Life?

[Anonymous No.3380379]

Alright so I love science the universe, all that good shit . But something about atheists just bugs me , especially guys like richard dawkins. They tend to be condescending and stubborn in my experiences. I acknowledge science but isn't science supposed to be a constantly progressing thing. For atheists to say "No, their is no god, their is just life and death." Hell i have no fucking idea if there is a god, or afterlife or whatever , there very well may not be... but to me its ignorant to be so definitive in saying there is not, we are the human race, a pretty pathetic species in a distant corner of the universe, I dont think we should be saying we "know" anything. We could be floating around on a speck of dust in someones living room in a multiverse for fucks sake. Agnosticism seems to be the logical way to go , its the cowards way out but fuck it right?

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3380396]

troll harder next time.

[OP No.3380404]

>>3380396

This truly is the worst website ever, its impossible to talk about anything without being accused of trolling, fucking a . Im a philosophy major , does that give me non troll credentials?

[Anonymous No.3380408]

>>3380404
10/10

[Anonymous No.3380410]

Richard Dawkins is a 15 year old high school atheist who never grew out of his douchebag phase.

Most atheists who are halfways reasonable, such as myself, maintain this form of atheism: I do not believe in god, and believe it's existence to be unlikely, but as a scientifically minded person I cannot objectively dismiss any higher power. If there is a god, it will likely be entirely unlike the one envisioned by religions. It is up to us to adjust our worldview as new evidence comes forward to challenge our beliefs. That is the way of science.

Dawkins is a pretty decent biologist- I loved his books about science, Climbing Mount Improbably, The Selfish Gene, etc. Now that he's tackling cosmology and physics and everything in between he's clearly out of his element.

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3380416]

>>3380404
consider this:
any religion that exists or existed comes from man. there was never an omnipotent being contacting with the human race. now give me one good reason why should anyone even consider the existence of god? i prefer invisible pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon personally, why not talk about them instead?

[Anonymous No.3380422]

>>3380410

0.5/10

[Anonymous No.3380427]

>>3380416
>invisible pink
>invisible
>pink

[Your real Geoff Mangum No.3380429]

>>3380404

> philosophy major

9/10

10/10 if you said music major

[Anonymous No.3380440]

>>3380404

>philosophy major

Confirmed for troll.
Gtfo

[Anonymous No.3380441]

>>3380410

And this sounds like your typical butthurt christian who can't accept logical reasoning in place of an imaginary friend in the sky.

[Anonymous No.3380448]

This is all that really matters.

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3380450]

>>3380427
>youmustbenewhere.jpg

[Anonymous No.3380452]

>>3380441

>I do not believe in god
>And this sounds like your typical butthurt christian

Illiterate hypocritical atheist detected.

[Anonymous No.3380455]

Challenge

Prove to me there IS a god, and prove to me that it ISN'T just life and death.

[Anonymous No.3380461]

>>3380455

Prove that there is an ultimate cause of existence without a Deity.

[Anonymous No.3380465]

>>3380461

Don't try to answer the statement with another statement. Give me good logical reasoning. Preferably reasoning that a scientist and not philosopher can understand.

[Anonymous No.3380466]

>>3380461
Typical philosophy major. Starts out all 'I'm apathetic really'. Turns out he's covering for his fucktarded beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3380473]

>>3380461

Fact: We do not know if God exists or not. There is no certain evidence proving or disproving his existence.

Fact: We do scientifically know there is life and death. There is no evidence to support otherwise, or even a conscience that can exist outside the physical body.

[Anonymous No.3380488]

Religious people want you to argue with their beliefs.

You must rub their faces in the problems their faith causes.

[Anonymous No.3380490]

>>3380461

...

[Anonymous No.3380497]

OP, I congratulate you for being less retarded than most of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3380505]

I have a feeling that when/if science discovers that the Universe doesn't need a creator for its existence, philosophers are just going to say "oh well the lack of need for the universe to have a creator for its existence is proof of a deity"

Religious arguments have been pushing the envelope of acceptance for centuries.

[Anonymous No.3380506]

>>3380461

Consider this:

If a deity created the universe, what created the deity?

If the deity needs no creator, then why does the universe need a creator?

[Anonymous No.3380509]

>>3380497

huuurr I have dawkins so edgy hurrrrrrrrrrr

[Anonymous No.3380512]

>>3380509

hate no have

[Anonymous No.3380519]

>>3380506
It's gods, all the way back

[Anonymous No.3380523]

>>3380506
because the deity is not a created being?

because the universe was created in a different place than where the deity resides?

are you really this fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.3380532]

>>3380455

Still waiting for challenge to be reasonably explained with reasonable logic...

[Anonymous No.3380543]

>>3380523

>because the deity is not a created being?
>because the universe was created in a different place than where the deity resides?

Making some ridiculous assumptions here. Are you really this fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.3380544]

>>3380523
HUR

[Anonymous No.3380556]

The reason people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are so aggressive towards religion is because they see events like the 9/11 bombings and female genital mutilation, and they see children growing up being taught not to question anything they learn.

They are radical humanists, and to them it is ethically wrong for these actions to proceed in the name of something like religion.

[Anonymous No.3380566]

To say there is no god is just the colloquial of 'I have seen no good reason to believe in a god'.

And regarding the state of affairs outside the universe, before the big bang? We don't know. When you say you do know, you MUST SHOW YOUR WORK. And when you say you do know, and therefore people within the universe must conduct themselves in a certain way, you have far more work ahead of you. You must show how you know what is outside the universe, and how you know what it wants, and how you know what the consequences for not giving it what it wants would be.

Sciences answer to these questions is not 'no god', it is 'we don't know'. God is just one of the things it could or couldn't be, along with an unknown but infinite set of other things.

[Anonymous No.3380584]

>>3380556

Here is the way I see it. Religious people take on the idea of God as a FACT, not a theory. Religion is at best a theory: it has yet to have any real evidence and has yet to be disprove. To take a theory as fact without evidence is ignorance and stupidity. There is just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is unicorns; a riveting story/fairy tale that seems very convincing to a person who takes it as fact.

[Anonymous No.3380598]

>>3380556
Since most of the problems they have aren't with religion in general, but rather a certain specific religion...you know.

[Anonymous No.3380599]

>>3380556

Or they are just people who do not consider religious ideology and religious superstitions to be especially immune from criticism.

If some guy started an atheist foundation that was dedicated to genital mutilation, they would be among the first to speak out against it. If some guy started a secular ideology that called for people to blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace, they would be among the first to speak out against it. If some guy started a group that believed there was no god, but also believed there were aliens visiting earth every day, they would be among the first to point out how ridiculous it is. But if you say god told you to do these things, or god is causing miracles in the world, you can get away with it a lot more. And why not? If religious leaders start to call into question your ability to know what god actually wants and what god actually does, their followers might start applying these questions to their own faith as well.

[Anonymous No.3380603]

>>3380566
>the colloquial of 'I have seen no good reason to believe in a god'.
No it's not. There are lots of reasons you shouldn't believe in a thing. Would you believe a drunk that says he has "magical wound healing powder?"

[Anonymous No.3380614]

>>3380584

>Religion is at best a theory: it has yet to have any real evidence and has yet to be disprove.

I'm sick of people not knowing what the word theory means.

[Anonymous No.3380634]

>>3380614

Theory. Hypothetical. Whatever. I was trying to make the religious schizophrenics feel better about their beliefs. It still isn't a FACT. If that is what evacuates your blood-belching vagina, you missed the entire point.

[Anonymous No.3380641]

>>3380614
Religion denies observable evidence to protect beliefs.

Happy?

[Anonymous No.3380653]

>>3380634
>I was trying to make the religious schizophrenics feel better about their beliefs.

Fucks sake, WHY?!

[Anonymous No.3380662]

>>3380634
This is an example of a "bad idea".

Making people feel better is like telling a terminal cancer patient that they're getting better and can go for a brisk jog.

[Anonymous No.3380664]

>>3380603

>the colloquial of 'I have seen no good reason to believe in a god'.
>No it's not There are lots of reasons you shouldn't believe in a thing

>no reason to believe
>lots of reasons you shouldn't believe

Fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.3380672]

>>3380653

Because as a scientist, you can't rule out the fact that there isn't a God. It's funny how you can consider hyperdimensional string theory as plausible and not at the same time find the hypothetical existence of God plausible. And this is not to say "God" is even a deity. "God" can be some unknown force or energy that puts the universe in motion.

Schizophrenic because they talk to an imaginary entity that doesn't directly interact with them.

[Anonymous No.3380676]

>>3380603

>thinks reducio ad absurdum arguments are logical

[Anonymous No.3380677]

>>3380670
What?
Reductio ad absurdum is fine if you refer to contradictions, rather than things which are unintuitive.

[Anonymous No.3380689]

>>3380677

>Reductio ad absurdum

You all should take your latin logical argumentation harry potter spell-sounding bullshit to a different thread.

[Anonymous No.3380695]

>>3380672

>hyperdimensional string theory

Assuming they know what "hyperdimensional string theory" is.
Assuming that if they knew what it was, they would still participate in discussions like this.
Assuming they arent uneducated children who lack normal empathy.

[Anonymous No.3380702]

>>3380676
>Thinks beliefs that deny observable evidence are not reducio ad absurdum arguments.

[Anonymous No.3380708]

>>3380689

>You all should take your latin logical argumentation harry potter spell-sounding bullshit to a different thread.

How about you leave /sci/ for being an uneducated illiterate disrespectful lazy thrash?

[Anonymous No.3380709]

>>3380695

The point was that scientists can so easily take hypothetical explanations for the universe so lightly, and then take a militant stance against the same hypothetical argumentation toward the existence of God. Lack of proof is not disproving anything.

[Anonymous No.3380713]

>>3380410
why is this thread still going when it ended here?

[Anonymous No.3380715]

OP you are correct. now watch out for Dawkins teens who try to make up for this by claiming agnosticism doesnt exist or some other such nonsense that Dawkins taught them

[Anonymous No.3380721]

>>3380713

Bunch of retards that think they have something to prove. Not even science. Typical /sci/ thread.

[Anonymous No.3380723]

>>3380709
It probably has something to do with the way that religious people act. "You can't prove God does not exist." does not mean he exists. At that point, they act like they won the argument, when they need to now provide observable evidence, and they cannot.

[Anonymous No.3380724]

>>3380709

U understand your remark.
However you are too assumptive about the amount of knowledge and empathy that children in this thread have.
You are overestimating them.

[Anonymous No.3380728]

>>3380523
you are in no place to question someone's intelligence.

why do you assume that it is a god and only a god that can ever be a non created thing? We have no evidence to suggest whether the universe was created or not created. You are assuming 1 of these possibilities.

[Anonymous No.3380734]

>>3380379

strictly speaking everyone is agnostic about everything

now, reasonably speaking you wouldn't be agnostic about the tooth fairy, so why the fuck would you be agnostic about vishnu, satan or jesus?

[Anonymous No.3380738]

>>3380723

>Implying the argument can even be won at this point in human existence

>>3380724

True dat. Typical /sci/ thread. Full of people that don't understand the concept of science.

No longer an intellectual discussion. Adios.

[Anonymous No.3380743]

>>3380721
exactly. it's people who cannot into science. This is the closest they will ever come.

[Anonymous No.3380753]

>>3380404
Definitely not, /sci/ only like hard sciences unfortunately
On the off chance you aren't a troll (of which we have many in residence) Richard Dawkins, along with the vast majority of atheists, are agnostic/weak atheists. The position "agnostic" doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.3380757]

>>3380738
>Implying the argument can even be won at this point in human existence

It can, as long as you don't give up like the pathetic weak-ass faggot you are.

[Anonymous No.3380762]

>>3380753
It's amazing how often theists grab for agnostics for support, then throw them away when they don't need them.

[Anonymous No.3380799]

Why should anyone even consider a possibility for a god, when every religion failed to give the REAL creation story of evolution, natural selection and left out other fundamental things such as QM, relativity and the standard model. If your going to argue that science and natural world is proof of god, then what happened to intelligent design?, theists are running out of things to fall back on. The world can be explained without ever needing a god.
If your not arguing for a religious god, then can you even call it god at all?

Just like all scientists, we'll start believing as soon as there is ANY definitive evidence. Till that day we will continue to not believe in any of 1000's of random deity's that man happened to think up of.

One other thing, if there was a hypothetical god, would his entire purpose be to give morals to humans just to save them, even though they are one insignificant species on the universe? Sounds like a way to control the uneducated masses, and it looks like it's working.

[Anonymous No.3380810]

>>3380523

>shut up
watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.3380811]

you could make the same arguement about thiests. Being athiests doesn't mean you're all about science and math and the universe, it means you don't believe there is a God. You're pretty much saying that noone should believe anything and act like you, implying that you hate diversity and niggers. you sick racist fuck.

[Anonymous No.3380816]

>>3380799
>Why should anyone even consider a possibility for a god, when every religion failed to give the REAL creation story of evolution, natural selection and left out other fundamental things such as QM, relativity and the standard model

Science is for this world. Religion is for the next.

>The world can be explained without ever needing a god

Cite?

[Anonymous No.3380848]

>>3380816
>Religion is for the next.

[Observable evidence required.]

[Anonymous No.3380861]

>>3380848
Read the Bible, toots. Religion is not meant to work in the same areas as science. It's supposed to teach you to not be a dick.

[Anonymous No.3380874]

>>3380861
If you want to teach morals?, great, but once you start preaching creation stories with no evidence, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3380875]

>>3380861
That is not proof, you shit -fucking hillbilly chuckle-fuck, and when I say that, I mean it in the nicest possible way.

[Anonymous No.3380877]

>>3380861
Truth is inscrutable.

[Anonymous No.3380895]

>>3380874
>If you want to teach morals?

Shitty fucking morals. "Sorry Billy, but because the minister raped you, we have to kick you out of the community to protect our chances of going to heaven. Your heretical bleeding asshole denies our faith."

[Anonymous No.3380908]

>>3380895
Projection.

[Anonymous No.3380915]

>>3380874
I'm not the guy claiming the Earth is 10,000 years old.

[Anonymous No.3380916]

>>3380908
It would be if rapist priests and ministers were arrested as often as rapist teachers.

[Anonymous No.3380924]

>>3380916
They have. In fact more so because the MSM (all far left atheists) won't attack teachers.

One of the really sorry things about atheists is how they rant and rave about molester priests, but don't even have the comfort of knowing that they'll face divine retribution.

[Anonymous No.3380951]

>>3380924
Oh, that is total BULLSHIT! Blaming the MEDIA?!

Fuuuuuck you, and fuck off. I don't even watch the news, I dig through crime reports.

You're a goddamn television worshiping faggot.

[Anonymous No.3380952]

You know what really pisses me off? People who tell their kids that Santa Claus isn't real.

They have no way to know whether or not Santa is real. He's magic, after all. Good parents would tell their kids that Santa MIGHT not be real.

[Anonymous No.3380964]

[Anonymous No.3380976]

>>3380951
The cause/correlation problem is there, but there's far too much Missing White Girl syndrome in both policework and media coverage for it just to be a coincidence that certain people get a lot more attention than others.

[Anonymous No.3380984]

>>3380964
Really... we've had 6billion people on Earth for 3 billion years?

>once you drink water, the matter is destroyed! lol

[Anonymous No.3380989]

>>3380964
This is my favorite new troll picture simply because, among many of the other problems with it, the author was still blinded by their religion, as it assumes humans have been around since the beginning of the earth.
It is also my favorite, because someones response was, "EXPLODING BLADDERS EVERYWHERE!!"

[Anonymous No.3381005]

>>3380976
Yes, and since as I said the MSM are mostly left wing and anti Christian...you get the picture.

[Anonymous No.3381023]

>>3381005
Everything that isn't completely Christian is "anti-Christian".

[Anonymous No.3381031]

>>3381023
Yeah, no. Lots of things are completely neutral.

[Anonymous No.3381042]

>>3381031
...until they attack anything remotely Christian, then they're anti-Christian and biased to hell.

[Anonymous No.3381047]

>>3381023
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.3381056]

>>3381047
>implying I'm wrong

>implying that your beliefs are proof enough, and that's good enough for you.

[Anonymous No.3381059]

>>3381042
Well, they sure don't attack Muslims. Only Christians and Orthodox Jews.

[Anonymous No.3381062]

>>3381059
No, the problem is you watch television and consider it a credible source.

[Anonymous No.3381123]

>They tend to be condescending and stubborn in my experiences
I know, why can't athiests be more "open minded" like christians?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSbfs32yCU

[Anonymous No.3381135]

>>3381123
>open-minded

>Doing it wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Anonymous No.3381136]

>believe religion teaches people to not be a dick
I seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.3381145]

>>3381123
Oh, sorry. I didn't know you were baiting.

[Anonymous No.3381144]

>>3381135
yeah, I used quotes for a reason, your video is an old favorite of mine.

[Anonymous No.3381149]

>>3381144

Sorry. I didn't know you were baiting.

[Anonymous No.3381156]

>>3381136
Matthew 7:1

In my experience, atheists tend to be the most judgemental dicks anywhere,

[Anonymous No.3381162]

>>3380816
>>The world can be explained without ever needing a god
>Cite?

citation: All of science. Have you ever heard of any scientific literature explaining any natural phenomenon by invoking Thor? I mean, God?

[Anonymous No.3381166]

>>3381136

at least it tries

[Anonymous No.3381173]

>>3381156
see
>>3381123

[Anonymous No.3381174]

>>3381156
>Matthew 7:1

They might cover it, but they don't emphasize that. It's counter-productive.

[Anonymous No.3381189]

>>3381174
That's organized religion. You don't need to belong to a church.

[Anonymous No.3381192]

>>3381166
That's like a handicapped person that tries at the Special Olympics.

[Anonymous No.3381196]

OP,
dated an atheist, shit was not cash. Most of them are dicks like you say, and the sad fact is people need the fear of consequences to act like a decent human being. The whole world can't be populated with "virtue for virtue's sake" Marcus Aurelius types.

P.S. did you have a question or comment about science or math?

[Anonymous No.3381199]

>>3381189
Not seeing your point.

[Anonymous No.3381214]

>>3381196

>shit was not cash.

Listen, if you date ANYONE that "shit was not cash" can describe, it is because -YOU- are a poor judge of character. Don't blame any beliefs or religions for that.

[Anonymous No.3381215]

>>3381196
Take away the police for a day and see how many people don't loot and rape because it's wrong as opposed to because they'd go to jail.

[Anonymous No.3381235]

>Prove to me there IS a god

You cant say that. You have to prove to ME that there isnt a god. Why are you so fucking self-righteous, atheists?

Im not making a claim. You are making a claim that god doesn't exist. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.3381261]

>>3381235
It's not "self righteous" to demand observable evidence when you are abusing the scientific method for arguments.

[Anonymous No.3381267]

>>3381215
>basing your morality on fear of consequences to self
I seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.3381268]

>>3381267
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.3381269]

>>3381261
You are the one demanding the evidence though.
The burden is on you.

[Anonymous No.3381286]

>>3381269
No, you are the one that argues against science, using science.

You now must provide observable evidence. This is necessary, otherwise you are merely giving conjuncture.

[Anonymous No.3381302]

>>3381286
No, you are using a conjecture by using science.

[Anonymous No.3381308]

>>3381302
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3381310]

>>3381235
You are fucking retarded. I am not even going to point out the gaping hole in your argument.

[Anonymous No.3381322]

>>3381214
Whoa, settle down Archangel Michael! At least at church I can get a sip of wine with my scathing condemnation of character from a stranger.

[Anonymous No.3381330]

>>3381308

Science is a philosophy.
Ask anyone who is remotely important.

In science you have to accept the facts that things exist and that our universe is relevant to anything. This fact alone instantly disqualifies science of all credibility and by accepting it you are working off an axiom and you have no rights to make any claims at all until you get past this.

Atheists - losing since 10,000 BC

[Anonymous No.3381332]

>>3381267
Well, if there's no God, no afterlife, and no soul, then what reason is there to behave yourselves other than avoiding punishment?

[Anonymous No.3381337]

also, I forgot to put "some people" as in "some people need a fear of consequences to be decent etc."

[Anonymous No.3381346]

>>3381267

>implying morality isnt about avoiding actions that would consequentially harm oneself and his community(that prevents harm to its members)
>implying one cannot choose to help himself by harming the community that wouldnt consequentially harm him/her
>implying morality is the same as altruism

You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3381347]

>>3381330
>In science you have to accept the facts that things exist and that our universe is relevant to anything. This fact alone instantly disqualifies science of all credibility and by accepting it you are working off an axiom and you have no rights to make any claims at all until you get past this.

To get past "this" we have to accept things don't exist and the universe isn't relevant? Why did I type up such a stupid remark. Being the only mind in the universe is hectic.

[Anonymous No.3381351]

>>3381332
Getting punished by the people around you who are tired of [insert fucked-up behavior here].

[Anonymous No.3381356]

>>3381332
>not basing your actions on your desire to minimize suffering
I seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.3381361]

>>3381356
>implying suffering really exists if we're molecules with no soul

[Anonymous No.3381368]

>>3381347
No, I said in order to make claims using science you have to accept the fact that objects exist and the fact that what we observe in our universe is even relevant to anything.

[Anonymous No.3381376]

>>3381361
If you're using the lack of punishment to defend your actions, I'd like you to live with "Bubba", the "I'll fuck anything in my prison cell" guy for 10-15 years.

[Anonymous No.3381382]

>believing that theism is equal in weight to athiesm
I seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.3381385]

>>3381361
>think suffering depends on a soul
I seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.3381387]

>>3381382
Theism is more respectable than theism. I appreciate someone who has hope for something more than someone who is basically a nihilist(atheist) and just wants to die and not exist for eternity.

[Anonymous No.3381394]

>>3381387
>Theism is more respectable than theism

[Anonymous No.3381417]

>>3381346
reading comprehension fail.
In case you missed it, I only said I seriously hope you don't do that.

[Anonymous No.3381419]

Richard Dawkins is rightfully condescending to theists; he is better than him. Progressing involves people giving up stupid beliefs like theism. No doubt, we should respect each others opinion but he is the right one out of the group.

[Anonymous No.3381426]

>>3381419
>Progressing involves people giving up stupid beliefs like science.

Fixed your post.

Science is the most flawed system every made.

[Anonymous No.3381428]

>>3381385
If we're just molecules, it doesn't really exist and we just imagine it to be so.

[Anonymous No.3381431]

>>3381387
>believe hope in fairy tales is more respectable than cool analysis of the natural universe
I seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.3381438]

Agnosticfag here. Just sitting and laughing at you idiots using every logical fallacy in the book.

[Anonymous No.3381447]

>>3381431
>cool universe

You mean the unforgiving destruction machine that creates beings that can feel for the sole purpose of suffering?

That universe?

[Anonymous No.3381450]

I am tired of this shit, so this is where it ends!
YES we CAN'T prove that god exist or not.... BUT
there is none evidence to support its existence we say that he (she/it/whatever) don't exist, same way that we say that unicorns does not exist, simple as that

[Anonymous No.3381456]

>>3381450
No evidence != not exist

[Anonymous No.3381458]

>>3381447
Wow. You really have this massive projection thing going on.

[Anonymous No.3381464]

>>3380379
Our knowledge is hard-won on the backs of generations before us who spent their lives learning, testing, and verifying what other people take for granted. We have evidence, and that evidence informs our understanding. That is what it means to know, as opposed to believe or have faith.
There is no reason to believe that an afterlife or a god exists. Those who claim to "know" do so without evidence (belief) or in spite of evidence to the contrary (faith). They make many claims about how their god acts, works, and influences the world, but we know that no such god can even trivially affect even a stray electron, which will continue in its calculated path under the guidance of the laws of physics invariably, instead of swerving off in a new and miraculous direction. This is what it means to know. This is the opposite of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.3381466]

>>3381456
>Crystal magic mage talking

[Anonymous No.3381471]

>>3381447
>believes in suffering
Obviously, you haven't been reading this guy >>3381428

[Anonymous No.3381476]

>>3381466
It could exist on another planet somewhere.

[Anonymous No.3381485]

>>3381476
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.3381488]

>>3381428
suffering and such things depends on one ability to feel qualia

[Anonymous No.3381495]

>>3381464
This is why atheists are retarded. Read what you are saying.

There is no reason to use science either.

"derp I can observe it"

What difference does it make if you can observe it or you can think about it. You can call it fairy tales. But you cant logically value one form over another. You fall under way to many axioms.

If you are not agnostic on absolutely everything then your doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.3381513]

>>3381485
Probability.

[Anonymous No.3381514]

>>3381495
>...adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

>...denies observation so beliefs preserved.

[Anonymous No.3381516]

>>3381495
>...adjusts its views based on what's observed.

>...denies observation so beliefs preserved.

[Anonymous No.3381517]

>>3381495

you can be both agnostic and atheist, dipshit, learn definitions.

[Anonymous No.3381529]

>>3381516
>implying religion has remained static throughout history

[Anonymous No.3381530]

>>3381513
Uncertain. Try again.

[Anonymous No.3381538]

>>3381529
>implying all religions are equal.

[Anonymous No.3381543]

also philosophers don't get a say on the nature of the physical. whether there is a god is directly related to the physical. making god outside the physical is a theistic trick, when actually he is fundamentally part of the physical, aka outside the subjective brain, if he was outside of the physical he is impossible to know so he can fuck right off. (philosophers claiming that there is nothing but the subjective can die in a fire),

[Anonymous No.3381545]

>>3381538
Atheists typically claim they are

[Anonymous No.3381556]

>>3381543
>Philosopher
>Atheist

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3381560]

>>3381536
Beliefs can't lead to universal truths, and truth is inscrutable.

[Anonymous No.3381565]

>>3381543
>if he was outside of the physical he is impossible to know so he can fuck right off

Cite?

[Anonymous No.3381567]

>>3381545
>implying x 9001

[Anonymous No.3381577]

>>3381560
>Beliefs can't lead to universal truths

If I want them to they can. I can value beliefs more than science. You cant say that science is a better system. Thats a mass appeal fallacy.

[Anonymous No.3381576]

>>3381495
Every influential athiest of our generation has commented on this inane distinction between agnosticism and athiesm. Personally, I've always thought about it like so:
I'm not an athiest because I deny the possibility of a god or gods. I'm an athiest because for any particular god that's ever been presented, I've declined to believe because of a coinciding complete lack of evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.3381579]

>>3381417

>In case you missed it, I only said I seriously hope you don't do that

Everyone does it.
I cannot believe how idiotic you are.
And how ironic that you accuse me of "reading comprehension" failure when you are exactly the one that misread it.
Hahaha.

And you still believe that Altruism is the same as Morality.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3381587]

>>3381576
>I've declined to believe because of a coinciding complete lack of evidence for it.

The burden is on you. You are requiring evidence. You are falling under tons of axioms and using a prebuilt human system called science due to the mass appeal and benefits of it. You have no right to not believe in god.

[Anonymous No.3381592]

>>3381556

all mainstream credible philosophers are atheist.

[Anonymous No.3381594]

>>3381495
> There is no reason to use science either.
Yes there is.
> SCIENCE.
> IT WORKS, BITCHES.

[Anonymous No.3381598]

>>3381587
You have no right to believe that crack cocaine is bad for you.

[Anonymous No.3381602]

>>3381592
>implying any real philosophers have existed in the last 50 years

[Anonymous No.3381604]

>>3381587
>You have no right to not believe in god.

pantsonhead.mp4.bin.pdf

[Anonymous No.3381608]

>>3381598
Nice ad hominem
insulting my way of thinking

[Anonymous No.3381612]

Jesus loves the little zygotes
all the zygotes of the world.
Jesus loves them until they're born
then abandons them forlorn.
Jesus loves the little zygotes 'til they're born.

Jesus loves the little children
all the children of the world.
Jesus gives them heart defects
measles, mumps, and ringwormed necks.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Jesus lets their parents beat them,
bruise their bodies black and blue.
Jesus gives them birth defects,
scurvy, ticks, and palette clefts.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Jesus gives the children cancer.
Earaches, lice, and scabies too.
Bowel obstructions, altered lips,
blighted brains and twisted hips.
Extra chromosomes to help them when they pray.

Hallelujah.

Jesus gives the children acne.
AIDS and leprosy galore.
Germs and worms of every kind.
Things to make the children blind.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.

Scientists and unbelievers
wiped the pox right off the earth.
Jesus still gives gifts to kids,
broken nose and burnt eyelids.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.

[Anonymous No.3381613]

>>3381592

>all mainstream credible philosophers are atheist.

[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.3381617]

>>3381604
Its not that you dont have the right to not believe in god.

Its more like, it doesnt make sense to not believe in god.

It makes absolutely no sense and you atheists flaunt your cocks all day about how smart you are.

[Anonymous No.3381619]

>>3381602

moot point, do some beyond good and evil, become an ubermensch, be happy.

[Anonymous No.3381621]

>>3381608
An eye for an eye.

[Anonymous No.3381622]

atheism is just agnosticism that finally realized the question isn't important.

[Anonymous No.3381627]

>>3381612
Projection

[Anonymous No.3381628]

>>3381613

i'm circular logicing, >sensical to be atheist, >philosopher who theisizes has to be nonsensical therefore of dubious credibility
>all credible philosophers are atheist

my little joke

[Anonymous No.3381631]

>>3381622
>atheism is just agnosticism that finally realized the question isn't important.

HAHAHA you mixed it around.

[Anonymous No.3381655]

>>3381628
See this scum. You make little jokes about the intelligence of another person. You are a self-righteous faggot. Atheists suck.

[Anonymous No.3381661]

>>3381655

calm down dear, it's only an advert.

[Anonymous No.3381667]

>>3381661
nope, atheists are pure scum

why do you think all of 4chan are atheists?

[Anonymous No.3381675]

>>3381667

Delicious irony.

[Anonymous No.3381677]

>>3381667
...including you.

[Anonymous No.3381689]

>>3381675
>>3381677

im not an atheist...

why do you think every single neckbeard is an atheist and all the healthy well rounded individuals are theist? Its because they hate life. Thats the only reason anyone would be an atheist

[Anonymous No.3381701]

>>3381689
They hate God because they blame him for the crummy life they have to live.

[Anonymous No.3381702]

>>3381689
>im not an atheist...

Yes you are, you're on 4chan.

[cancer.exe !!e4ykE8fPEjy No.3381704]

If there is no evidence that supports the existence of a god, why entertain the possibility of one existing? Might as well say gods don't exist.

[Anonymous No.3381714]

>>3381701
God is a baby-boomer?

...

I FUCKING KNEW IT!

[Anonymous No.3381719]

>>3381704
>why entertain the possibility of one existing?
Because I dont want to rot in dirt for eternity

[Anonymous No.3381722]

>>3381719
>implying all atheists believe that

[Anonymous No.3381726]

>>3381701
>>3381689

>atheists are pure scum
> all of 4chan are atheists

>im not an atheist...

According to yourself, yes you are.
You idiocy is hilarious.
Continue to flaunt it and entertain us.

[Anonymous No.3381728]

>>3381722
What atheist believes in an afterlife?

[Anonymous No.3381737]

>>3381728
Aren't most eastern religions atheistic?

[Anonymous No.3381740]

>>3381728
Reincarnationists.

[Anonymous No.3381741]

>>3381719

but you will or at least your body why lie to yourself (im talking about myself here) its like believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy because it will make you happier, but whatever to each his own

[Anonymous No.3381742]

>>3381704

>If there is no evidence that supports the existence of a god, why entertain the possibility of one existing?

Why do you believe in Mathematics and Logic when you dont have evidence for their axioms?

>Might as well say gods don't exist.

May as well end using Mathematics and Logic...

[Anonymous No.3381748]

>>3381740
Well ya but none of you are reincarnationists. Just nihilistic atheists here.
>>3381741
>its like believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy because it will make you happier

Thats not how I see it AT ALL. Im talking about the actual reason or creator of the universe. Im not talking about my imagination.

[cancer.exe !!e4ykE8fPEjy No.3381749]

Don't worry about that. Your corpse will be consumed by bacteria and worms and all sorts of other living things which will then be consumed by other living things and so on and so forth. In a few thousand years, your matter will actually be spread all over the globe, even possibly being part of another human being.

[Anonymous No.3381752]

>>3381742
>Why do you believe in

wat?

[Anonymous No.3381756]

>>3381748
>Just nihilistic atheists here.

Sad.

[Anonymous No.3381758]

>>3381742
Someone who understands

[Anonymous No.3381759]

>>3381742
>Why do you believe in
>Why do you believe in
>Why do you believe in
>Why do you believe in
>Why do you believe in
>Why do you believe in
>Why do you believe in

Wups, your argument is broken, and your brain is ajar.

[cancer.exe !!e4ykE8fPEjy No.3381762]

>>3381749
Meant to reply to >>3381719