea

Athiests with this mindset are just part of another religion

The most noteable example being one time when they gathered in a CHURCH..and decided NOT TO BELIEVE in god.. as a subject for their meeting

Ironicly, they believe in the idea that god doesnt exist, which is the same as to say he does, because god is an idea, and ideas are subjective

Do you understand the hypocrisy now?

>>4421491
>Do you understand the hypocrisy now?

Ah, it was my fault for not realizing who you were referring too.

>>4421085
>>4421072
Why are you so pathetic, crying over someone contesting you on an internet image board?
Get a grip.

>>4420987
The harsh modern, man-made world has compelled you to atheism, nothing else

>>4420883
/thread
Anyone who says anything other than this is fedora and unreasonable.

>>4421479
I don't think it's a good idea to be demonstrated incorrect and then claim that we've missed the point.

>>4421455
Well then you're categorizing every knowledge claim as a faith claim as well. Perhaps you're right to an extent, but only by greatly broadening the definition of faith.

>>4420875
We had a thread on this a few days ago.
My reason has always been that it seemed like complete and utter bullshit ever since my grandmother tried to tell me about God. I don't need a God, religion is geography, dogmatic religion is for insecure morons.

If you want to claim a deity created the universe, it sounds stupid as fuck, but I won't argue with it because there is no proof of anything before the big bang, nor can our minds comprehend anything rational, so if you want to say a deity created the universe, that's fine with me. But don't go following books and burning eachother because someone told you thats what the deity wants.

I wonder how many times has the word fedora been said.

>>4421491
You must be joking

>>4421535
8 times including yours

>>4421458


>He is kind of right, though.

About what? The only thing that wasn't pure shitflinging was something about Europe's current social issues (we don't even know what they are, but in reality we know this is a /pol/fag so he's probably talking about race mixing or muslim immigrants or jews or liberals), which you can't really blame on just atheists.

>>4421535
>>4421535
9

>>4421533
>I don't need a God, religion is geography, dogmatic religion is for insecure morons.

god =/= religion

>>4421533
>proof of anything before the big bang
Actually there is a fair amount of mathematical evidence supporting the idea our universe actually was given birth by parasitically growing on another.

>>4421548
fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora fedora

>>4421555
I've got news for you champ, theoretical physics dont prove shit other than speculation based upon previous speculation on the assumptions that we know our reality 100 %

most atheists are actually monist pantheists

>>4421533
>If you want to claim a deity created the universe, it sounds stupid as fuck, but I won't argue with it because there is no proof of anything before the big bang
These atheists actually fucking exist. Thank god. I wish more atheists were like you.
90% of the time the reaction I get when I mention "What happened before the Big Bang?" is "Well if you think God created our universe, who created God?". I'm not saying that's not a valid question, but it's such an asspull, because you're not answer my own question, you're making a new one.

>>4421027
lrn2kierkegaard

>>4421567
>"Well if you think God created our universe, who created God?"
>literally omnipotent
>can't create itself
I know.

>>4421547
Trace back which countries started going to shit and the shift in religious beliefs during that.
Then come back.

>>4421565
I'm not claiming to know exactly what happened. I'm just saying there is mathematical evidence pointing towards a few ideas. You can not accept the Big Bang, an idea made solely out of observations and mathematics, than throw away another of the same type. Ultimately we can not go back towards some form of beginning, but at some point we read a point where time no longer exists (as time is merely a mental construct to explain cause and effect).

We ca not disprove a god, because god, being an all power being, can merely hide his ability to be found. Thus there is no possible way to find evidence against. However, under normal circumstances lack of evidence is cause for disbelief. Why should god be any different than the number of other ideas that fall into this category?

>>4421455
And scientists believe their theories...

>>4421567
>"What happened before the Big Bang?" is "Well if you think God created our universe, who created God?"

Funny how they immediatly atack you by answearing with another question when you cornered them up and make them act defenseless

Its a sign you are breaking their belief system

Religious belief, isnt anything other than Scientific Belief

#BasedCampbell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq8s_McOiqk

>>4420883
But everything is within God, anon. How do you expect proof of something beyond your reason?

>>4421581

Correlation does not mean causation.

Also, please define "going to shit."

>>4421555
This wouldn't matter though, the question still remains who created it. If not our universe, then what created the multiverse? etc. You'll be moving the question but not answering it.

I wish more atheists weren't so aggressive when it comes to these discussions.

>>4421584

But those theories are back up with proof. And they constantly change based on new evidence.

>>4421605
>they constantly change based on new evidence.

Such a naive soul

>>4421584
Theories are supported by evidence to be held as ideas worth considering.

Ultimately you must separate Faith and Evidence based ideas. Faith is the suspension of logical thought and ignoring of evidence (or lack of evidence) to believe in idea that does not hold water. Evidence is the use of facts and supporting ideas to build a conclusion. I honestly do not care if one has faith, but faith is fundamentally different than evidence (and ultimately the scientific method), that is should forever remain separate.

>>4421593

Now again without the meaningless theological mumbo-jumbo?

i wonder what fad all these people will swarm on once being an internet theist gets over-argued and has a contemporary negative image attached to it

i don't know about anywher else but i suspect on /lit/ it'll be a pantheist revival, maybe the greeks or the romans

>>4421605
>But those theories are back up with proof.

Ok here's how i demonstrate that god exists using a theory backed up with proof

God is consciousness, he experiences himself by creating a universe

Since our soul is our consciousness and is imortal, since science proves that consciousness can exist with a dead brain, we can assume not only again that God is consciousness, but everything that surrounds us, our reality is nothing but consciousness, thus god

See? but there's more to a theory than proof, you need belief if you want people to swallow and idea

>not starting out as an agnostic theist
>not being on a permanent spiritual journey because you feel the possibility and need for something divine
>not studying philosophy and theology to engage these questions and learn from the wisdom of history
>insulting people that are not part of your religious views instead of helping them on the path of personal enlightenment

Disgusting.

>>4421604

>thread misrepresents beliefs
>atheists get called names
>become defensive

OH NO WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED JUST LIKE JESUS SAID WHY DO ATHEISTS HATE GOD??!?!?!?!

>>4421625
Thanks for helping me prove my point.

polytheist whoops

although I guess there are a fair share of pantheists tossing their hats into these threads now, more than a few spinoza 'god is everything by tippers

>>4421622
>God is consciousness
[unsupported claim]
>Since our soul is our consciousness and is immortal
[unsupported claim and misspelling]
>since science proves that consciousness can exist with a dead brain
[citation required]
>we can assume not only again that God is consciousness
[lack of evidence to make this claim]
>but there's more to a theory than proof
[not a theory, this would be a hypothesis, and one based off of no data]

>>4421605
And atheism is backed with proof, or rather, a lack of proof throughout thousands of years.
You might say "then you can only be agnostic", but really, what difference does it make?

>>4421610

Nice rebuttal, but that's how science works.

>>4421624
I still cant phantom how people need labels and bosex to understand things better

Not provoking anyone here, its just that since i was little i was open minded enough to alternate ideas, and somehow..i just felt god exists

>implying god needs to exist for us to reap the benefits

>>4421564
Bringing the tally up to 87

>>4421636
in your naive idealistic mind it does

How's it like knowing that the Out of Africa Theory has been outdated for decades now, yet you dont see an official papper of how humans evolved yet?

In your idealistic mind, the scientific community is pure and dedicated for research for the good of mankind, disregarding the fact that they are too human, ones with ego's other with belief systems that stagnate the process of scientifical advancement

It just doesnt work that way

I just love the fact that Christianity is making a comeback among 4channers because atheism became popular and manifested in some cringey ways among neckbeards and on reddit.

There are people on here RIGHT NOW who hold religious views with regard to accepting or rejecting atheism mostly due to it's popularity among certain corners of the internet. That is fucking hilarious.

>>4421643
And thus because accepted ideas are slow to move (As well I must say that as you claim the idea is outdated, there are numerous papers presenting more appropriate theories) then we must simply discard science as a whole.

>>4421643
>the Out of Africa Theory has been outdated for decades now
Got a link to back that up? Genuinely interested

>>4421645
in practice not a single thing has changed

>>4421645
Which makes me annoyed. There are people who do this only because it is popular, and not because of any actual belief in the ideals. Be you atheist, religious, or any of the strange things in between, you should not be mere follower.

>>4421645
I doubt that a big part of the christians on 4chan actually became christians because of fedora neckbeards.

>>4421631
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Oh and this concept has scientific backing for about 30 years now.

Have fun.

The premise was, since consciousness can live without needing a physical body, and everything that surrounds us is consciousness, everything is consciousness, because god is everything

Therefor, God is consciousness and he exists by experiencing himself. Or better said ourselves

>>4420875
I received catholic education. My parent's aren't christian, but they seem to believe in "higher power/energy/etc...". I've never cared tot alk about this with them. But I've studied about how metarepresentations work and the beneficial aspects of that adaptive by-product called religion. Since everything makes perfect sense without the implication of an "extra" being, I just don't believe in it. I've also read Kant and Kierkegaard. Faith is 100% irrational. From my perspective, I don't need it and I don't find a good reason to believe in something like God (which existence I find totally pointless).

Also, I would rather believe in pantheism than monotheism. It looks billions of times less retarded to me.

>>4421649
It's because as we look at it, the oldest human bits we found were in Africa, but then for some reason the next oldest were in Australia without having the expected middle east and southern asia in between.

>>4421547
No, I was right. You claim atheists want to just be left alone to their own beliefs but that is certainly not what most current views of new atheists are. We routinely get the likes of Dawkins and others in the press making all sorts of bigoted attacks on religious people, most of it ill-informed, post-colonialist bullshit rife with racism, intolerance, and pure cherry picking. Additionally, I've spent years on these boards and other places on the internet and yet to come across one atheist opinion that hasn't included similar reductivity, cherry picking, subjectivity, and all sorts of pure insult for the sake of it. And you want to cry about being attacked in 'generalizations'? Please, man. You want to dish it out, learn to fucking take it.

You are a persecutory group and it's time the law started waking up to that fact and get over this idea that you're all operating from some perspective of 'reason'. Less interested in discussion and hearing the opinions of religious people that can run a huge and infinite range than you are in shoving your narrow, wholly ill-educated, largely incorrect shit down everyone else's throats and then insult and sneer at them because they refuse to be bullied by you. A recent poll in the UK highligted that two thirds of Christians in this country feel they are being persecuted. All scoffed at and sneered at by the atheist intelligensia as usual but just because it isn't overt doesn't mean it isn't taking place. They're simply afraid to even identify as Christian less they start getting shit from atheists who threaten to arrange boycotts, get them fired, launch legal actions, and generally just behave like cunts because they can't possibly handle the fact that other human beings are different.

The hypocrisy in this thread is just staggering. No one dare make generalisations about atheists or assume they share the same point of view but it's cool for you to do exactly the same to religious people, right?

You people are major cunts and you deserve being called out on your shit at every and each opportunity that it arises. Get the fuck over yourself.

>tfw I've talked with an atheist which could only spew two arguments, "Who created god if he created the universe" and "If god is real why are people suffering" and if I asked anything else, he couldn't answer
Try to guess his age /lit/.

>>4421656

You'd be surprised. Often times 4chan works by simply taking the opposite stance of what's popular in the media and reddit. It really is that simply for many, many users.

>>4421647
Not science as a whole, but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority
"You're wrong because scientists say so"

Scientists are people too, each with their own biases, so its naive to take everything they say for granted

>>4421649
Preparing an info dump

>>4421666
I actually think that most of the opinions I see here are justified, although there are obviously people here who blindly follow anything. For example, if you asked some /v/irgins why Skyrim is shit/casual, they wouldn't know the answer.

>>4420905
What kind of argument is this? I don't see God. What kind of hallucinogen substance should I take to see him? I'm genuinely interested.

>>4421645
I think you're assuming some wrong things.

The reason people mock atheists is that they usually present tired old arguments that have been engaged by Christians centuries ago, and try to claim superiority based on their rejection of God or faith.

As /lit/ is a pretty good place to learn things and get a babby's first taste of philosophy, many people realize that atheism doesn't work for them and no longer find it convincing. As someone said, it's only a beginning of the journey, not the end. Also I would guess many people find the innate meaninglessness of life a huge burden and take a leap to faith in order to find solace.

I doubt someone becomes a practicing Catholic because he's annoyed by Dawkins.

>>4421660
>http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
You realize that Ring is considered a crack pop, right?

Even however if he is correct it does not make evidence for god, which in your idea would require the claim that god is consciousness.

In this instance it would be the most simple and direct to the (albeit flimsy) evidence that the afterlife is a natural process.

>>4421627

Why are you theists so agressive?

>>4421528
>>4420925
>>4421203
>>4421370
>>4420964
>>4421069
>>4420960
>>4421038
>>4421204
>>4421249
etc...

>>4421655
>Be you atheist, religious, or any of the strange things in between, you should not be mere follower.

That's the beauty of it, they see the acceptance of any popular ideology like atheism as following and therefore reject it solely on that basis. In doing so, they merely become followers for the other team unwittingly.

I care only about the things that move me forward. Worrying about gods is like worrying about the easter bunny, silly bullshit indulged in by children and mental midgets that haven't decided what they want to do with their lives.

>>4421660
All of the "sources" are just more people who hold the same view, if not the same website. Half of them have no doctors involved at all.
I hope you're trolling.

>>4421674
It's funny how you took time to pick out these posts. Why do you care about this shit so much?

>>4421667
Both of those are forms of theism, you cock gargler. Not all theisms are semitic dualist forms. Still, gosh, aren't you clever. Read Kant and Kierkegaard and everything.

>>4421668
>Not science as a whole, but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority
Then you must too discard religion as appeal to authority, in this case the bible.

>>4420925
Your arguments would look far less stupid if you cut out the ad hominems. You're welcome.

>>4421663

In the real world, Atheists are the persecuted ones with no voice. At least here in America.

>>4421611
Didn't you say that simply believing is already faith? I was just following your logic: belief=faith=subjective emotion=not any different than religious belief.
Anyway, if you believed in God without evidence, that'd be faith (suspension of logical thought and ignoring of evidence(or lack of evidence)) to you, right? So the only alternative is to be atheistic (or agnostic, whatever).

>>4421668
>We believe that all the presuppositions posited in support of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis fail to hold up under simple scrutiny. This study shows that the Out-of-Africa hypothesis has not been adequately substantiated. The common assertion that “anatomically modern humans came out of Africa some 70,000 years ago” has never been convincingly calculated or determined otherwise; our research suggests that it is incorrect.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=24586
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=19566


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/06/finding-the-genetic-trail/
http://www.edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.551.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110905/full/news.2011.518.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11910562
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/29/1109300108
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1108181108.full.pdf
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=publichealthresources

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711003958
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/32/11093.full

>>4421686
The places that atheists could be considered the less advantaged would be America, the middle east, some parts of southern Asia, and some portions of Oceanic.

>>4421663
I'm not who you're replying to, but lol at you being buttmad about dicks like Dawkins and comparing the rest of atheists to him. That's like me comparing you and all other christians to fred phelps.

You're being a major cunt and you deserve being called out on your shit at every and each opportunity that it arises. Get the fuck over yourself.

(also lol @ you again generalizing all atheists)

>>4421690
>Didn't you say that simply believing is already faith?
No, why do you think you're talking to? We're on an anonymous board, never assume you're talking to the same person.

Belief after supporting evidence is not faith.

>>4421680
Hey, mister butthurt, if you care to read what I posted I say I don't believe in pantheism nor monotheism. I just said pantheism looks billions of times less retarded to me. Kierkegaard and Kant give arguments WHY theism isn't rational, did I need to spoonfeed you a little more?

Go be angry somewhere else, you religious nutjob.

>>4421686
Well, I have a lot of sympathy with that actually as I can not abide US evangelical protestantisms but in both posts where I made reference to this issue, I specifically stated Europe.

>>4421677
>>4421673


There is no "he" those are a multitude of articles and scientific pappers. Refute those and then come back to me


>Even however if he is correct it does not make evidence for god, which in your idea would require the claim that god is consciousness.

Ah, but it does because there are many religions around the world that simply claim that god is everything. And everything is consciousness, its deductive

>In this instance it would be the most simple and direct to the (albeit flimsy) evidence that the afterlife is a natural process.

So reincarnation is natural? this holds alot of assumptions mainstream science cant explain, which is why they dont pick on the subject

>>4421674
I'm the first post in the list of posts you quoted and I'm an atheist.

>>4421705
>Ah, but it does because there are many religions around the world that simply claim that god is everything.
Which is an unsupported claim.

>>4421688
Not that guy but please quit with the 'ad hominem' calls as they're clearly attempts at subversions in themselves and glaringly apparent as such. You may be an atheist, but there's no reason to unnecessarily embarrass yourself. You're welcome.

>>4421671
>I doubt someone becomes a practicing Catholic because he's annoyed by Dawkins.

This to me is where it gets interesting. It seems to me like most channers who reject atheism on the basis of its popularity will never actually label themselves by a popular sect. Instead they use terms like "deist", "agnostic theist", "pantheist", "Jeffersonian Christian", etc.

To me, this is really the proof that they have little true conviction or rationale for their beliefs and thus seek a reasonable middle ground which lies between their traditionally religious parents and r/atheism.

>>4421692


http://atala.fr/2012/09/26/2-glaciations-and-migration-hybridization-and-survival-en/
http://www.cours.polymtl.ca/glq1100/milankovich/milankovich.html
https://mariecachet.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/glaciationpleistocene-2.jpg?w=300&h=262
https://mariecachet.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/courbe_t_milanko-2.gif?w=300&h=215

This theory never gives the cause of the so-called modern human exodus from Africa. It claims probably, as evolutionism wants to, that humans from Africa were shaken by such evolutionary change (but which one?) that they had a sudden urge to migrate north for about 50,000 ago, in the middle of the ice age, while the climate of France was roughly equivalent to current Siberia, tundra and taiga, while the Middle East and North Africa were a pleasant oasis covered with deciduous green forest.

This info dump was brought to you by /pol/

You're welcome

>>4421695
Alright, but you could've seen in the context that I was just following his logic, not that I actually believe that science = religious faith.

>>4421694
How do you even pretend him to have a remote opportunity to discuss anything without building some strawmens here and there?

>>4421664

I heard of a guy whose argument for the existence of God was that the greatest thing he could imagine must exist in reality since it would be even greater if his imagined thing was real. Therefore since the greatest thing he could think of was God, God must exist. Want to guess if this guy was a saint and/or bishop?

>>4421705
I looked over it and saw MAYBE a handful of "scientific papers". There were a whopping two associated with universities, and maybe 6 that had any kind of doctor involved, and those doctors were all linked directly with the website.
No peer-review.
No outsiders writing about it.
No science.

>>4421712
I have no idea how anyone can make claim to the various forms you've listed there whilst still calling themselves atheists. If they do, then that's just staggering.

>>4421710
>Some atheists are cunts. So all their arguments are wrong.
lrn2read

>>4421664
>one person represents the entirety of atheists

>>4421664
Same as yours

>>4421707
>Which is an unsupported claim.
>what is eastern philosophies

>>4421732
>what is eastern philosophies
Unsupported

>>4421733
>implying

Unsupported

>>4421713
lol
dude
do you see how hollow your argument is?
He posted ivy league university studies and links to well known scientific orgs. You posted one college and blogs, and 4x less information.

Open your eyes, come on.

>>4421712

Just to clarify, I guess what I'm trying to say is that channers religious beliefs tend to have PSYCHOLOGICAL origins which are LATER justified by whatever traditional philosophical arguments most congruent with their emotionally-based choice.

I actually don't see a huge problem with this...in fact, maybe you could even argue that that's how everyone comes to their beliefs. I just think it's funny/pathetic that the core of that the initial psychological push is not a life/death situation, a personal epiphany, the birth of a child, or a sense of wonder--it's fucking internet sites as juvenile and banal as 4chan and reddit.

>>4421738
im the same guy, genius

>>4421732
Show me evidence that god is consciousness that can be put through scientific method and peer reviewed.

>>4421694
That's exactly what they do. But if you want to pretend that isn't happening because that suits your atheist agenda of propaganda and misinformation, then go right ahead. The only person you're fooling is yourself and the other cunts like you.

Also lol @ you assuming I'm Christian. Like I say, you are all, to the last, ignorant, ill-educated, full of bile and hate, and completely and wilfully oblivious to the huge expanse of diversity of humanity.

Cunts.

One thing I'm sure about: if God is real, he isn't very happy with theists who act like dicks to atheists because they don't believe what they want.

>>4421739
Sadly that's how ideas always have spread

>>4420883
Spinoza proved God centuries ago

>>4421643
Ideological influence within the 'hard' sciences notwithstanding, methodological naturalism is a better way of figuring out traits of the universe than anything humans have come up with yet.

Scientism is a bad thing, that is, the interface between acedemia, research and the public mind. It needs to be remedied, but thats a political problem.

However, I would reckon that the claims put forward by the sciences are more demonstrably correct than those put forward by 'religions'.

I realize that I've reified a bunch of stuff, but there it is.

>>4421712
I don't see anything wrong with people reading up on questions concerning faith, even if their reason for doing so isn't for pure knowledge.
If someone decides to delve deep into Christian theology because of 4chan, that's good for him. Obviously he won't accept it if he truly doesn't feel drawn to it very strongly, or he'd just be fooling himself.

I try to understand faith myself, though I'd consider joining any of the main monotheistic religions very hard since they all share common history and beliefs and seem to have a valid claim of "authenticity".
In the end I think I'll stick with my Spinozism.

>>4421744
Show me evidence of the contrary

>>4421756
You are making the claim that god is consciousness, the burden of proof falls onto you.

>>4421746
>Also lol @ you assuming I'm Christian. Like I say, you are all, to the last, ignorant, ill-educated, full of bile and hate, and completely and wilfully oblivious to the huge expanse of diversity of humanity.
>Cunts.
Well, why don't you just get the fuck out and delete the thread? Do you need to argue with us to feel better about yourself or what?

>>4421699
You be edgy somewhere else, you typical little atheist spewing terms and names in the desperate hope it'll somehow make you seem like you know what you're taking about. Idiot.

>>4421724
Sure, go on over to Princeton's Paralabs for more

The fact still remains : Modern Science cant explain how you can be consciouss with a dead brain

Obligatory pic for this thread.

>>4421753
>Spinoza proved
Nigger, pls.
Also, he was accused of ATHEISM, since if everything is God, then there's no particular entity we could call God.

>>4421748

This is true. Accepting what your parents tell you blindly isn't much better.

I guess that's why I respect Dostoevsky so much even though I find his religious views downright masochistic at time. He legitimately thought he was going to be shot by a firing squad and when he was not he developed the most pure and personal faith imaginable. You can't doubt that he's anything but genuine and a little fucking crazy when you read him.

>>4421727
> All atheists are cunts. All their arguments are wrong.

Lrn2read

>>4421757
And i did by simple observations

Or an alternative would be you stop being a faggot and do you own research

Campbell is right here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgCb85PG-A&list=FL2a5DsCdYL5JcVKHIKVUEPQ&index=7

Have fun.

>>4421595
Remember when France was catholic?
And Spain?

>>4421761
Yes, this is how some theists think all atheists are. It's hilarious.

>>4421772
What is the point of this post?

>>4421772
They don't. They're trolling you.

>>4421769
Campbell postulating is not a source of evidence. Show peer reviewed studies to be taken seriously.

>>4421762
>edgy
>typical little atheist
>desperate hope
>Idiot.

Are you trying to be retarded on purpose?
So you make a thread to insult who posts their opinion? This is truly pathetic.

Make me one particular question about my perspective and I will answer it.

>>4421758
Ah, yes, The atheist attempt to quash opinion that doesn't tie in with their own. How unexpected.

I'm also not OP, genius. Doing yet another great job with that atheist innate propensity for reason and well conducted analysis I see.

>>4421732
The claim that "God is everything" is what is unsupported, not the claim that there exist religions around the world that claim that.

>>4421768
>All atheists are cunts
Yeah because you obviously know all atheists. My implication is: you don't, retard.

>>4421778
>muh peer review

Sure, all of them on his website

If you cant even make that effort, im done here

>>4421782
I'm not the OP. Maybe you should forget the big philosophers and focus more on the basics of critical thinking. Starting with not making assumptions based on fuck all evidence about who you're replying to on an anonymous internet image board.

Idiot.

>>4421775
I just said I too believe that was an obligatory pic for the thread. Is this that difficult for you to understand?

These threads always devolve into name calling. I'll even admit that I've been guilty about it on occasion. However, does anyone here believe they are actually accomplishing anything? Has anyone here changed their religious views based on a thread on an image board?

Moreover, all it appears most times is people shouting at one another and occasionally linking things. It's tiring.

Why would someone want to be friends with someone who doesn't believe in them? God reveals Himself to those who truly want to see Him. Knock, and the door will be opened.

>>4421793
>I don't have evidence
>I'll call him lazy
>That means I'm right!

>>4421786
I don't care about what you believe. I'm not insecure about my own beliefs. I don't need to insult anyone who doesn't believe like me. This thread is pointless.

>>4421789
Exactly like you don't know all Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, et all, either.

Retard.

>>4421787
Simple observasion my dear plebian friend

Everything that exists is consciousness, else is digital reality

God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient thus he is consciousness

Therefor God is consciousness

>>4421796
Critical thinking? Like: "unsupported beliefs are stupid"?

>>4421807
>God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient thus he is consciousness
This requires the unsupported claim that god exists, and that god is that series of "omni"s.

I always find funny how sciencefags have to create a dichotomy between science and religion, and then ignore completely that part of the scientific method that estates that "lack of proof is not proof".

>>4421666
So is the way of dialectics.

>>4421670
>needing to see god
Casual.

>>4421744
stemfag pls go

>>4421804
Nonsense. If you're a self-declaring atheist, that's precisely what you do all the time. I realise you have no religious compunction not to, but lying is never an admirable trait in anyone.

You've never noticed God's presence? How sad. He is watching over you and all of us. If you look closely for him, you'll see him. But if you aren't looking you won't see anything.

>>4421810
It'd be easy for you if you make paralles between what the bible describes as spirit, and modern proof for consciousness

In the end they are the same thing because they both have the same characteristics

>>4421811
>"lack of proof is not proof".
Yes, which means you can not claim god exists based on lack of evidence to the contrary, but also we can not claim he does not exist. We merely can claim we do not know, and that he is a fundamentally unscientific idea, as he is immune to the method.

>>4421809
That was a cute attempt at evading having being pointed out as someone not nearly as clever as they think they are. By doing so, and in your laughable attempt at trying to shift focus away from yourself, you merely prove the point. Just stick to the argument at hand.

There was a thread about comics and literature that got deleted within 20 minutes, but I'm guessing this thread will stay up

/lit/ seriously has the worst fucking mods/janitors. SJWs and euphoric queers

I have a KGV bible and I want to believe but there's something holding me back, to be honest, I haven't even read it all yet just a few bits at the beginning of the New Testament.

It seems like the Bible has less pages than GRRM's A Game of Thrones though, you'd think for a book so famous that it would be bigger.
I just want some kind of feeling from the Bible which I've never had, like it's going to change my life and make me believe, but it doesn't so far.

>>4421824
You kidding?

they're the ones shilling the thread so hard

>>4421816
>It'd be easy for you if you make paralles between what the bible describes as spirit
Which requires the bible to be correct, which considering we have evidence that is was written by collecting texts several hundred years after the events had transpired, is highly unlikely. Find me something that can be tested scientifically. The most you can do now is more philosophical postulating.

>>4421819
So if it is immune to the method, how can science deny him?

>>4421826
Just a friendly reminder that the bible is a rehash of sumerian literature

Just dont build up expectations, my bible may differ from your bible

>>4421826
The bible is extremely uninteresting unfortunately, as it was made as a conversion tool rather than an entertainment one.

>>4421828
Thanks for repeating my point

>>4421837
Then why isn't it converting me?
I want it to.

>>4421761
>Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position (except ignostics') assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

>Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined nor is there any conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.

Then I guess I'm ignostic. But if someone asks me if I believe in God I'll answer no because it's a lot simpler than explaining that.

>>4421829
>implying science itself didnt began with nothing but philosophical postulating

oh you stemfags, whats wrong, got bored of /sci/ and now you have to annoy someone else?

>>4420875
/lit/ is only ever this pious when having to "defend" their faith. In no other kind of thread do I see any kind of behaviour that would be in accordance with God's word, or the encouraging of such behaviour.

>>4421830
No, it means he is unscientific, and this not worth considering one way or another when it comes to science.

Science is evidence based, religion if faith. The two must be kept at armslength.

As well, lack of counter evidence is not evidence, this is a fundamental belief in science. Even if you claim science can not deny him, it can also not support him. God is an unscientific idea, plain and simple.

>>4421798

Agreed. Although I think it is useful when people link things or recommend books. The last book I was recommended here has given form to some fantastic ideas for me, The Unity of All Religions by Schuon. Linking things or recommending things might not have an immediate effect, but it is important to help each other see other facets of the question.

>>4421845
Oh.
Cool then.

>>4421842
>oh you stemfags, whats wrong, got bored of /sci/ and now you have to annoy someone else?
They have separated since then, science and philosophy differentiated over a thousand years ago. However, since the ideas you are attempting to prove originate in the same period, maybe you should use the archaic definitions.

>>4421840
Because it also requires a person to be attempting to convert you in most cases.

>>4421842
It started like that, but nowadays we have the scientific method, so there is no need to reinvent it.

I am God and I am immortal, but to everyone else I'm an atheist.

>>4421851
>>4421852

>scientific method

Which was too founded by highly religious people in the attempt to find god

Face it, the moment you wanted to be edgy and superior to religion, the moment human kind's advancement came to a halt

>>4421852
>>4421851
It's still rooted in some philosophy, at least if you want to accept it as "knowledge"

>>4421848

And in relation to The Unity of All Religions, a book mentioned within that book, The One Dimensional Man by Marcuse, could also be of use to any atheists who are curious (it has to start with curiosity, I think, an openness to learn about the other) as to what so many people are talking about when they talk about science not being valid for investigating all things.

>>4421861
>Which was too founded by highly religious people in the attempt to find god
And television was invented by a pedophile, does that means I need to use it to watch little girls? WHo invented something does not matter.

>>4421861
/pol/ tier argumentation (and "proof"). I'm not even atheist.

>>4421869
Nice way to disregard the fact that most of scientifical knowledge obtained during history of manking was with the help and motivation religious people. May i remind you the first man to come up with the Big Bang Theory(That people today hold on to so much) was a priest?

Yeah, let that sink it

Without religion and philosphy, science is nothing.

>>4421837

The Bible has a lot of interesting things in it. Poetry and Wisdom, Gospels and Acts, Johannine literature and a few Pauline epistles

>>4421883
And? Why should that matter? Just because the man who came up with ideas was one way does not mean the one using it should follow the same creed. No one denies that science was nurtured by religion, it would be idiotic too. However, this does not somehow magically prove god's existence.

>>4421883
So you're arguing for the utility of religion, not for its truth?

>>4421893
>And? Why should that matter? Just because the man who came up with ideas was one way does not mean the one using it should follow the same creed. No one denies that science was nurtured by religion, it would be idiotic too. However, this does not somehow magically prove god's existence.

Hah, yet you are still missing the point. It was because we wanted to make the path to reach god that we discovered innovation and technological advancement.

Studying god you are studying reality and all its misteries, because knowlege is infinite and so is god.

If its not for the "Why" rather than the "How" science stagnates and no longer becomes useful to humanity

>>4421897
Nice strawman. Tho in my opinion religion is present when there is a society based on fear and ego rather than nurture and growth. When people will evolve consciously, we will get rid of religion accordingly.

For that however, we must each experience god in our own ways, so not to be pray of other system's dogmas

>>4421912
>Nice strawman.
I merely asked you a question, because it seemed that way. And from the rest of your post I see that indeed you are arguing for the utility of religion.
For that I really don't know what to say. Should we just practice a well meant hypocrisy, pretending we don't doubt God's existence, for the sake of mankind? Religion has played a part in science, yes, but do we still need it? Isn't it sufficient to want to know how the universe works, how it came to be, instead of wanting to find God? And what does wanting to find a creator have to do with the christianity rites and dogmas of today? Do these rites and dogmas help in any way?

>>4421861
>Not realizing that most scientific progress came from the Church because the public were not educated as priests/monks ect were.

>>4421663
>all religious people act the same
>all atheists act the same

This is why 4chan is such a terrible place to have a discussion. It never ends. People always have to take it personally, make it personal, lob insults, generalize entire groups of people together.

And you, the guy I quoted, you aren't the only one guilty of it, so don't think I'm singling you out. It's so blatantly obvious that it's happening, though, that I suspect there's more than a few trolls in here. If you guys aren't trolls, realize that not everyone is out to get you. Stop calling people names, stop laying blanking claims to an entire group of people. It contributes nothing to the argument.

That's what it's supposed to be about, isn't it? A debate. An argument. It's about introducing someone else to the subject, it's about presenting your argument to them in a way that they hadn't thought about it, it's about opening someone's mind. It's not about trying to be king of turd mountain, proving yourself right or some other bullshit. Your goal is to inform, not piss off. Get a fucking grip, please. For the sake of this board and yourselves.

>>4422093
> Stop calling people names, stop laying banking claims
This is all very nice but you're failing to acknowledge that the atheists are the ones who do this and then get shown for the hypocrites they are. Everyone chucks their hands in the air and has a shit fit but how else do you get them to demonstrate the lies and subversions they're full of? Not every valid point has to be made in some 'polite' debate. You're also fucking tripping if you think only atheists can chuck insults around and not get them back. How many times did you wheel your lofty appeasement out when religious opinions or posters come in for the endless abuse they get on here just for daring to wonder? Exactly. Precisely never. Get real.

>>4421861
The question is, would these same people that did all those things be christians if they were born nowadays? Back in the middle ages you were born and raised a christian, so it's no wonder so many influental and old scientists are christians. How many christian scientists are there nowadays?

>>4422144
>that the atheists are the ones who do this
So, atheists are the ones who do this, and nobody else? Atheists are solely to blame for this? Assumptions.

>how else do you get them to demonstrate the lies and subversions they're full of?
Well there are plenty of ways to engage someone without pissing them off and acting like a child. Have you tried asking them, preferably without a tone of malice or condescension?

>not every valid point has to be made in some 'polite' debate
True. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting pissed off from time to time, it's natural. It can, however, stymie your efforts to inform or persuade when both you and your audience are so obviously filled with contempt for each other. That is the point, right? To inform or persuade? Or do you just want to make someone mad?

>if you think only atheists can chuck insults around and not get them back
My point was that nobody should chuck insults around. It contributes nothing to the argument. I said this in my previous post. Also, I tried to make it clear, but let me clarify further: I'm not just addressing you, or religious people, I'm addressing everyone. Not just in this thread, but on this board. Rarely do I see an argument on here that doesn't almost immediately devolve into shit-flinging. Hell, I rarely see an argument, discussion, or debate on here that doesn't just outright begin with someone aiming to piss someone else off. That's why I suspect a lot of these people are just trolls.

>how many times did you...? Precisely never.
Uh, do we know each other? Again, I'm not singling out religious people, that was a post aimed at everyone.

If you're not a troll, then I am sorry. I don't want to piss you or anyone else off, I'm trying to convey a message, which is, calm down. That is it. I consider myself more of an atheist, after years of attempting to "find God." However, recently I've been expanding my horizons in a multitude of ways, and re-examining the notion of God and spirituality is something that interests me, because I find it so difficult to accept that a God exists. I accept that He could exist, few things are outside the realm of possibility, but it's a difficult subject for me. I'm not particularly intelligent or well-read, but I'm working on it. Unfortunately, because of the vitriol of people like the ones in this thread, it's a journey that I find I must frequently make alone. And that sucks.

>>4422268
Really, I appreciate your efforts but they're not going to resonate with me given the abuse religious people on here usually have to deal with and that I've never once seen them defended on even by so-called 'humanists' and 'relaxed atheists'.

I'm more than capable of having a debate, and I'm academically qualified to too, I just don't bother because that's not what they're interested in so singling me and my comment out or suggesting this is some sort of level playing field where the two sides are equally pitted against one another is just a waste of time in my view. When they tone it down with the arrogance and sweeping assumptions and generalisations then you can reasonably expect the same of the other side; asking anything else is just bias.

Also, if you're struggling to find some sort of 'proof' of 'God' and its 'existence' just give up now. Religion and religious ideas do not resonate with everyone and if it's something you struggle with then that's just also wasting your time.

>>4421163
Where in your serious official studies did you find out that people do not want to get into heaven because heaven is nice?

>>4420883
>>4421027
>On the Profit of Believing
http://youtu.be/8dfDDOR717k

>Is Oneness the Way out of Skepticism?
http://youtu.be/fs1MeDUgEOA

>The End of Cause and Effect: What's More Than Logic?
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/4286631