What does Jow Forums think of Atheism?

If you Christian, don't be a shithead to the atheists.
If you atheist, don't be a shithead to the Christians.

Then we call just chill and max man.

Attached: 10.jpg (910x480, 25K)

I agree that agnostics don't believe .. but the reasons why are important. I don't believe because it's impossible to know if there is or is not a god.

the critical difference between atheists/agnostics is that atheists are certain there is no god (so they don't believe) ..while agnostics have concluded it's humanly impossible to be certain of it even being possible much less know the difference between god/devil ..(so we don't believe because it would be just a guess/hope)

TPBP

Easiest way to get Atheist faggots to STFU is to ask if having a religion is an evolutionary advantage.

Watch as their brains implode if the cognitive dissonance low enough.

>in order to be certain of something (both atheism/believer) you have to understand everything
retard

An atheist doesn't necessarily assert there is no god. There several different type of atheists:
1) Soft agnostic atheist(doesn't claim to know if a god exists, but has a lack of belief)
2) Hard agnostic atheist(Believes a god doesn't exist, but doesn't claim to know if one does or not)
3) Gnostic atheist (claims to know no god exists)

The word "atheist" encompasses all three of those positions, since all three lack belief in a god, for you have to lack belief in one in order to believe or claim to know if one doesn't exist.

Fuck abrahamicism. Period. If you're a theist you'd better fuckin' be Shinto. Now.

Attached: image.jpg (1200x675, 290K)

As a Christian I can agree with this. What about the pagans on this board though? They're unreasonable hostile to anyone who disagrees with them.

There's a difference between "believe" and "know" by the way.

unreasonably

civilization was build by people who question and seek. Devout believers are intellectually stagnant.

I do see value in attributing qualities and standards to beings that are eternal and omnipresent for a people to use as guidance and inspiration.

Attached: 27580308_400208037073826_5645280369340055552_n.jpg (1046x1140, 145K)

>impossible to know if there is or is not a god.
>impossible to know if there is or is not a teapot orbiting jupiter

the actual truth is that god is bs but religion constrained the detrimental aspects of human nature and without it we find things to be acceptable that destroyed our society

Attached: women (3).jpg (4920x4161, 1.87M)

>atheism
>antitheism
>apolytheism
>antipolytheism
>apantheism
>antipantheism
>ignosticism/apatheism
so many stances

you can use physics and other methods to ascertain the possibility of your teapot scenario.

however, the capacity to measure and test a god/devil with our tools/knowledge is impossible. Besides, the standards of a god are not all known. I can say the god of the Christians, jews, muslims etc is impossible because they wrote their standards and description of their gods to which I can test. They all imply that their deities defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics among other testable parameters.

what makes me agnostic while I still deny the existence of these false gods is that there still *could be a god which has not been written about or made themselves known etc

It’s jewish propaganda pushed to destroy white countries.

>the capacity to measure and test a teapot at that distance with our current tools/knowledge is impossible.

if something has no physical effect whatsoever, NONE AT ALL, how come you still give it more than one name? god, devil, ghost, bad air, whatever you want to call it is all the same thing. nothing is still nothing no matter what you name it, because you're only naming feelings at this stage, not objects.

>They all imply that their deities defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics among other testable parameters.
When I write a simulation, I can violate whatever rules I made, whether locally or globally. That seems like a pretty shaky line of reasoning to use for such an important question.

not a fan of the headwear

Attached: 184769275.jpg (225x225, 8K)

>atheism

Attached: Tipper of fedoras.gif (263x396, 649K)

religious nutjob from australia, like clockwork.

it may not be possible to test the teapot currently but it *is technically possible and not prevented by physics etc.

However, it is impossible to test every theory on the existence of god ..regardless of time, technology etc.. you're assuming the god wants to be known. there's a *possibility the god doesn't want to be know yet still exists.

in order to understand what I'm referring to (analysis) you have to completely erase all previous preconceptions and start/work with only absolutes (because a god would be an absolute).

in order to calculate for and understand every absolute, you would need to be an absolute (ie god) .. the contradiction here is that a god would know if they were an god.

I don't understand what you're referring to.

False, agnosticism and atheism are fundamentally different and the fact you think they're the same shows you're a retard.

Atheist germanized heeb from the country renowned for heebs, the only atheists I've ever met are bluepills that fall for all the kike consumerism and progressivism, all of these go hand in hand.

>god watches children get raped (let this sink in)
>god watches children suffer
>god is good

>implying I'm Atheist.

niche projection there. but have a picture of your (((Saviour)))

Attached: for_your_sins.jpg (552x550, 44K)

>waah why won't God take care of me why oh why do I have free will
it's really easy to see why fags like you always vote for more government

>I think all religious beliefs are stupid because they lack the depth and meaning I can acquire from watching Japanese cartoons

Attached: Fedoralicious.jpg (720x504, 104K)

>I don't understand what you're referring to.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it sounded like you were saying that you could test the reality of God by his violation of laws of physics, which is impossible, therefore he can't exist.

I'm saying that's pretty shaky, given that he is said to have created our physical universe.

He is also equated (by John) with The Logos, the ultimate God postulated by Greek philosophers (notably Aristotle, Heraclitus, Plato, peripatetics and stoics) which is the ultimate source of order, physics, and rationality in the universe.

adheizmXDXDXD
dib

Attached: Fedorapurdo.jpg (550x404, 44K)

t. you

Attached: Science.jpg (960x931, 348K)

You're not thinking straight.

Attached: 1511808093709.jpg (2000x2368, 1.04M)

ok I understand your statement, you meant god writes the stimulation etc. learn to speak with better information transfer.

The basic issue with your assumption (which you have to agree it is, since I don't recall any passages about this) ..is that god needs to constantly break the rules in order to exist and operate. It's not that he broke his own rules once (at creation/stimulation) ..in order for him/her to operate he would need to defy the laws of physics (speed of light etc) to see and be interactive in the present. Everything we see is already past and thus god would never be able to interact to present and instant events since nothing travels faster than the speed of light (including his reactions to our events)

just to give you a simple specific biblical impossibility.
>the Earth was created before the Sun

you worship a god that literally watches innocent kids get raped everyday ..and your problem is political?!

>free will
>god has a plan
pick you one bitch

>he honestly thinks that it's beyond the ken of an omnipotent being to create life with freewill while knowing what they'll do anyway
This is hilarious. This debate is literally millennia old and you presume you've got the truth and even worse you try to assert it in the most juvenile way possible.
>please daddy God do everything for me I can't handle all this agency
Pathetic.

((()))
I have never seen one minute of anime in my life.

let's speak about something we do know.

your god watches innocent children get raped on a daily basis.

is this factually true ? yes or no? this question is for anyone who can answer

hi stephen fry you fucking degenerate

>have imaginary god of rationality
>refuse to face any proof of imaginary status
>refuse anything that makes sense if it does not support story
>pretend this imaginary god is also god of logic
>lol checkmate atheists

are you still butthurt from the last time an atheist blew your shit to hell or what? hahahahhaha

Attached: lol.jpg (500x500, 51K)

what kind of statement is that?! either shut the fuck up or detail your reasons. lames

Irreligious

>open your mind padawan~ woooOooOOo~

get fucked with your ontology bullcrap. living in the world of books wont get you nearly as far as you think.

factual events
>children get raped
>god sees everything
answer my question.. does your god watch children get raped?! yes or no.

Attached: 5zz.png (557x741, 199K)

Attached: 1525022601564.jpg (278x349, 22K)

So you've got the omnipotence part in check I see yet you're asking questions as if you don't understand it at all. See why I called you juvenile? Where do whiny faggots like you come from?

Atheism is the belief a God does not exist. Agnostics do not have that certainty, they are without k knowledge ofan existence or a lack of existence.

>I have never seen one minute oif anime in my life

Suuuure you haven't, euphoria-sama.

Attached: 1518860385060.png (463x469, 86K)

it's a simple yes or no .. does god see children get raped

we know children are being raped. this is a fact

I'm asking a simple question. Does god fucking see them?! Yes or No

you're a bitch made coward that won't answer.

>is that god needs to constantly break the rules in order to exist and operate. It's not that he broke his own rules once (at creation/stimulation) ..in order for him/her to operate he would need to defy the laws of physics (speed of light etc) to see and be interactive in the present.Everything we see is already past and thus god would never be able to interact to present and instant events since nothing travels faster than the speed of light (including his reactions to our events)
No, that's not true. You're implicitly assuming that God is an interior part of the universe. The idea is that he is exterior to it, and thus has access to all points and times(the physical time of our universe) simultaneously. Just as you would have simultaneous access to all parts of a 2D subspace in front of you. If you alter some of it, it would appear to the inhabitants of that subspace that something physically impossible had happened, but that's simply because they based their concepts about what is impossible around what they observed matter within their universe to be capable of. Since time is indistinguishable from a spatial dimension (but with opposite value on the metric (i.e x^2+y^2+z^2-t^2 instead of x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2), your "temporal" paradoxes are resolved in the same way.

>>the Earth was created before the Sun
You're referring to Genesis 1, but you're confused between the creation of the sun and the presentation of the light from the sun. The account starts off after the earth and sun are already in existence, and gives an accurate chronological summary of the history of geology and life on earth, which had no visible sun for much of it's early eons. The proper way to understand Genesis 1 is as a man (Moses) being given a vision from the vantage point of an observer on the earth's surface. Then everything lines up smoothly.

>God see everything
>Does God see 'x'
God sees kids getting raped in Africa to cure AIDS and he sees you sodomize yourself to tranny porn too. It's hilarious how your post formatting reeks of self-righteousness and indignation at the same time as desperately trying to convey a tough guy persona. You need help.

Attached: bad cig.jpg (600x418, 27K)

You bore me

Attached: 6Z3A1300.jpg (1200x1800, 495K)

>>refuse to face any proof of imaginary status
I assume by "proof", you mean evidence. I do take into account the evidence against God's existence, but find the evidence for his existence to be more compelling and less contingent on speculation. So in the final weighing of the evidence, I judge in favor of his existence.

>are you still butthurt from the last time an atheist blew your shit to hell or what? hahahahhaha
You don't come off as a man of rationality, and you ought to be aware of that.

the definition means a LACK OF THEISM
you retarded faggot
try to keep up

I know and believe that namefags should be killed.

>muh feels are all the proof I need and never mind all your evidence no matter how clearly put
>you know me too well
no kidding

Attached: godblock11.jpg (460x473, 54K)

>it's logically impossible to be atheist or a believer. Only agnosticism is logically possible.
You have it backwards.
Beliefs are irrational. They are separate from the realm of reason, knowledge, facts, evidence, logic, etc.
Since there is zero reason, knowledge, facts, evidence, logic of any gods, belief in them falls in the irrational realm.

Gods and other supernatural beings are something one can believe in. They are not something we can know. We can never build any epistemology on what gods are since everybody believes they are something different. Substitute the word vampire or mermaid for gods if it helps make this point clear.

gnostic - things we know
agnostic - things we don't know
Since gods and other supernatural beings are things that can only be believed in and can be known, the terms gnostic and agnostic cannot be applied to them.

>theism is the fastest dying belief system.
It never was a belief system

>I don't believe because it's impossible to know if there is or is not a god.
It is impossible, you just believe it isn't.

>>muh feels are all the proof I need and never mind all your evidence no matter how clearly put
Where did I say anything about feelings? What convinced me eventually were arguments out of physics and logic, though eventually I found other arguments out of biochemistry, foundational mathematics, cosmology, and other fields.

One need only look at my previous post and your response to it, to get a feeling for how rational you are (or aren't) willing to be.

Atheists are douchebags.

Agnosticism is the ultimate Godpill

>a religion is an evolutionary advantage.
Religion has always been great for religious leaders making mind slaves of their fellow human beings, but it's been the greatest firehose of evil the world has ever known.

Men make morals. Then some evil men fabricated gods to enforce their morals. They admit that men wrote their morals, but make the additional claim that a supernatural being "revealed" it to a few "special" men who should be worshiped. They preyed upon the fears and ignorance of the weak-minded to keep primitive men enslaved in submission.

Religions have tortured, maimed and put millions to death for refusing to believe in their irrational nonsense. Not content with simply following their own dogma, believers insist on imposing their beliefs on others by way of law. Religions have been used for millennia to control people. All the kingdoms, some of which still exist today, are based on the notion that the king is god's vicar on Earth, the divine ruler, the man other men cannot question without fear of invoking god's wrath. 50,000 women were put to death for being witches in Europe. I might be going out on a limb here, but I suggest not a single one of those murder victims was actually a witch.

Religion forces you to love some fictional entity who you fear, who can presumably smote you where you stand for disobedience. You are forced to follow blindly the commands of these gods, which somehow always benefits a small group of privileged men. Religion is a systemic exploitation crafted by the wealthy and powerful to produce lifelong slaves of formerly moral human beings. Religion tricks you into believing you can't be moral without religion. It cons you into imagining that some reward after death is superior to this one precious life you have on Earth. Religion, belief in gods, is the definition of evil.

God is life, life is chaos, chaos creates fear, fear creates noise, and wherever you find silence, there you find the soul.

Attached: 1656347_1138486962850029_8589172452945298852_n.jpg (640x617, 108K)

To be atheistic completely has got to be the simplest, saddest worldview I've ever seen anyone take. The moral elements are loaned mostly from mainstream religions with a twist of "do whatever you want so long as it doesn't conflict with what my opinion of hurting someone is". When asked about why we are even here, an atheist will likely say something along the lines of "we're not meant to exist/nothing really matters/this is all an accident/there is no life before or beyond this".

There's no useful dogma to establish and no interesting questions to peruse or create. The mystery of consciousness is completely thrown away as meaningless and the only logical end result is nihilism and suicide. While there's plenty of arguments as to why this view is illogical or at the very least not pragmatic, there is one that I've noticed is rather easy to convey that's already been brought up in this thread, though maybe not well-articulated.

Think of it this way: you as a human being are limited in your sense of perception in a multitude of ways. You can only see so far into the distance. Your sense of sound is limited by frequencies. You can only touch and feel what directly impacts your skin. So on and so forth. The fact that you are limited in perception is completely unquestionable. Now, we are aware what has generally been unable to be perceived recently due to technological advances, but that doesn't exactly make us gods. We could always use more information.

This means that if we aren't hasty and are trying to assume as little as possible, the logical conclusion to the God question can be started on "I don't know and can't possibly know everything that is going on around me, so I might as well leave the option of a deity existing in a way I don't understand open". This is the bare minimum of logical theistic thinking. How you characterize the divine is a completely different question though.

Attached: 215535-klaymen.jpg (390x367, 43K)

>An atheist doesn't necessarily assert there is no god.
The Greek word for those who assert there is no god is anti-theist, not atheist

> you have to lack belief in one in order to believe or claim to know if one doesn't exist.
Theists never prove their gods exists, so atheists have nothing to disprove.
There several different type of atheists:
>1) Soft agnostic atheist(doesn't claim to know if a god exists, but has a lack of belief)
>2) Hard agnostic atheist(Believes a god doesn't exist, but doesn't claim to know if one does or not)
>3) Gnostic atheist (claims to know no god exists)

It's for people with daddy issues. They never had a real father that fathered them in their life.

Attached: 1512655597390.jpg (678x345, 123K)

>2d
in order to see and interact with events the fastest unit of measurement is light. Even in 2 dimensional space the distances are not equal ..and any response would still travel within the set limits (light). The only work around this paradox is preemptive reaction since god knows the future. The fastest god could react to anything on Earth if was at a distance equivalent to the Sun would be 16 minutes (8 minutes to see the event, 8 minutes to respond). However if he knew all events, he could react preemptively ahead of time. I don't see any mention of constant preemptive reactions written as a way of god on the bible though.

I'm very familiar with the light source being present before Earth creation but the physical Sun was still created *after the Earth (according to Genesis). That is impossible for many reasons (Star formation).

Cause believers breed like rats.

I think you better be right....because if you aren't...eternity is a long damn time.

Attached: 83307621_orig.jpg (960x720, 109K)

>Atheism is the belief a God does not exist.
Your IQ is far too low for this thread.

As an addendum to this thought, Jordan Peterson's lectures are decent place to start when trying to grapple with the concept of the divine. I wouldn't stick with him forever, because his following has gotten extremely cult-y. I got wrapped up in it briefly myself. But just because he's got an ignorant/supportive view of Jews doesn't mean everything he says is completely worthless. Just don't listen to what he says about Nazis and our Fuhrer Adolf and take what's true and run with it. After all, even if he is a huge liar (which I don't believe, though he certainly isn't perfect), there are always grains of truth in every massive web of lies. Identify them and take advantage of them.

Attached: asdfasf.png (207x188, 43K)

>I have never seen one minute of anime in my life.

Suuuure you haven't, euphoria-sama.

Attached: 1518860385060.png (463x469, 86K)

>You're implicitly assuming that God is an interior part of the universe.
You're explicitly assuming that God is an exterior part of the universe, which is not a reasoned argument and requires extraordinary evidence.

>Beliefs are irrational. They are separate from the realm of reason, knowledge, facts, evidence, logic, etc.
A "belief" is merely something one thinks is true. What one thinks is true can be well-founded, and have justification in the form of reasoning; or it can be more speculative; or it can be based on trusting someone else and their opinion, or many other possibilities. Logic, mathematics, and physics can inform one's beliefs, but also one's pre-existing beliefs come into play in the formulation of the axioms.

>Since there is zero reason, knowledge, facts, evidence, logic of any gods, belief in them falls in the irrational realm.
Most logicians throughout history (and frequently even today, despite the atheistic culture) would disagree with you. To say there is zero reason, knowledge, facts, evidence, etc simply shows everyone your ignorance. Like a defence attorney continually saying the prosecution has no evidence at all because you've had various responses for it all, you wind up sounding childish.

I'm not sure where we disagree or agree because you made it about parsing definitions.

I agree, I decided I needed information that I can never understand or be given.. so I don't base my existence on the teachings of that god's prophets.

Atheist will just cite Voltes on god existence, that religion is a great way to control sheeple and make them behave. So yes, being a part of organized group encouraging certain behavioral traits can be advantageous. Does not mean you have to believe in god or divine retribution.

>exterior part of the universe
That's not something

>What one thinks is true can be well-founded, and have justification in the form of reasoning;
Hypothetical conjecture is one such form of irrational thinking that is useful and practical. Belief in leprechauns, ghosts, talking donkeys and other supernatural beings surely is not.

>Most logicians throughout history (and frequently even today, despite the atheistic culture) would disagree with you.
Give us the name of a prominent scientist who gathers data for decades, can't get the numbers to fit his conclusion, so he invokes a deity to explain the discrepancy. You can't. Give us the name of a mathematician who can't solve his equation, so he adds the "god" factor and now it works. On the other hand, theists desperately trying to rationalize their gods happens about 10 threads per hour here on /b/ and Jow Forums. They are literally pretending that their irrational beliefs can somehow be told in a special way that make them rational.

I would submit that you know nothing of any logicians that were not desperate rationalizers of irrational beliefs.

>in order to see and interact with events the fastest unit of measurement is light.
That's only true inside of the universe. This is especially evident in General Relativity, where there are plenty of things happening at greater than the speed of light, even though continuous pathways internal to the spacetime integrate to the equivalent of the physical Sun was still created *after the Earth (according to Genesis)
Did you even read what I wrote? If you don't read what I wrote, then there is no point in replying to you, right? That's not an unreasonable request is it?

Depends. Are we talking:
>I simply don't follow dogma and have a hard time grasping the idea that all things come from some santa clause figure in the sky
>so I see the world in all it's joyous wonder and the miracle that is life and can appreciate the better parts of many religions and that the ritual practices of mediation and self reflection can contribute to the betterment of not only myself, but also the lives of others
>and that there's reason for organized religion having been so popular for so long and that it is actually a sign of intelligence and human will power rather than idiocy.

or

>hurr durr god's not real, russells teapot, "a true intellectual"

One of those is acceptable atheism, the other gets the rope. You decide.

>I'm not sure where we disagree or agree because you made it about parsing definitions.
I see I made a misleading error in this sentence:
Since gods and other supernatural beings are things that can only be believed in and CAN NOT be known, the terms gnostic and agnostic cannot be applied to them.

>You're explicitly assuming that God is an exterior part of the universe, which is not a reasoned argument and requires extraordinary evidence.
Yes, because that is the picture created by the prophets and Jesus (the ones who could ostensibly talk with God), and also it is the historic view of logical theologians, such as Augustine and Aquinas (among many others). I mentioned it not because I was demonstrating its truth, but because I was responding the the failed understanding of the poster, who clearly thought the idea was that God was inside the universe. (I don't know if he was setting up a strawman, or just ignorant of what Christians believe.)

>That's not something
I agree, but it is apparently a gap where this fellow's gods reside:
>The idea is that he is exterior to it,

>outside the universe

that's just more universe user. hence the fucking name

>So yes, being a part of organized group encouraging certain behavioral traits can be advantageous.
Especially if you suspect there are witches lurking about.

>where did I say anything about feelings?
when you said you disregarded all evidence to the contrary and went with cherry-picking feels

face it, you don't have any proof of your god and will never have proof of it
imaginary things are like that.
all evidence, all data, supports the conclusion that your gods are imaginary and always were, no matter how far back you go, how deep the physics you want to swim in, or what field of science you want to look at, there is nothing that even suggests, in the slightest way, that your imaginary god exists

on the contrary, there is more proof that you are delusional, and that your god is imaginary, than you are willing to face.
this is typical of your sort.

it's called brainwashing, and its been done to you.
this is why you have cognitive dissonance regarding anything that may touch upon your cult-programmed delusion/belief system/ideology

Attached: 1159484.jpg (600x600, 55K)

>t. brainlet

>1 post by this ID
Dumbass b8 bitches.

The first one is pretentious cunt.

There are no God or gods. Meditations have nothing to do with religions. Unifying forces are sometimes good.