Atheist hate thread

Atheists have lower EQ than religious people.
IQ =/= EQ
EQ = emotional intelligence

The answer would be nothing. Because it is eternal.

EQ is a flawed construct.

"Everything has a cause" is what runs the known universe's logic. It defines the laws of physics as we know them.
Would the creator of such concepts necessarily be a slave to his own creation? Would a computer programmer be a slave to whatever rules he sets in his program?

The answer would be that it's impossible to know.

Eq doesn't exist. It's all fabricated by postmodernists trying to downplay the importance of iq

Attached: 1.png (1030x770, 767K)

Attached: 2.png (602x786, 990K)

Attached: 3.png (606x788, 976K)

Attached: 4.png (548x787, 934K)

Attached: 5.png (1058x786, 1.87M)

Attached: 6.png (638x785, 961K)

Attached: 7.png (494x559, 426K)

Attached: 1510214132714.png (1023x766, 631K)

if god transcends space and time then he doesn't have to be created

...

Harris is based
Christards still believe in Fairy Tales as adults

Answer these

even if a god/higher being exists that does not automatically validate your religious beliefs/mythology.

No, but it does invalidate those who question their existence in the first place, which is what atheists are about

Go get fucked by Achmed Hans

Attached: 6062ddf9aa7a283c64083b60b2d5ca2e--teacher-resumes-atheism.jpg (736x552, 86K)

If you think this is state of the art, you should be reading "new proofs for the existence of god" by Spitzer, and then start researching the cosmological implications of modern physics.

This meme is "refuting" the cosmological argument about which there have been many books written on and it is a deep and interesting philosophical and theological issue. That alone should make you skeptical that it is the current state of the art.

This image is a straw man because no Christian believes that God is *a created being*, that God is contingent on anything outside of Himself. God is *defined* as the uncaused cause (Read Aquinas' Summa, question 2, article 3, "Therefore it is necessary to admit a ***first efficient cause***, to which everyone gives the name of God.") All Christians believe that God is existence itself (I AM WHO AM), which is incredibly deep and profound an answer if you think about it, given to Moses thousands of years before that would be appreciated.

If God is the uncaused thing, to say "what caused God" is just nonsense. It's like saying if you took a dog, took everything away that made it a dog, why isn't it a dog anymore? Who cares?

Pax domini

Ugh ... Atheists have been key in the destruction of Christendom/ western civilisation.

Attached: Anti-Racist Dawkins.png (1318x1314, 2.47M)

>You should read the books that I did cause they told me exactly what I wanted to hear.

Then what do you suggest?

He’s right you brainlet

How do you know that? You’re literally just making things up to fit in with what you want to believe and every religious retard will agree with you because they want to believe it

can an all powerful god create a stone he can't pick up?

just admit it goat boy, you're too dumb to do anything else than be on your knees worshiping

>it's a smug Jew attacks Christianity yet mysteriously never touches Judaism episode

That's the real redpill here. He's destroying your heritage and culture and supporting his.

Is an all-powerful god limited to logic? He created logic, can he not modify it at will?
Answer: He can create it, and then pick it up.
Next

>You shouldn't read any previous philosophy before you inject yourself into philosophical debates

the absolute state of you

>"can a game developer create an object in his game that he can't pick up?"
this is how stupid you sound

cause and effect are laws of time, retard
if God exists out of time, he exists without cause

> Would a computer programmer be a slave to whatever rules he sets in his program?

Wow, looks like you don't know anything about logic OR programming. The answer to your question is YES. All programs are created using the rules of whatever programming language is being used. If I, as a programmer, create a program that doesn't make me 'god' of that program and if I wish to use that program after I create it, I am just as bound to the program's rules as anyone else who uses it.
Church is a lousy place to learn programming....or science, ethics, politics, history and everything else.

>people believe that nothing exploded,went with the conclusion that "they dont know"
>people blieve that everything came from a rock wich didnt actually contain anything but somehow this bacteria magically apeared from the atmosphere somehow
>people believe that men appeared millions of years ago and dont understand that its impossible because the world would have 10 human beings at every square meter if that was true
>these same people call christians stupid while their arguments are litterally based on "we dont know,but believe us goy"
>also these same people believe in a theory wich was actually made by a pope and then got adopted by Darwin

These fucking people are allowed to brainwash children with their shitty theory in school education

Attached: 1524534654635.png (211x239, 6K)

Attached: 1525176969503.jpg (1224x1632, 434K)

No, I mean, read great books that discuss the cosmological argument legitimately, not a meme with one sentence addressing it. Many atheists have written whole, legitimate books on this. I recommend you read those as well.

Ignorance is not the solution! I know many are afraid to put in this work of studying because of What they might find.

Unrelated, if you are curious as to the "state-of-the-art" Christian philosophy, I recommend the book "new proofs for the existence of god". This focuses less on the cosmological argument, and draws from modern physics. If you don't read that it's ok.

Pax domini

Further proof no atheist has bothered to study Aquinas

Attached: 1524879929111.jpg (551x363, 42K)

This

I love this argument by believers because it is basically an admission of defeat. You are essentially saying, "I can't present any evidence to support my position or my belief in god, so I am just going to put my god outside the parameters of the discussion and claim he is outside of all space, time and definition."
As an atheist, I consider that to be a win for my side. I have literally forced your belief off of the field of discussion. Thanks for the win.

>Church is a lousy place to learn programming....or science, ethics, politics, history and everything else
Except I'm not a christian. No need to lose what shred of civility we have and start insulting each other.
>create a program that doesn't make me 'god' of that program and if I wish to use that program after I create it, I am just as bound to the program's rules as anyone else who uses it
You can always access the source code, can't you?
Anyway, that is not what I meant. What I meant was: If you make every npc's lifespan in a game 3 hours, does that make your lifespan 3 hours too?

Lol, nice retarded shit theists say thread op

It's actually pretty simple, god is everything, the all.

> You can always access the source code, can't you?

Once again, yes. But then it is no longer the same program. Any changes would make it a different program than the one I started with.

Veering off-point here. Answer my original question:
>Anyway, that is not what I meant. What I meant was: If you make every npc's lifespan in a game 3 hours, does that make your lifespan 3 hours too?

What you're doing here is not proving the existence of god. All you are doing is taking the definition of god and making it so vague and generalized that you can claim anything as proof of god. It might make you feel good, but as a logical argument for god, it is a failure.

>slide thread

Also, would the npc's in the program know the difference? Would they notice that the program suddenly changed?

>"Everything has a cause" is what runs the known universe's logic. It defines the laws of physics as we know them.
Causality has a very specific meaning in physics, it does not mean that the big bang needed a cause, it means that events can only be influenced by their past lightcone.

>everything has a cause
This is creating an unfounded rule to establish a premise. The entire theory is made false by this statement.
>space and time must have been caused by something that stands outside of space and time
That's assuming that it was caused by something and hasn't simply always existed. Not everything has to have a source or a beginning.

Aquinas' answer is kinda dumb IMO.

"God can create a stone that he can't lift and also he can lift it."

>the first universe
what if there wasn't a "first universe"?

Refute his logic

Ok, I will answer the original question.
As a mere programmer, I would not be making the claim that I am all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful and eternal just because I programmed a video game. I don't have to be an immortal god in order to create a program. So the comparison you make in your argument is not valid.

>emotional intelligence

Attached: dr lexus.jpg (1274x830, 402K)

Npc's in a computer program are not sentient beings. They are inanimate lines of code. They don't 'notice' things. Once again, your comparisons are not valid.

As a former atheist, this is ridiculous. "Prove to me that dogs exist, but I will only accept flying dogs as evidence." If God exists, of course he **has** to be outside of the created universe.

>I can't present any evidence to support my position or my belief in god

I can present over 26 "proofs" of God that I've thought about over the years, all of which give faith good backing in reason. From near death experiences, my direct experience with things that cannot be scientifically explained without jumping through hoops, philosophical arguments, physics (Bord, Guth, Vilenkin), physics (fine tuned universe vs. multiverse, bouncing universes), coherency theory of truth, coherency theory within biblical prophecies, and a bunch of other ones. I do not accept any of them individually as strong enough to logically convince anyone, but taken together corroborate.. Like the strands of a rope backing and strengthening. Think Newman, how independent verification builds confidence (hmm, independent correlation implies causation... interesting).

But to get there you have work to do my friend. It took me many years of work and depression to finally understand

DAMN IT... WHY DO I NOT KNOW YOU PEOPLE IN REAL LIFE. I COULD CLEAR THIS UP IN 1 YEAR WITH ENOUGH DISCUSSIONS OVER BEER... I'm so pissed off that the new atheists get books but we get nothing from the other side. We don't have books so people say things like "I can't present any evidence". WOW, how is this possible??? How is it that I am so familiar with the great atheists over the years but no one reads the great Christian philosophy? Is there a conspiracy to suppress this message?

Pax domini

To your npc's, would you not be an all-powerful god? Capable of transcending concepts they take for granted?
I'm not saying you are, I'm just using an analogy I and most people are familiar with (programmer here too)

Again, analogy. I'm just trying to explain to you transcendence as I understand it. We are much more than inanimate lines of code, just as god is more than just a programmer.

No major form of the cosmological argument ever had the premise "everything has a cause". This is only in highly truncated straw man versions of the argument and derive from primarily Bertrand Russell. Very few cosmological arguments (notably the Kalam) are about causation going back in time. The vast majority, despite people being so keenly aware of the Kalam, is about the sustaining of the universe over time. A chain of causation in each instance. As the chain is moving forward in real time it cannot be an infinite regress and so can only end in something that causes action without being caused to act itself. This can't be self-serving as no premise is against it and the "everything has a cause" premise isn't there.

Hope that cleared it up. I have to go to work.

the question itself is dumb
God has no physical body, that's why he needed Jesus
something without a physical body can't "lift a stone"

it's projecting a humanity onto God, which is wrong

>haven't explored the concept in the slightest
>calls it a failure.
It's not vague and generalized at all, consciousness cannot arise from matter. You know why? Go back to the first matter in existence, if there wasn't a consciousness already there to perceive it, how could it be said to exist? It cannot, therefore consciousness always precedes matter. Matter does not even exist, It is all just consciousness. God is consciousness. Everything in existence is just that, consciousness aka God.

> To your npc's, would you not be an all-powerful god? Capable of transcending concepts they take for granted?
Once again, a bad analogy. I would not 'be' anything to npc's because they are not sentient. They don't think, they don't have 'concepts' and they don't 'take things for granted'. They don't 'do' anything...because 'they' are nothing more than lines of code in a program.

God is the stone, God is the ground the stone is on, God is the faggot that picks up and throws the stone, God is the trap that gets hit with the stone.

If god is all powerful and perfect, then why did he 'need' Jesus? By definition, an all powerful, perfect being would already be everything it could ever need contained within itself. Your very definition of god is a god of imperfection.

>Again, analogy. I'm just trying to explain to you transcendence as I understand it. We are much more than inanimate lines of code, just as god is more than just a programmer.
The code runs on language 'logic', aka 'concepts'. If anyone could create 'sentient' lines of code, anyone could be god.

> consciousness cannot arise from matter

A claim for which you have zero evidence.

God didn't need Jesus, we needed Jesus you dolt.
I'm not even Christian and I know that fuckin much

God doesn't need jesus, that's just what's written in the bible and what christians believe, what some people believe has no relevance.

If jesus did exist, he would have been God too, the same with all of us.

If there was no consciousness already there to perceive it, how would matter be said to exist?

because God exists on another plane of existence. Jesus is God's form in our existence. you're a fucking moron, i've been reading your posts about programming and you're an absolute brainlet, don't talk to me

anyone that doesn't understand the analogy between NPC in a virtual world and human beings in our universe is not worth talking to any further Brazilbro

>Everything has a cause
>Except god lol now read this book written by men who never even met Jesus since it was put together 300 years after the events and is just Judaism 2.0 lmao
>Also if someone come along with a new version and says theyve spoken to angels and got things cleared up theyre wrong

> God has no physical body, that's why HE needed Jesus.

Read the post before you comment, you dolt.
I was responding only to what was there and the post said GOD needed Jesus, not us. I can't respond to the incorrect assumptions being made in that pea brain of yours, now can I?

Enlighten me.
And it's pronounced SA-UDI ARA-BRAZIL-IA
.
But be my guest, go Ad hominem, if it does so much to prove your point.

If I kill you, your body is still there. Trust me.

I sense a lot of anger in your response. That usually means my arguments are hitting really close to home. I will take that as a win. Thanks...

Hey genius, can you read? I never said I didn't understand the analogy. What I said (several times) is that it was a POOR analogy and not worth responding to.....just your arguments.

Just remember guys pretty soon we will all find out wether he is real or not. If he dosne't exist you lost nothing but if he does you lost everything.

I wasn't responding to the bible. I was responding to the post. And the post said GOD needed Jesus.

I LOOK FUCKIN STUPID EY

Why is it poor analogy?
>World => Simulated World
>Concepts => Logical rules of language and programmer design
>God => All-powerful omnipotent controller of world (programmer)
>Human => Inhabitants of simulated world subject to its rules (NPC)
Be a good debater and point out what's wrong, suggesting improvements, rather than just declare it bad "because"

from the blogpage samharristhefraud.com, now apparently taken down:

At this same juncture in his life Sam decided to dive into the world of neuroscience, and what a career move it turned out to be. For the broader middle class yokelry who fawn over Sam, it gives him some kind of insight into the “inner workings of the mind”, which neuroscience does not actually involve. A small aside, let me tell you what neuroscientists do: data entry. The neuroscientist title turns out to be a lie, a bit of performance art from an accomplished performer. It’s true that Harris completed a PhD in neuroscience, yet the story of how he got this qualification casts some doubt on his bona fides as a so called “neuroscientist”.

Harris’ desire to sleaze his way through a doctorate in neuroscience in particular was motivated by his instincts as an arch-careerist. “The End of Faith” was already on the shelves – he was already a Somebody in the public sphere, and he already had a topic that he knew would play. His PhD would investigate the differences in brain activity between Christians and non-Christian people when asked various factual or non-factual questions. The goal was to find some kind of neurological correlate of religiosity, showing how religious people think less rationally than atheists. He could then use this as a stick to beat religious people – presumably Muslims – with: “your brains work differently to ours”. These findings would tie everything up in a neat bow: Muslims are irrational and crazy, and here are the brain scans to prove it! Fortunately for Sam, and unfortunately for the credibility of neuroscientists generally, it’s pretty easy to produce whatever results you like with a little bit of methodological tilting of the scales.

Sam Harris is a classic autistic savant, enthralled by the science of PET scan and MRI machines and Stanford PhDs, after he wasted his youth dosing himself with LSD in Nepal and pestering yogis with his infantile questions, bothering the yogis in their quest for more of that western hippie chick pussy. Now Harris has his Stanford PhD so he surely must be an expert in the quantum physical basis of cosmic consciousness. hahahahah.

Two equally interesting questions arise from the tale of Sam’s PhD thesis. Firstly, where did he get the money? MRI machines are expensive pieces of equipment, and are often rented for short periods at great expense. By now we should be able to guess the answer: Sam naturally had this covered through personal wealth and connections. Right around the time he was beginning his thesis Harris founded “The Reason Project”, later to become “Project Reason”, a “charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society”. The Reason Project was apparently feeling particularly charitable about Sam, and provided the funds for his PhD, including use of facilities and an MRI machine. Once again, mum to the rescue.

The second problem was potentially more difficult. Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal, until you remember that Sam was by this stage highly connected, filthy rich, and becoming famous. He was given the red carpet treatment by UCLA. Sam got to pretend to do science while the professionals got to work. The various research jobs were passed to his co-authors: conducting the experiments, recruiting participants and designing the entire study were taken off Little Lord Fauntleroy’s hands. Ultimately Sam’s sole responsibility was the final write-up, which is less the account of a scientific experiment and more a screed about his personal views on religion, and a narcissistic flexing of his intellectual cred.

This statement is not proof of the existence of god. It is really nothing more than a scare tactic. It is not designed to answer any questions. It is designed to scare the weak minded into not asking hard questions in the first place. Any religion that has to use fear of punishment to get asses in seats is not only useless, it is immoral and pathetic.
"When you die, you'll find out!"
Fuck that fear mongering bullshit.

From the introduction:

“While there may be many Catholics, for instance, who value the ritual of the Mass without actually believing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the primacy of the Mass within the Church still hinges on the fact that many Catholics do accept it as a metaphysical truth—a fact that can be directly attributed to specific, doctrinal claims that are still put forward by the Church.”

First of all, that’s not what “metaphysical” means, and secondly, what does this have to do with a behavioural fMRI study?

“Indeed, humanity seems to becoming proportionally more religious, as the combination of material advancement and secularism is strongly correlated with decreased fertility . When one considers the rise of Islamism throughout the Muslim world, the spread of Pentecostalism throughout Africa, and the anomalous piety of the United States, it becomes clear that religion will have geopolitical consequences well into the 21st century.”

Again, is this neuroscience or Sam’s new blog post?

The PhD predictably ended up a huge mess seeing how its lead author, Sam, was not a scientist but rather an anti-religious ideologue with no idea about how to design a study of this kind. Plenty of scientists during this period were swept up by the excitement of probing the activity in people’s brains to locate the regions or areas responsible for different mental behaviours. The emerging field of fMRI seemed to give us a special insight into the mind, but the methods involved are often rudimentary or extremely questionable.

Participants are routinely asked to “do nothing” or “think about nothing” while their “baseline” brain activity is recorded by the MRI machine. This baseline is then compared against their results during the experimental task, often in a very crude way. Researchers will simply subtract the baseline activation from the task activation, assuming that this will leave them with only the task activation, removing all the background noise. Researchers also frequently use mathematical tweaking to produce results that look good on a “heat map” by removing data that are “noisy” and don’t cluster neatly on the hotspots of activation.

In one famous example of the flaws of fMRIs, researchers used a dead salmon as their fMRI subject. The salmon was shown a series of images of various human social situations, designed to evoke an emotional response. The researchers found that, using the standard methods employed by neuroscientists and psychologists, the dead salmon responded to the images, illustrating the insanely high false-positive rate of fMRI research.

On a deeper theoretical level, it is rarely assumed anymore that discrete brain regions “do” any particular task. More and more evidence is emerging that distributed networks, graphical and topological features of the whole brain, and other kinds of non-localizable processes are what actually drive our mental life.

Yes...you look fuckin stupid.

Harris’ research manages to hit every single note of bad neuroscience design, and reveals an ignorance of theoretical issues on the part of the scientists involved. The statistician William Briggs, having studied the thesis, points to numerous flaws in its design. The researchers recruited a hugely biased population sample that skewed their data, and did not record whether the non-Christian participants were Muslims, Atheists, Buddhist, or whatever else (I guess the folks round Stanford are white enough to rule other religions out). They also didn’t include the details of the questions asked, and we simply have to assume that the questions were valid. Harris’ team also discarded data that did not suit their desired results: 7 out of 40 participants were not included in the results “because their responses to our experimental stimuli indicated that they did not actually meet the criteria for inclusion in our study as either nonbelievers or committed Christians”. How was this decided? They never say. In addition, since some participants didn’t answer consistently enough according to Sam’s reckoning he excluded “subjects who could not consistently respond “true” or “false” with conviction.”

Briggs summarises:

“During the course of my investigation of scientism and bad science, I have read a great many bad, poorly reasoned papers. This one might not be the worst, but it deserves a prize for mangling the largest number of things simultaneously.”

Yet the thesis was accepted and Sam received his PhD anyway. Doubtless the connection to his thesis supervisor Mark S. Cohen, a pioneer in MRI scanning techniques, helped carry him over the line. And thus Sam, a man who knows virtually nothing about neuroscience, who has never conducted or designed an experiment, is the proud holder of a PhD.