/sci/ - Science & Math

That's why I'm an agnostic. Believing that there is no God takes some faith that I cannot muster. But I respect the faith that atheists have and will not interfere.

related vid from OP's hero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=related

>>3626551

okay. but you have enough non-faith to not believe in an entity for whom there is no evidence?

>>3626551
>atheists
>Believing that there is no God
0/10 see me after class

>holding the position one holds in the absence of evidence
>with no evidence

I see.

seriously? i run into this type of argument so many time IRL especially "how do you know atheism is true" only for me to say "what do atheists assert to be true?" and only for them to say "that you know there is no god and you promote all your science"

and I'm like "wut, Im atheist because of the lack of evidence to suggest such a god exists, and scientists assert science and they have evidence"

>2011
>Implying you won't be banned for using costanza.jpg
>mfw

>>3626551
you obviously don't know wtf you're talking about

atheists don't assert "god isn't real" or "believing there isn't one" because thats just as blind as saying it does exist

what you're looking for is "the lack of evidence doesn't suggest one exists"

and by lack of evidence I mean, there is NO evidence

>>3626585
just give him a 0/10 and move on

>>3626560
>okay. but you have enough non-faith to not believe in an entity for whom there is no evidence?

There wasn't any evidence for the existence of neutrons for 99.9% of man's history. I don't know, and I'm not going to make a statement on the existence of a deity without any evidence either way.

>>3626585
>atheists don't assert "god isn't real" or "believing there isn't one" because thats just as blind as saying it does exist

No, that's not true. Atheists like Richard Dawkins state explicitly that they *know* there is no God.

The kind of belief that you're explaining is closer to agnosticism.

>>3626551
>That's why I'm an agnostic. Believing that there is no <undefined> takes some faith that I cannot muster. But I respect the faith that atheists have and will not interfere.
I ask you to define it. Some 10 years ago I might have considered myself agnostic, but eventually I started trying to define/explain to myself each unknown concept like this. Eventually I came to the conclusion that depending on how I define it, anything worth the name ``God'' is either inconsistent (impossible) or that it doesn't deserve the name (not having any useful properties or having properties humans can gain given enough time/work), and of course, in neither case it's anything worth of worship.

>2011
>Giving a shit about religion in any form
Jeez, atheists are just as annoying as religious fags.
"Hurr imma atheist imma wear like a badge of honor!"
Many scientists, in fact, labaled themselves religious, just to fit in and stop that neverending drama

come on guys , I even did the troll face

>>3626595
>yfw this is the true scientific position

>>3626595

And if you're the smartest man in Babylon, and some dumbfuck time traveler shows up and tells you about neutrons on his vague description and say-so alone, you'd be right to dismiss him. To you, this theory has as much to go on as the four elements.

So when someone presents god as a theory, they must explain how they know, why that convinced them, and how we can check it. Until then, we don't believe them. Ergo, we don't believe in god. We are atheists.

Once again /sci/ falls for this thread.

>>3626595
Things have been discovered, therefore [my] god can exist.

impressive logics..

>>3626612
No because the time traveler is still right and you're not.

>>3626600
No they don't.
They say they'd bet on it but can never know.
Stop talking out your ass. Dawkins says it multiple times that he doesn't KNOW there is no god, he thinks there isn't one and does not believe in one

>>3626595
thats different, we didn't discover quarks until 1968

are you just going to assume they didn't exist because we didn't have any evidence before hand?

and staying on my position that "I am atheist because of the lack of evidence to suggest god exists"

until you find good evidence to suggest one, I am still an atheist and when you do, I will be converted

>>3626622
>implying people like him not being removed by natural selection isn't evidence enough of god

/sci/ I am going to paraphrase a quote from the film Irobot: "You are dumbest smart thread I know"

how can you all fall sor such an obvious troll??

>>3626622
also about god

you fucking loonies think that humans are some how REALLY special and that this earth was designed for you, and you somehow have a special reason for existing the universe.

human are no different from any other animal, we exist because thats how we developed and thats how we evolved

>>3626619

Yes, he's still right. You miss the point.


Imagine we have a box. I know what is inside it. You don't. I tell you what is inside it, and so do a dozen other people. Only I am right. They are all wrong. You can't look in the box. And all I have, and all the others have, is their word on what is in the box. Are you an idiot for not believing me? Until you can check for yourself in some way, you'd be right to say 'I don't know what's in the box'. And I would have to say that you have no reason to believe me until I can actually show you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test

>>3626615
Strawman, retard.

>>3626622
> I will be converted
Why use such strong words? The best he could do is convince you that either a sufficiently powerful alien exists or there is some "Matrix Lord" simulating this world (if for example it decides to randomly edit matter in ways we deem impossible), however the chance of encountering the second type is very rare. Either way, it's hardly worth calling it a deity. At best you can acknowledge its existence if evidence shows it, but that still does not make it worship-worthy (hence why "convert" might be wrong as religions come with a full baggage of thought patterns and "acceptable" behaviors).

My bet is that the closest humanity has the chance to come to a deity is a benficial superintelligence, but then why call it a deity?

ITT: people who don't know what atheism is

the only real people who understand
it are
>>3626585
>>3626622

>>3626636
samefag detected

>>3626644
samefags gonna samefag

>>3626636
I wouldn't make any claims about what's in the box without at least trying to understand the range of possibilities of what can be in the box. Asserting a belief about the unknown isn't very smart. The best we can do is make certain bets and make sure they are consistent with what we know.

>>3626643
fine then, let me rephrase that

I accept things as true when they are discovered, asserted with evidence and show a logical progressive feature that is only found with other true statements of observation

ITT:

Superstitious Pro-christian mind-acrobatics.

>>3626651
>Still doesn't understand the word atheism
hurr durr.
That's his point. We have no reason to believe it so we take the stance that there is no reason to believe it. We don't "believe this is nothing in the box" and we don't "believe he's lying/telling the truth".

>>3626651

So... atheism?

If you're not asserting that there is a god, then you don't think there is one. Until a decent claim is brought forward, and stands up to scrutiny, we don't buy into any of them. If we don't buy into any of the claims about gods, then we are atheists.

Saying there could be a god is not the same as saying there are good reasons to think there is a god. Of course there COULD be a god. But it's not like we have some evidence either way. We have no evidence that a god exists at all.

Go learn some greek roots you negro.

>>3626671
>We have no evidence that a god exists at all.

Prove there's no evidence.

>>3626677
I'll one up you
prove there isn't

>>3626677
All religious texts are wrong

>>3626671
you made an illogical jump from "the lack of evidence..." to "THERE COULD BE HOLY FUCK HUR DUR YOU DON'T KNOW THERE IS OR ISN'T"

where then some one would say this
>>3626572

>>3626680
There isn't what.

>>3626677
>>3626680
>not the way science and logic works

I HAVE AN INVISIBLE FRIEND DAVE, I CAN ONLY SEE HIM AND TALK TO HIM PROVE HE DOESN'T REAL

>>3626686
there isn't no evidence

Atheists, religious people - both the same shit.

I state, I cannot possibly know or come to know within my lifetime, therefore it is utterly pointless to even ask the question. There is no evidence of nothing because modern or future science will be incapable of figuring out what came prior to the big bang, and prior to that. So why even bother yourself with it?

That you can disprove personal gods thought up by men, well, good on ya. That primitive shit's got to go. No one man has any knowledge of the sort, they're full of shit anyway.

>>3626685
Prove it.

>>3626683
>you made an illogical jump from "the lack of evidence..." to "THERE COULD BE HOLY FUCK HUR DUR YOU DON'T KNOW THERE IS OR ISN'T"
>no evidence either way
>not knowing if there is or isn't something in the box is illogical
You literally typed an extra chromosome into your dna

>>3626692

Nice attitude hermano, why are you even here? Science is not for all, thats clear

>>3626671
I'm >>3626651, but not the other people you're answering to.
I would say that yes, atheism could fit my position, although my position is more subtle, I don't accept claims for existence/non-existence of truly ill-defined concepts, especially if they cannot be reached in obvious ways. When a definition is reached, I use reasoning and my current knowledge/epistemiology to classify the concept and can either claim that "it exists", "it doesn't exist because it's logically impossible", "it doesn't exist because there is physical evidence against it", "it isn't worth the title, or, there are better names fitting that definition", or "current knowledge is insufficient to make any claim for or against the existence of this". Hence I am a-*-istic for certain concepts, others have no belief value assigned to at all and others have either positive or negative belief values (sometimes assigned probabilistically).

>>3626696
I'm still waiting on you to prove there isn't no evidence

>>3626696

Well that one is easy really, just pick out all the contradictions for starters. Then start with creationism, once we get to evolution wonder why the fuck allah/god etc would even need to intervene. He/she/it made the universe completely self sufficient including life which makes it ridiculous for him/her/it to consider mucking about with his own creation.

Thus far you could state humanity is completely insignificant, if we fuck up and make ourselves go extinct a few billions years from now there'll probably be another self conscious lifeform to take over. Easy.

>>3626710
Isn't no evidence of what?

>>3626715
prove there isn't no evidence that there is no god at all

>>3626703

elaborate

>>3626714
Doesn't disprove anything.

WHICH GOD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AND WHY?

>>3626723

Your pesimism over the potential capabilities to discover and explain events prior to the bigbang and other unsolved issues is not a nice attitude for someone interested in science

>>3626734
I dunno. You tell me. This entire thread is one colossal mindfuck.

>>3626734
EK and because

>>3626734

I believe in Plato's God. My evidence for 'him' is that natural law does seem to be universal.

>>3626733

Tells you that religious texts do not make sense. Besides, why would a deity guide some insignificant tribe in the stone age? He's willing to help the jews flee the egyptians and have muslims conquer all of arabland, yet when WW2 starts (comparatively a MUCH LARGER and much more important happening than any of the biblical/islamic shit), he's completely absent. That while his entire creation is under threat of extinction, especially his previously favored race; ze jews.

>>3626748
>natural law does seem to be universal.
¿que?

>>3626742

It is pessimistic for a reason. We can't even send people to mars yet without making sure they're not dead when they arrive, how in the actual fuck would you expect us to figure out THE UNIVERSE within your lifetime?

>>3626692
another who doesn't understand

Don't live with "I simply don't understand it, it could or couldn't be" this thought should only exist in philosophy but in science and evidence and logic it is different

using only what we know we can say that "it is ok with not knowing beyond our structure of understanding" but we can also say "I reject suggested theories and hypotheses that don't support the idea of a subject that is already explained very well

basically when it comes to god, you have to define it, I would come to generally define it as a creator of the universe and everything in it, much like the christian god

we have an Idea for how man came about and how old our earth is and how the universe started, with LOADS of supportin evidence, what is ironic is treating creationism like a "new" hypothesis it tries to replace our already established theories with its own (often wrong) crap

>>3626751
Hitler sure lost, didn't he?

>>3626765
Godwin's Law.

>>3626759

No, you're simply nitpicking one definition of god and stating through empirical evidence that he doesn't exist.

Well great but that's just one out of a billion. If we were to add up all concepts of the various gods and try find the similarities you're just going to be left with one thing, being that it created the universe.

I don't think it's a giant stretch to believe a sentient being could have caused the big bang. Nor is it to believe it came about through chance. Neither option at this point in time can be fact checked though so they're both just as valid, really.

>>3626765

Well sure as shit not because of god's involvement now did he?

>>3626779
that's all fine and good but it doesn't stop you being a faget

>>3626758

Why in my lifetime? I took thousands of years for humans to figure out the first laws of motion for the universe (Newton). Unless you are implying that we will be incapable of progressing because of something related to politics and economics, I don't see what the problem is

>>3626779
WOW ISN'T WEIRD THAT I DIDN'T EVEN IMPLY THAT GOD DIDN'T EXIST AND YOU JUST WENT OFF AND SAID I DID

YOU FUCKING REPUBLICAN GO DIE

>>3626797

No you're the homo.

america is very retarded 65% of americans believe the bible in a literal way lolol moses opened the red sea lol

sage goes in every field

>>3626801
>ron paul

>>3626794
It's impossible to prove or disprove God's involvement there.

>>3626753

yep. so the the Universe is an orderly place, for which mathematically descriptive laws seem to hold.

>>3626814
hitler was an atheist therfore god had no power over him
Lost again, religioushits
>>3626810
Prove it

Oh for fuck sake /sci/, when will you decide to stop falling for these troll threads?

>Atheism
>Faith

>>3626801

Well as I'm sure as shit we won't uncover all the secrets and reason of the universe in my lifetime I feel it's pointless to ponder what came before the big bang (god or not etc). I'll most certainly be dead by the time they find out.

>>3626803

I read over your post again and feel that I referenced the wrong person, this thread is a clusterfuck.

What the fuck did you imply though?

>>3626779

It's not that it's a stretch. There could easily be a god. It's just utterly unfounded in a general sense, and the sources are inaccessible and unverifiable, and the individual claims have been shown to be false time and again. That doesn't mean the next claim will be shown to be false, or the next source will be occluded. It just means that, aside from the conviction of those who believe in it, there is nothing that can distinguish god from a fiction.

Explain why you think that there is a god, or how you know that there is a god, or remain an atheist like the rest of us.

>replying to religious troll threads on /sci/
>2011

ISHYGDDT

>72 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Never mind.

God may or may not exist. You do not know and shouldn't act like you do know.

/thread

>>3626827

you say clusterfuck like it is bad thing

>>3626831

>be atheist

I agree.

>>3626831

WHICH god doesn't exist that I shouldn't act like I think I know doesn't exist?

>>3626825
hitler was catholic, the belts and buckles around his soldiers had biblical verses

he mentioned god in Mein Khampy Chair tons of times

>>3626829
>the individual claims have been shown to be false time and again

Prove it.

>>3626845
All of them
Except EK
She is most certainly a god and most certainly exists
prove me wrong

>>3626845
Why do atheists always change the subject when they can't answer this question? YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION. DEAL WITH IT.

Agnosticism is the only scientific way to go.

>be atheist
>die
>turns out God exists and I am on heavens gate
>repent
>???
>salvation

It's that easy

>>3626851

Stalin was nearly became an Eastern Orthodox priest.

>>3626851
>falling for atheist propaghandi
typical religious fag

>>3626853
So how does it feel to be agnostic about the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and pink invisible unicorns?

>>3626829

I don't care for individual claimants of divine knowledge or religions thought up by man which give "god" some personality and flavor. They're modern day mythology, really. Fairy tales.

It's just that if we talk the origins of the universe the concept of a creator is as valid as -any- concept. Either you reject all of them or say "I don't know".

I choose the latter.

>>3626853
>implying agnosticism is a stance and not a degree of atheism/theism
angsty teen who's too hipster to not believe in god so changes definitions to suit himself detected

>>3626849

I think I could believe in EK if i saw her tits.

>>3626852

>Prove it.

You're just gonna say any mistake is actually a metaphor.

>>3626853

And yet agnostic theism is;

I don't know for sure if god exists or not. Oh, I know Zeus doesn't exist, don't be retarded. I know Allah doesn't exist, come on now. I'm talking about Yahweh. I don't know for sure if Yahweh exists or not ;-)

>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853
>>3626853

>>3626874
>samefagging instead of justifying your retarded statement

>>3626853

agnosticism is for sissies.

Duke didn't win that game in '92

>>3626864
What exactly is metaphorical?

>>3626864

>You're just gonna say any mistake is actually a metaphor.

That's pretty much all they have. Being religious means never admitting you're wrong about any aspect of your beliefs, ever, and making increasingly wild excuses in order to keep the facade from collapsing.

>>3626891
Excuses about what?

>>3626894
wetting your bed past 8years old

>>3626868

You choose the latter, and you agree with 99% of self described atheists in that regard. Dismissing the claims of people who say they know that the answer is god is not quite the same as claiming that the answer is something else in particular.

Saying that you can and do know that THAT god doesn't exist, and saying that you can't and don't know whether ANY god exists IS atheism. In practice.

If it doesn't match the dictionary definition, well, then every atheist in the world should cease referring to themselves in that way.

>>3626891
Agnosticfag here. Why do atheists get buttmad if a Christian tells them a religious text is metaphorical? I'm sure they understand the stuff better than you and me.

I'm agnostic about rainbow-pooping unicorns because nobody can't prove they don't exist.

>>3626915
>implying

Someone post the 'Agnostics: Reasonable up to a point' pic, it sums it up pretty well

>>3626894

Excuses for the incorrect statements made by those who claim to be divinely inspired. If it's really divinely inspired, surely it should be accurate; so you must explain why it is impossible to tell true revelation from false revelation. Or, you must attempt to twist the words until they can mean whatever you want them to mean.


But no, the central problem with apologists is that they have no way to tell those people who claim to be talking for god and are telling the truth, and those who claim to be talking for god and are lunatics or liars. At least, no method that produces consistent, unbiased results.

>>3626926
Implying what?

>>3626915

>Why do atheists get buttmad if a Christian tells them a religious text is metaphorical? I'm sure they understand the stuff better than you and me.

I'm not buttmad, just identifying it as a rhetorical trick. Obviously much of the Bible is metaphorical, but there's also much that isn't, and it's pretty obvious to distinguish between the two. Poetry and allegory are written as such. Historical accounts are written as such. My problem arises when Christians decided to declare some parts metaphorical which clearly aren't for the sole purpose of defending the credibility of scripture in arguments. It's deeply dishonest.

>>3626928
>bases beliefs on shitty Reddit comics

ISHYGDDT

>>3626904

Every Atheist I have met claims to know for certain "god" doesn't exist. I find this ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands, millions of not billions of different concepts for the existence of a god. I'm quite certain no atheist has looked in ALL of them and figured none of them make sense. It's more of a popular label for idiots, truly a new religion if you will.

No, I stand by my choice in saying I cannot know, I will not know, hence I won't deny or confirm any existence of the sorts. Yes, certain religions and their deities do not make sense and are easily falsfiable. I however don't see that as an argument for atheism.

>>3626928
I know you're asking for a different one, can only find this one, though, which I hope is equally amusing.

>>3626915
Because it directly contradicts that they previously/their book stated that it is not metaphorical
>agonsticfag
Oh I see, you're a retarded christfag trying to give yourself credit.
What you're referring to as Agnostic, is in fact, agnostic-(a)theist or as I've recently taken to calling it, Agnosticism plus (A)theism. Agnosticism is not a position unto itself, but rather a degree of certainty in a (a)theistic system made useful by the Agnostic skepticism, uncertainties and non-gnosticism components comprising a full religious stance as defined by wikipedia

>>3626932
>My problem arises when Christians decided to declare some parts metaphorical which clearly aren't

So what exactly parts are metaphorical and what aren''t?

>>3626915

>Why do atheists get buttmad if a Christian tells them a religious text is metaphorical? I'm sure they understand the stuff better than you and me.

I'm not buttmad, just identifying it as a rhetorical trick. Obviously much of the Bible is metaphorical, but there's also much that isn't, and it's pretty obvious to distinguish between the two. Poetry and allegory are written as such. Historical accounts are written as such. My problem arises when Christians decided to declare some parts metaphorical which clearly aren't for the sole purpose of defending the credibility of scripture in arguments. It's deeply dishonest, and it's easy to simply conclude that they're slippery liars in general because of this behavior.

>>3626692
Extreme atheism: Smug remarks about how religious people are dumb.
Extreme religious faith: terrorism.

They sure are the same thing all right.

>>3626915

Because their choice of which texts are metaphorical and which are revelation is arbitrary, political, and mercurial.

We get buttmad because it's an example of the whole argument, religious apologists don't define their positions or arguments in a consistent and honest manner. They rely on sympathetic audiences for most of their arguments, and they defend positions they never present in other cases.

>>3626938
>Every Atheist I have met claims to know for certain "god" doesn't exist.
You've never met richard dawkin and your 14 year old emo brother doesn't count

>Refresh /sci/ 4 times after looking through threads each time
>This one is at the top every time
>invisible sticky glue composed of getting trolled

>2011
>not understanding the definition of agnostic or atheist
>not understanding that you can and probably are both

>>3626947
Don't make me bring up Pol Pot and Stalin.

>>3626948

>So what exactly parts are metaphorical and what aren''t?

The Bible is a big book so I cannot answer that all in one post. But as an example. Joshua and Numbers contains detailed accounts of a divinely commanded genocide against all of the cultures indigenous to the promised land. God explicitly tells the israelites to leave nothing alive which breathes. Precise figures are given for how many soldiers, how many units, etc. and in no way does it read like a metaphor.

Yet time and time again when confronted with this part of the Bible, Christians first say "Only the New Testament counts", until I remind them it's the same god from the OT to the NT and that they are still in the awkward position of openly worshiping a genocider, at which point they insist that entire record of genocide was a metaphor.

>>3626961
Both of whom were doing what they did in the name of atheism, right?

>>3626947
Yeah, I'm sick of these atheistic extremists who actually write fucking books.

>>3626938

The god that religious people are talking about. The god described in the bible does not exist, and that is the god most people mean when they say god. The deist god could exist, but there is no evidence to support that assertion. This may be the only god that apologists ever defend, but it's not what they are talking about most of the time.

Colloquially, when something has no evidence to support it, we say that we dismiss it, we don't think it is so.

It's Santa Claus gods and Teapot gods. I don't believe in Santa Claus because I know better. I don't believe in Russel's Teapot because it's asinine until shown otherwise.

>>3626961

>Don't make me bring up Pol Pot and Stalin.

Those were Communists. We're not Communists, or defending Communism. If you insist on conflating historical Communism with modern secular humanism, I will consider you and all theists identical with historical Nazis, as Naziism was expressly Christian.

You cut the shit, and so will I.

>>3626961
>Don't make me be an obvious troll.
Fixed.

>>3626963
Actually there's very good reason to suppose some of that was taken out of context. Not necessarily metaphorical, but out of context. What I mean of course is that Jewish writers tended to grossly exaggerate the amount of men in battles, taking what were in reality around 300-3000 to 300,000 men.

>christians will never feel the soft penis of a young femboy sliding between their cheeks

>>3626961

Opposing absolute authorities and their inevitable abuse comprises both secular and religious totalitarianism.

Believing or not believing in god is irrelevant to that.

>>3626976

So the book is not a good description of this god? Okay, so let them present their source of knowledge about this god.

>>3626972
>>Those were Communists. We're not Communists, or defending Communism

None of the religious people in this thread are terrorists or defending terrorism. But if an athiest brings up "HURR DURR RELIGION = TERRORISM" as >>3626947 did then expect religious people to bring up communism.

>>3626972
Not all atheists are communist, but almost all communists are atheists.

>If you insist on conflating historical Communism with modern secular humanism

The two are essentially the same thing with detail differences.

Spoilers

99% of the people who call themselves "Agnostic" are either deists or, more likely, atheists.

>>3626990
>extreme
It's like I'm really learning to read!

>>3626977

Says you.

>>3626993
Yeah? I'm an atheist capitalist. Eat it.

>>3626551
>believing there is no god
>not believing in god

2 different attitudes to god. The second is atheist. The first is the strawman that trolls like to build up so they can burn it down with ease

>>3626990
>Extreme religious faith: terrorism.
>HURR DURR RELIGION = TERRORISM
>Extreme religious faith = religion
ohyou.jpg

>>362698
I said nothing about God, only that Jewish writers tended to exaggerate the size of armies in the OT.

>>3626988
Since when did I mention God anywhere in >>3626976?

>>3626998
>I can say whatever shit I want because I said "extreme"

Do you think communists are not extreme atheists? They murdered priests and Nuns by the thousands for their religion. Extremism is terrible no matter what side it's on. Don't let your personal belief in atheism blind you to the actual murders that have been committed by atheist extremists.

>>3627025
The total body count also vastly exceeds that of any religious killings.

>>3627021
>Actually there's very good
>there's very good
>very good
>good
>g - o - o - d
>g - o - d
Checkmate

>>3627021

You mentioned that the book was written by people who were not reliable record keepers. Since it is the source of knowledge about god, at least according to Jews and Christians, how can we know those parts are accurate?

>>3627025
>atheism
>religion
Ahahahahaha
Good one. Cry moar, religiousfag.

>>3627025
>communism
>extreme atheism
0/10 apply yourself

>>3627025
0/10
I lol'd

Atheism, according to what I've read is the disbelief in God due to a lack of evidence.

Agnosticism seems to be a mindset that refuses to take a stance on subjects without evidence either way. But it can be pushed to stupid degrees as shown by posts like:
>>3626865

Isn't there anything that takes a purely agnotistic view only on the existence of god(s)?

>>3627025
1/10 because people will reply

>>3627042
>You mentioned that the book was written by people who were not reliable record keepers

Or maybe they purposely exaggerated it for various reasons. Please note that historians in the modern sense did not exist then.

>>3626968

Well then I assume you reject any notion concerning the origins of the universe? Because absolutely none of them have any shred of evidence.

And that leaves a bit of a dilemma if you dismiss any and every cause for the universe's existence.

>>3627048
Agnostic theism
Agnostic atheism
Or, basically, 5% of theists or 9% of atheists

>>3627042

>
You mentioned that the book was written by people who were not reliable record keepers. Since it is the source of knowledge about god, at least according to Jews and Christians, how can we know those parts are accurate?

With this approach you can make the argument that their numbers were off. But somehow I don't think, with a straight face, you can claim that they mistakenly recorded an entire genocidal campaign. "Oh man, what a typo".

>>3627055
90%*, even

>>3627031
Okay, I'll entertain this. What's the total body count?

>>3627058
>But somehow I don't think, with a straight face, you can claim that they mistakenly recorded an entire genocidal campaign.

Depends. There were probably some atrocities committed in the invasion of Canaan because that was simply how wars were fought then. You invaded a city and killed everyone in it.

>>3627064
the complete number of bodies when added up

>>3627042

>You mentioned that the book was written by people who were not reliable record keepers. Since it is the source of knowledge about god, at least according to Jews and Christians, how can we know those parts are accurate?

With this approach you can make the argument that their numbers were off. But somehow I don't think, with a straight face, you can claim that they mistakenly recorded an entire genocidal campaign. "Oh man, what a typo".

It's the same tactic holocaust deniers use to try and salvage the tenability of national socialism by finding ways to reduce the number of victims, as if it makes a significant difference in how Naziism is viewed.

>>3627031

Hardly relevant to whether god exists or not.

And since we always only claimed to be opposed to absolute authorities, and mindless acquiescence to this authority, demonstrating that communism was capable of atrocities is agreeing with us.

Religion (and communism) is stupid because it invests in the hands of a small group a disproportionate amount of power over a larger group. We oppose things like this because they directly hurt people, and we should all know better than to put this kind of power in someones hands.

Religion (and other superstitions) is also stupid because it makes claims about the existence of a thing that they either can't know exists, or that we should all know doesn't exist. We oppose this because in the case of religion it is used to justify the exercise of authority (and this is bad for reasons stated earlier), and also because it is irrational.

>>3627050
>>3627046
>>3627045
>>3627039

I know your analpanied because you're atheists and therefore don't want to admit that anyone who's an atheist could have ever done anything wrong but atheists have killed religious people for not being atheists. This doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. But it shows that extreme versions of any belief can be dangerous. Which you refuse to admit because you want to mindlessly demonize the opposition.

>>3627070
Okay. What's that number?

>>3627073
I don't think that many people were killed because populations in ancient Palestine simply weren't big enough to kill hundreds of thousands.

>>3627082
They were not killed "in the name of atheism."

>>3627092
They were. They got killed by leftist atheist forces in Spain who saw them as symbols of the old feudal order they were trying to overthrow

>>3627082
>mfw he seriously thinks communism is extreme atheism
>or any kind of atheism at all

>>3627073

I'm not the one who claims that the books are accurate.

It's obviously just a book of the history, the poetry, the mythology and the laws of a desert tribe. With all the embellishments and exaggerations one might expect from such a tome.

And the new testament is obviously just a book of fan fiction written about a man who may or may not have lived a generation before the authors. With all the embellishments and exaggerations one might expect from such a tome.

>>3627082

Hey, at least we're not Nazi genociders like all Christians are, since Naziism was expressly Christian.

Why do you want to exterminate nonwhites so badly?

>>3627100
Challenge me to find any communist of note who wasn't an atheist.

>>3627097
>who saw them as symbols of the old feudal
Which has nothing to do with atheism.

>>3627097
>got killed by atheists
>must be in the name of atheism
We don't associate hitler with christianity even though he was a christian (and some of you are fucking stupid enough to associate him to killing in the name of atheism)

>>3627097
[Citation needed]

>>3627108
Everything. Religion was seen as unscientific superstition that had to be destroyed to build the new society.

>>3627104
>he thinks association = caustion
Many communists are atheist, it tends to work out better that way, but communism is not atheism and is never (in any notable scale) done in the name of atheism (hurr dur stalin. No, fuck off, that's wrong)

>>3627112
I'm not even going to bother getting into Hitler's beliefs. I've already done it before and it's very boring and pointless.

>>3627103
Let me repeat the part where I said:

>extreme versions of any belief can be dangerous

The Nazis were abominable. Communists were abominable. Claiming that only Christian extremists as can be dangerous, as >>3626947 did, is silly.

>>3627115
>[citation needed]

>>3627115
>Religion was seen as unscientific superstition that had to be destroyed to build the new society.
Which has nothing to do with atheism.

>>3627125
Fundamental part of Marxism.

>>3627102

>I'm not the one who claims that the books are accurate.

I'm not the one who worships a genocider god. Whether or not it really happened, it's canonical. It's right there in the Bible as something god commanded, and if you worship that god then that's your problem, not mine.

>It's obviously just a book of the history, the poetry, the mythology and the laws of a desert tribe. With all the embellishments and exaggerations one might expect from such a tome.

Hey, I agree. But if someone's a Christian, it obligates them to believe it. Otherwise they're in the wrong religion, or indefensibly picking and choosing which parts to believe for selfish, dishonest reasons.

>And the new testament is obviously just a book of fan fiction written about a man who may or may not have lived a generation before the authors. With all the embellishments and exaggerations one might expect from such a tome.

Are you even a Christian? If so, you're not representative of Christianity.

>177 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

no /sci/, just stop

>>3627129
Marxism != Atheism.

>>3627123
Communism isn't a religion and has nothing to do with religion.

>>3627104

Communism is an ideology. Atheism is a position.

Communism, as usually defined, holds atheism as one of it's tenets. It also holds to a lot of other stuff. It sees religion as a rival to it's goals, and so is filled with anticlerical rhetoric, which often boiled over into outright hostility to religion. That's communism. Not atheism, since atheism is just a position on a single question.

>>3627126
Find any atheist who doesn't share the same opinion that religion is outmoded superstition that has to go in order to build the new society.

>>3627129
That's not a citation. I see you concede the point.

>>3627131

I think we may have become confused about which anon is which.

I'm one of the atheists posting in this thread. Apologies for any confusion.

>>3627134
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

"Our program necessarily requires the propagation of atheism"

-- Lenin

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

-- Marx

"Religion is poison"

-- Mao

>>3627140
Find a christian who doesn't believe in prayer.
All christians are muslims

>>3627140
I don't. I believe religion is silly, but killing people for not believing what I do is more the religious side of things.

>>3627115
hmm. I agree with this. (except for the killing)
maybe you're on to something here.

>>3627140
>Find any atheist who doesn't share the same opinion that religion is outmoded superstition that has to go in order to build the new society.
You're talking to one right now.

>>3627131
Even most Jews don't take everything in the OT 100% literally.

>>3627122

>I'm not even going to bother getting into Hitler's beliefs. I've already done it before and it's very boring and pointless.

Hitler wasn't a christian, I agree. That doesn't stop Naziism from being expressly Christian. Every or nearly every actual Nazi soldier or officer manning the ovens was Christian. To everyone involved except Hitler and perhaps a few other high ranking officers it was a Christian party.

>>3627160
No, but in general they do tend to have left-leaning politics.

>>3627149
Dogs have hair.
Humans have hair
Humans are dogs! omg!

>>3627149

So... all atheists are marxists?

>>3627149
And none of those require that any action done by a communist have to do with his atheism, just that atheism goes along for the ride because it's superior

>>3627135
Communists are examples of atheists who killed Christians because they were Christian and not atheist.

Their existence does not mean that all atheists are bad. Obviously, they are not. All it shows is that like with Christians, atheist extremists who killed people for having the wrong religion did exist. Which /sci/ seems to steadfastly deny, because they cannot separate their personal beliefs from statements of fact.

>>3627158
They didn't allow practicing Christians in the SS.

>>3627149
Leninism != Marxism

Marx said nothing about killing religious people, and you're committing a logical fallacy by saying that communism is an inherent part of atheism. Extreme atheism != communism.

And lolmao.

>>3627171
No True Scotsman.

>>3627168
Communists are examples of people who do not believe in a capatilistic or anarchaical society.
Some communists are people who were corrupted by the positions of power they were put in because of the underlying flaws of communism

>>3627149

>Find any atheist who doesn't share the same opinion that religion is outmoded superstition that has to go in order to build the new society.

You know, when you lie and blame Naziism on us, conflate us with totalitarian Communists, and weasel word your way out of acknowledging obvious factual errors in the Bible, it doesn't exactly help your case. Maybe religion is an outmoded superstition that has to go. Maybe Communists were right about that one thing. Hitler believed the sky to be blue. Does that make one Hitler if they acknowledge the color of the sky?

What happens to religion depends mainly on the behavior of the religious and how you're viewed in retrospect when atheists gain control of society. Give that some thought.

>>3627175
But Scotsmen are puppy-kicking atheists.

>>3627170
Proof?
The church made hitlers birthday a national religious holiday, up there with easter and christmas

If Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his crimes, then Torquemada's religion had nothing to do with the Inquisition.

>>3627162
That's 'cause conservatives are generally dumb.

>>3627168
>All it shows is that like with Christians, atheist extremists who killed people for having the wrong religion did exist.
But their atheism had nothing to do with their reasons for killing - because there's is no possible way to come to the conclusion to kill someone because of atheism.
Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, "they killed in the name of their mustaches!"

By the way, Jews did WTC in the name of agnosticism. So stop feeling superior, agnostics, you're murderers too.

>>3627184
And you didn't hear how the Nazis tried to remove the religious connotations of Christmas and Easter and turn them into secular festivals.

>>3627162

That does seem to be so.

But there is nothing about communism implicit in atheism. No more than knowing someone believes in god can tell you for sure that they are, say, Muslim, or even religious. They could be deist, or a pantheist, or whatever flavor of theist you like. So if theist /= Muslim, then atheist /= marxist, even though Muslim implies theism and marxism implies atheism.

>>3627185
Stalin didn't kill people in the name of atheism, though.

>>3627170

>They didn't allow practicing Christians in the SS.

That doesn't change the validity of my point. Naziism was expressly Christian and most Nazis were Christians.

>>3627191
>not being part of the mustachio murderer masterrace

>>3627191
>mustache-hating atheist detected
If mustaches don't exist, why do you hate them?

>>3627194
Still waiting on your proof.
Preferably that isn't from www.omgatheistsruinedtheworldgodisgreat.com

>>3627149

So you are saying that if Stalin had secretly remained a Georgian Orthodox Christian, he wouldn't have been a vicious psychopath?

>>3627100
mfw you're too young to remember the soviet union, the killing fields, chairman mao, and dear leader

>>3627199
Totally missed my point. Why would you exclude Christians from the SS if you're one yourself?

>>3627185
>If Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his crimes, then Torquemada's religion had nothing to do with the Inquisition.
Nope.
There ARE verses in the bible that supports murder, rape, stoning, etc. You might say they are taken out of context or misinterpreted - but the difference is atheism has no book AT ALL, there's NOTHING to support ANY action at all taken in the "name of atheism".

>>3627185
And yet it was religious incredulity that allowed Torquemeda to express his evil nature, and revolutionary fervor that allowed Stalin to express HIS evil nature.

So we're left back at; no matter what the justification, we should not allow people to attain positions of power without oversight.

>>3627168

You're being unfair, though. You don't consider Naziism an example of Christian extremism, yet you consider Communism an example of atheist extremism. Naziism was as Christian as Communism was atheistic. If you want to make the case that Communism counts against atheism, you must accept the same of Naziism and Christianity. But you won't. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

>>3627210
http://www.usmbooks.com/nazi_advent_calendar.html

Why do atheists deny that they have faith? I'm an atheist and I'm not ashamed to say that I have faith. I believe in Darwin and that Dawkins is his prophet, and I read The God Delusion everyday.

>>3627215
>mfw that made no sense whatsoever
The date I tore my mothers vagina to shreds (besides yesterday) has nothing to with the fact that communism is a political ideology and it's only link to atheism is that communists tend to lean towards secularism

ITT: Christians wail and screech about how atheists killed them, not realizing their behavior in this thread is a perfect example of why it was necessary.

Seriously, do you never stop and realize what horrible, insufferable faggots you are?

>>3627218
But there were also a lot of people in the Church who found Torquemada's behavior appalling. He also was so hated in Spain that he had to travel with an armed bodyguard.

>>3627222
holy fuck, dude, do you deny that stalin promoted in the soviet union the "fact" that there is no God? and banned all bibles, etc., etc.???

totalitarianism gets rid of the same things, over and over again: worship of God; free press; private ownership of land; private ownership of weapons.

lrn2tyrrany

>this thread
jesus christ, religiousfags are the biggest fucking trolls in the world. the idea that any of you believe you have special knowledge about the workings of the universe is hilarious.

>>3627191
>>But their atheism had nothing to do with their reasons for killing

I'm not sure what you mean. They killed religious people because they were not atheists. If the communists had instead been (for example) Jewish instead of atheist, I'm sure they would have killed non-Jews instead of non-athiests. But the same could be said for any religious murderers.

>>3627230
wrong

communists worship, and promote the worship of, the state

and it is a jealous bitch

>>3627237
Again, the fact that he supported atheism does not mean his reasons for killing were atheistic.
You're going from point a) to point z) appendix 6

>>3627226

That's silly though. As a Christian I know dawkins and the rest aren't the true prophets. Hitler was the true prophet. Christianity is truly about the supremacy of the white race and out ongoing struggle to exterminate the inferior mud races.

>>3627222
Of course I will not because Nazism was only Christian in the imagination of the Dawkins brigade.

Can't we all just get along? christfags are fine in my books, following (or trying to) the teachings of Jesus is something good

>>3626822
Is Plato's god merely the Level 4 Multiverse (Tegmark's definition, which is basically: "All consistent mathematical structures exist (physically).", this would seem self-evident as consistent mathematical structures obviously exist mathematically (are not trivial), but the physical bit merely means that they may contain conscious observers which would recognize the world as physical (makes sense).
But why call universal relations which can hold everywhere (such as computation being universal, which results you could replicate any axiomatic system in it through various theorem provers) as anything more than that? Why call it a deity when it's just unchageable relations? ( A more constrained form would be the Universal Dovetailer which only talks about the computable and doesn't go to higher ordinals).

I would say a belief in such a multiverse is the simplest possible explanation for 'why we exist', but at the same time this makes us as equals to any other possible (but finite) thing that can exist, which essentially means that beliefs in deities is pointless (either they have similar possibilities as us, or they are merely more intelligent; in no case are they omnipotent in the sense that they could change what statements are true in a consistent formal system, and given that, no more can they affect independent worlds which exist as pure math (we can assume ours is like this), however they could of course view the structure by simulating it and maybe even performing changes to it, in which case they would be now looking at a different object).

>>3627239
>They killed religious people because they were not atheists
Since fucking when? You had best be providing citations for these claims.
And
"stalin was atheist so he killed people for atheism so there" is not a fucking argument

>>3627245
It was because they thought religion had to go to build the new society, a view all the hardcore atheists share.

>>3627249
>fully endorsed by the the catholic church
>it only happened if you believe in dawkins
0/10

>>3627233
>>ITT: Christians wail and screech about how atheists killed them, not realizing their behavior in this thread is a perfect example of why it was necessary.

HAHA Oh wow.

"Only the weak-minded can believe in a theistic god. Religion is for dumbasses."
-- Albert Einstein

>>3627236
>But there were also a lot of people in the Church who found Torquemada's behavior appalling. He also was so hated in Spain that he had to travel with an armed bodyguard.
They may very well be the case, but fact of the matter is that some people do interpret holy books and come to the conclusion that for example blowing themselves up and killing 100 people is a good thing.
There's NO comparison to be done with atheism, since there are ZERO commands, ZERO manifests, ZERO "ultimate truths", ZERO holy books.
So, you cannot say that any action taken by anyone is in the "name of atheism" - other than the non-belief in gods / because there exists no such logical path.

>>3627254
They made an all-out attempt to destroy religion in the SU during the 1930s. Thousands were killed or imprisoned because of their beliefs.

>>3627255

>It was because they thought religion had to go to build the new society, a view all the hardcore atheists share.

Are you oblivious to the fact that your behavior in this thread proves it to be true? You're a thoroughly unpleasant, dishonest, insufferable people.

>>3627255
>because they thought religion had to go to build the new society
That made as much sense as my grandmother asking stalin if the dolphin was kirby

>>3627258
Uh, where exactly did the Pope get up and say "YEAH, HITLER RULES! KILL ALL THEM GOSHDAMN J00Z! XD XD XD"

>>3627245
so, when an atheist tyrant murders tens of millions of people, specifically everybody that did not "fit" in his communist/atheist union, he gets a pass?

but the 100,000 or so dead in the crusades is proof positive religion is evil?


lol wtf

>>3627254
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War

Pic is Saint Innocencio of Mary Immaculate killed by leftists in the Asturias Uprising in 1934 before he was about to say Mass because he chose to defy the leftists prohibition on religious instruction in school.

>>3627278
Probably around the time he made his birthday a religious holiday

>>3627268
[citation needed]

>>3627268

>They made an all-out attempt to destroy religion in the SU during the 1930s. Thousands were killed or imprisoned because of their beliefs.

Yes, because they kept acting like you. They made any sort of improved society impossible. Ultimately Communism as an economic model was doomed, but it could only be tried after the howling retard christians could be moved out of the way.

>>3627239
>I'm not sure what you mean. They killed religious people because they were not atheists.
There's no "atheism commandment" to kill non-atheists, so their reasons for killing non-atheists must have been from something else.

>>3627279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#The_Soviet_Union

>>3627279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
>>The state was committed to the destruction of religion[2][3], and to this effect it destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept[4][5].

>>3627283

>so, when an atheist tyrant murders tens of millions of people, specifically everybody that did not "fit" in his communist/atheist union, he gets a pass?

So Communism was extreme atheism, but you deny that Naziism was extreme Christianity?

>but the 100,000 or so dead in the crusades is proof positive religion is evil?

This is a prime example of religious dishonesty. You're claiming only 100,000 have EVER been killed for religious reasons? Shit like this is why nobody takes inferior religious garbage creatures seriously.

>>3627288
Dude, quit giving the Christfags what they want to hear. That had jack all to do with atheism and you know it.

>>3627283
>so, when an atheist tyrant murders tens of millions of people, specifically everybody that did not "fit" in his communist/atheist union, he gets a pass?
Communism/Stalinism does not get a pass, atheism does.

>but the 100,000 or so dead in the crusades is proof positive religion is evil?
Yes, since you can find verses in the bible to support it. If Christians want to condemn those actions, go ahead and rip out all the evil shit from the bible, make a new one and declare it as canon.

>>3627295

>>The state was committed to the destruction of religion[2][3], and to this effect it destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept

And this is wrong because....? If anything it's the only thing they did right.

Meanwhile, the thread has managed to reach over 250 posts.

>not beliebing in our father Carl Sagan
>2011
Fags

>256 posts ITT

why.jpg

>>3627308

because trolls.

>>3627303
Then you can't complain if a religious person straps a bomb to himself and walks into an atheist church where they're worshiping Richard D. or whatever is it they do. I wouldn't know.

>>3627313
0/10. Raged a little.

>mfw I planted a few troll posts ITT and tons of people took the bait

Yay!

>>3627313
But they do it because of their religion
Stalin did it because it was a convenient way of grabbing power.

>>3627290
Um, you don't need "atheist commandments" to kill people for atheism. Racist (for example) white kill black people because they're black. But there are no "white commandments" at all, let alone a commandment to kill blacks. You just need a hatred of people that are different. Which is something that can be found in any belief, religious or atheist, as the Nazis and Communists show.

>>3627315
>Being a japanese kpop star or some shit
kill yourself

>>3627286
Cite?

>>3627313
>atheist church
Since there's no such thing, I don't have to worry about it.

>>3627267
>There's NO comparison to be done with atheism, since there are ZERO commands, ZERO manifests, ZERO "ultimate truths", ZERO holy books.

*cough*TGD*cough*

>>3627299
naziism wasn't even remotely christian; how the fuck could it be extreme christian?

you want extreme christians, throw rocks at those assholes at the westborough baptist church

who haven't killed anyone

>>3627326
I did say I don't know exactly what is it atheists do. I'm just taking a rough guess that they light candles around Dawkins' picture while reading passages from TGD.

>>3627329
>implying the god dillussion is seen as anything more than babbies first into to biblical fallacies
At least use god is not great. Hitchens is far more graceful with his properpghandi

>>3627320
Do you have magic powers that let you see into the hearts of men? And even if you did know that's "why" Stalin did it, why is an atheist murdering a christian because he's christian different than a christian murdering an atheist because he's an atheist?

>>3627338
We don't do ANYTHING.
That's sort of the point.
Most shit associated with us is political shit going down because it was done by a person who happened to be atheist

>>3627332
Yeah, if you want extreme Christians, at least instead mention the Catholic-Protestant wars in the XVI-XVII centuries.

Fuck Agnostics, Fuck Atheists, Fuck Theists

There I said it. You all are stupid if you're debating about stuff that noone can prove

>>3627345
Atheism doesn't exist in a vacuum, but always as part of a larger worldview.

>>3627344
read the thread you shitty troll it's been addressed.

>>3627322
>Um, you don't need "atheist commandments" to kill people for atheism.
Yes you do. Either a commandment in some kind of scripture, or as a logical consequence of the belief.
>Racist (for example) white kill black people because they're black. But there are no "white commandments" at all, let alone a commandment to kill blacks.
There exists a logical conclusion to kill or make sure you country is free of non-whites if you're a racist.
>You just need a hatred of people that are different.
Agreed.
>Which is something that can be found in any belief, religious or atheist,
Not in atheism.
"I don't believe in God", show me how this leads to "I need to kill theists", or "I hate theists".

>>3627344
>Do you have magic powers that let you see into the hearts of men
>magic powers
typicalchristfag.jpg. I use torture and hypnosis, myself
>And even if you did know that's "why" Stalin did it, why is an atheist murdering a christian because he's christian different than a christian murdering an atheist because he's an atheist?
A atheist killing a christian is an atheist killing a christian, vice versa
a political figure killing someone in his rise for power and then pinning it on a different ideology is just that.
The difference is nothing about atheism says violence is necessary/good, while christianity and islam are prime examples of things that do go out of their way to support violence and rape and shit

>>3627345
And what do you know? The Inquisition and other shit was political stuff done by people who happened to be Christians.

>>3627362
Not it's not. You don't have any argument so you're vaguely stating that your argument is somewhere in the thread. An atheist killing a Christian for being Christian is just as bad as a Christian killing an atheist for being atheist. And both have happened (a lot) and are deplorable.

when are you guys going to learn that you cant use your aspergers on religion.

>>3627369
But they have a fundamental belief whereby these things are permitted and encouraged, which is the difference.

>>3627329
>*cough*TGD*cough*
That is not an official "atheism holy book".

This is the entirety of atheism:

- Person who does not believe in gods.

NOTHING more.

>>3627357
You can't prove anything except "math" which is just a matter of consistency (non-contradiction), which itself cannot be proven except in stronger systems and so on.

Hence, you can hardly "prove" anything with certainty.
People are just making hypotheses, reasoning about them, especially when evidence is available and making bets according to them.
I would worry more about people arguing about undefined stuff like it was defined.

>>3627367
Yeah it does. It teaches that religion is a tool of capitalist oppression that must go to create the new society.

>>3627385
No, it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all.

>>3627383
Well, about 90% official.

>>3627393
>god delusion
>respected by athiests
I lol'd

>>3627344
>Do you have magic powers that let you see into the hearts of men?
I don't need to, as per the definition of atheism, NO action can be done because of atheism.
So whatever Stalin did, cannot possible have been because of atheism - since that is a logical impossibility.

>>3627381
And just as many people will tell you your religion says to be nice and not wrong others.

>>3627401
Thereby ignoring half the book

>>3627393
No, it's not even a book about atheism, it's mostly about criticizing religion.

Yay, we're going for 300 posts in this bad boy!