Atheists, how can you believe there is no God?

There are probably an infinite number of universes that look vastly different to ours. Some with stars, some with no stars. We were just born in that lucky universe that gave us the opportunity to reflect about ourselves. If a creator had anything to do with it can never be proven.

?

>no Beginning and no End and is all Powerful

This statement is false. If god is 'all powerful' then it can end itsself or can create itsself. If it has no end, then it is not all powerful.

>Atheists, how can you believe there is no God?

One thing Christians and Muslims have in common is a total hatred of science when it BTFO of their myth based religions.

phys.org/news/2018-07-shroud-turin-fake-retracted.html

Attached: Captureeeew.jpg (1318x1073, 192K)

False idols
>people manipulating people and pretending they have a relic

Big fucking deal

God has all power even if not a single human worship Him.

Also, why when humans decide to no longer obey God's rules, there is immediately corruption on Earth?

Look just at Western countries, the rise of atheism and the death of conservative values? Single-family units, low birth rates, depression, debt-driven economy, etc.

> Islam and its gods are just another dead end ruled and summoned by death.
Well my friend, you well need to demonstrate where in Islam we worship anything more than one God?

>- A random mix of molecules grew up to the white man in a few million years

It was neither random, nor it happend in 'few million' years. Chemistry is a thing, you know.

>- a newborn, still inside mom's vagina, counts zero and can be killed

Newborn is not inside a vagine. It is new-born. Ahmed, try more.

>- fags lives matter

Everyone's life matters.

You're asking me to accept that a skygod clapped his hands and poofed the universe and trees into existence from nothing. That's equally as nutty.

Attached: C924D938-A72C-48AA-A4CC-3744C5CA5A1D-4255-000006ACCA75111A.jpg (667x623, 56K)

>Also, why when humans decide to no longer obey God's rules, there is immediately corruption on Earth?

Because religion is a tool of a ruler. Its role is to have an unquestionable source of authority to ensure social cohesion. Religion does not need to be 'true' to play its role. The problem is that scientific progress removed the misticism from anything and left void which...

>Look just at Western countries, the rise of atheism and the death of conservative values? Single-family units, low birth rates, depression, debt-driven economy, etc.

...left people without any direction or sense of purpose other then sensless self indulgence. Where feminists and other vermin of modern politics failed, is to create a stable social model. This is going to be their undoing.

Point being - the milk has spilled. There is no return to religion. Whatever is going to bring western societied togather will be, by necessity, secular.

Alternatively, they are going to be wiped out.

>Also, why when humans decide to no longer obey God's rules, there is immediately corruption on Earth?
Then why is every Muslim country corrupt to the bone? Corrupt leaders, corrupt law enforcement, corrupt everything? Human lives have no value, the poor are treated like shit. I spit on your conservative values.

For muzzies 'lack of corruption' is having of shitton of children and no buttsecks. The country can be a shithole filled to the brim with excrement and corpses.

But kids and fags need to be dealt with.

Muslims worship the devil, pic related is not an accident.

Attached: world-of-faith1.jpg (600x1007, 62K)

The corruption is literally worship of other gods, proving that whatever god s are worshipped by men are the most powerful, proving that a god is only a void between men and does not exist anymore than the concept of Santa clause exists. This points to no creator, just a complex system independent of outside, divine influence. Ruled by the will of men. Death and all evil exists because we justify it. Thus making evil gods the most powerful force. Good cannot win in a world where Islam, judaism, and Christianity are practiced. The gods worshipped in these religions keep death alive. Eternal life cannot be reached through anything that encourages and justifies killing of humans or animals.

>Lack of evidence that is verifable with the use of scientific method.

Science can explain the how but not the why, and it never will. It can describe the process of how a star is formed, even how the whole Universe has been created but it will never explain who has created the Universe (luck or God?).

>Universe exists. How it appeared I know not. I can make theoretical model from which I can track its existance up to a 1 planck time. From there I have no data to make a statement.

Thing is we are talking about what happened before the Universe existed.
Also quite interesting, in the 50's, scientists believed that the Universe always existed. When people were talking about a beginning of the Universe, scientists took that for fairy tales.

>Life is no different from any other energy process in the universe, and, considering how evolutionary processes work, is inevitable to arise.

Also concerning evolution, I have no real knowledge on the theory and proofs behind it as I am more on the engineering side but you might help.

I can see that in a group of animals, those with certain characteristics (bigger, faster, etc.) giving advantage over others will see their genes spread, with the result being that over a time T, evolution will select these animals. I completely get the point for small changes.

However, let's take an eye or lungs.
For the eye, let's say you have a first mutation being the first step towards the creation of an eye. You need millions of mutations before having a functional eye. In the meantime, the organ is useless, and could even be néfaste to the animal developing such mutations. How can evolution makes an animal evolves into having an eye?

In the case of lungs, let's take a fish. If it starts developing lungs, it would immediately die and there is no reason for a fish to even try to go outside to see what is the purpose of the mutation he received. Don't know if clear, but basically how evolution can work for macro things?

This line of thinking is pretty much defunct in analytical philosophy circles.

The universe has an observable first cause, and that explanation alone is sufficient. We don't need to explain where God comes from because we have observed that the universe has a starting point.

If you found alien wreckage on the moon, there is sufficient evidence that aliens built it- you don't have to go back and then ask where the aliens came from

>Thing is we are talking about what happened before the Universe existed.

The universe has no end or beginning, as for the other shit you wrote and it is low IQ shit, I am not addressing it.

>phys.org/news/2018-07-shroud-turin-fake-retracted.html

Nope, we have no problem with science in Islam. In fact, the Quran defies you to find something that contradicts science.

What is the shroud of turin? And why should I be BTFO as a muslim lol?

If God exists, who created god?
The fact that we are here and conscious to ask these questions is a mind job in itself. If somehow we could travel faster than light or bend space to reach the edges of our universe maybe we'll find out, or maybe just drop acid and maybe "god" will explain it to you. Maybe it is impossible that we will ever be able to understand our creation, just like ants can't understand the solar system.

>The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

From my flat earth folder.

Attached: FE (7).jpg (403x268, 28K)

Just for info, Islam is decentralised. There is no religious authority and whatever this guy is, doesn't mean he is right or he is representative of Islam. And this despite being appointed by a bargain monkey prince.

barbarian monkey*

I just can't get into spirituality. I can't really udentify with people who do. It's not like I was some euphoric science-believer either, I'm not really interested in things like that. I don't know why, but I have no need at all to presume anything bigger than myself. Only times I even think about something like that is when I see threads like this. Maybe there is some deity but I got no problem going through life believing it's irrelevant.

So when I tell you find a contradiction between Islam and science, it means find something written in the Quran that contradicts science.

Why do both sides hate me so much just for simply admitting that I don't know?

Understand your point. Well whatever makes you happy.

For me, it is the absolute opposite. I cannot conceive people just waking up, brushing their teeth, going to work, eating, having sex and sleeping and doing that until their death and believe it will just be the end. But that's why I like Jow Forums, everybody is anonymous and everybody can form its opinion.

I don't hate you. It is just a public forum, you are anonymous and I don't even know who you are, we are just here to discuss.

>Because religion is a tool of a ruler.

Talking as a Muslim, probably different for other religions. But Islam is decentralised, there is no priests or moral authority that can tell you they detain the truth. The book has not seen one letter changed since 632 and it will not be changed subject to the will of a ruler.

Weak arguments.

>For the eye, let's say you have a first mutation being the first step towards the creation of an eye. You need millions of mutations before having a functional eye. In the meantime, the organ is useless
Eyes evolved several times on Earth. They all have in common that a blind animal developed a photo sensitive cell which gave it an advantage over others. If an animal is capable of detecting a shadow of a predator, it has a better chance of survival. Over time, more specialized cells formed a more advanced light detection organ which eventually lead to the 7 eyes we know of today. Congruent Evolution is truly fascinating.

Because neither do they truly and you bring up a valid point. This point attacks their beliefs and leaves them open to the unknown. Being open to the unknown is terrifying as it can mean death (metaphorical or not), so much so it's worth attacking you for up to and including killing you just to preserve their current place of safety.

>atheism is jewish propaganda
lol boy do you have that wrong

It's not like rulers in Muslim countries were Muslims. Most of them are probably atheists by the way.

Morocco is ruled by a king that spend his youth drinking and banging girls in nightclubs who is spending all his time stealing the country.

Algeria is controlled by generals that make sure to keep the oil money.

Tunisia has seen a revolution, putting the Islamic party that decided to resign due to pressure from secular parties.

Libya is in civil war after US, France and UK intervention. Thanks!

Egypt was been ruled by Islamists but a coup d'Etat by Morsi (with no western country condemning it) has changed that.

Iraq has been completely destroyed by the US.

etc.

What do you mean about the 7 eyes we know of today? Do you have a link?

>you don't have to go back and then ask where the aliens came from
yes actually, this would be the only question that mattered if that were to happen.

Prove him wrong, fag. Jews are overwhelmingly secular or intertwined with atheist movements. And before you say it - no, American Protestantism is not Christianity because it is not apostolic, and no it does not mean that Christianity is Jewish.

>Science can explain the how but not the why, and it never will. It can describe the process of how a star is formed, even how the whole Universe has been created but it will never explain who has created the Universe (luck or God?).

Yes, Red is, in fact, red.

>Thing is we are talking about what happened before the Universe existed.
>Also quite interesting, in the 50's, scientists believed that the Universe always existed. When people were talking about a beginning of the Universe, scientists took that for fairy tales.

Thing is, you have _zero_ data what happend _before_ universe or even if _before_ universe is a term we can understand. I really don't give a shit what scientists now, tomorrow or 200 years ago believed. 50 years ago there were several theories in regards to universe. Nowadays we narrowed it with 99.99% certainity to big-bang and then expansion until heat death model. If new data expands on that, we will adjust.

>Don't know if clear, but basically how evolution can work for macro things?

Slow accumulation of minute changes which pull a population towards better fitness. Each animal is slightly different then its parents. We group them into 'spiecies', but there are no real boundries when one spieces ends and other begins.

Mutations are not the source of evolution. They are sometimes useful to force a stubborn algorithm to get off a local fitness maximum, but in essence, evolution can happen without them.

>That in this gigantic explosion, planets and stars formed by chance?
Well its not really by chance, the natural universe follows patterns so it was just doing what it always has done when forming planets and stars. Read a book :)

>you just believe it was here just by chance?
and no one that matters believes it was created by chance, the people investigating this topic just dont have total evidence to back up their math. Once our tools of observing the universe get more advanced, we will be able to discover so much more and in much more detail.

*Convergent evolution

Insect, fish, squid, mammalian, and what are the others? I think insects have at least two different sets of eyes.

>All people denying the existence of God. What makes you believe there is no creator of this Universe?
First of all, atheists usually are simply unconvinced of God's existence, rather than sure that it doesn't exist. I, personally, do not know if God exists or doesn't. But if it does, then it surely is beyond any human's understanding, and absolutely unknowable.
>Do you really believe that the Universe appeared out of nowhere?
We do not know that. The best explanation we have states that time began after the Big Bang, so there would be no time where the universe didn't exist. I'll direct the same question to you, how do you believe God came about?
>That in this gigantic explosion, planets and stars formed by chance?
It's not really an explosion, but rather an expansion. And there are many different theories on this point, such as the many worlds theory, that states that there were an infinity of Big Bangs within an infinity of universes, and we simply exist in one where celestial bodies formed as they did.
>And then, by chance, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere?
Considering the sheer size of our universe, and the amount of stars and planets out there, the chances of one planet having conditions that lead to formation of life are staggeringly high.
>If you see a castle or a car in the middle of nowhere, would you say that this construction appeared out of nowhere? No, you would say that there is probably a human behind. But for the universe, where a single tree is much more complex than any human-made construction, you just believe it was here just by chance?
Not really chance. The trees you see around you are a product of millions upon millions of evolution. Tell me, when you look at a single grain of sand on the beach, do you think it got there through natural processes, or was it put there directly by a higher intelligence that somehow plans to use that small tiny bit of sand in some way? Same as all the other grains of sand around it

Yea. That is why there is Sharia _Law_ and priesthood is so goddamn important in each institution of power in muslim world. Right?

>It's not like rulers in Muslim countries were Muslims.

They don't have to. It will suffice that the people they rule over believe.

We don't talk about God because we believe he exists, we talk about God because YOU exist

Attached: spongr.gif (500x338, 507K)

To say one assumption about the origin of things is somehow more plausible is a fallacy since not only is it based on your own notions of what is plausible, but it only works from our own human perspective. It's fine for personal use but not a meaningful position when used to approach others.

>Yes, Red is, in fact, red.
What I meant is that science will not resolve any theological question. The only thing science can bring to the table in this question is that if a book has been revolted by God, then science can help to find contradiction in the book and say that there is this and that mistake, and thus this book cannot have been revealed by God as it contains a mistake. Otherwise, the scope of science do not enter into theological questions.

>We don't talk about God because we believe he exists, we talk about God because YOU exist

We don't talk about God because IT exists. God having a gender automatically makes for an argument for politheism. If God has a gender then, by extension, there has to be several hundread gods of at least two genders, because that is the only meaning we can ascribe to this term.

>did you just misgender my god

>What makes you believe there is no creator of this Universe?
What makes more sense, that the basic rules of the universe existed first, or that a conscious entity existed first.

>planets and stars formed by chance
What is gravity?

>life suddenly appeared out of nowhere
life is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, they happen naturally all the time, if you place lipids in water they will naturally form a layer similar to the layers in a cell wall, its not magic.

This is the most retarded argument i have ever read on this site

Attached: 4fded840c8168f2f25b0919b3ee300b1.png (500x370, 237K)

>What I meant is that science will not resolve any theological question. The only thing science can bring to the table in this question is that if a book has been revolted by God, then science can help to find contradiction in the book and say that there is this and that mistake, and thus this book cannot have been revealed by God as it contains a mistake. Otherwise, the scope of science do not enter into theological questions.

You are correct. However - a part of science is a discipline called 'logic' which does, in fact, destroy any claim of 'God' ever brought up. Because we can dismiss out of hand any concept that is not logically cohesive nor self contradictory.

For example "god is out of time" is a statement without meaning, because the person bringing it up cannot have understanding of what 'out of time' means - because we have no understanding of 'out of time'. We never will. Just like we cannot imagine 5D cube.

Nah. You're just stupid.

>Slow accumulation of minute changes which pull a population towards better fitness. Each animal is slightly different then its parents. We group them into 'spiecies', but there are no real boundries when one spieces ends and other begins.

Naive question but then wouldn't we see almost an infinite amount of species: from the original animal to the "final" one with all the evolution between?

When an animal evolves, there are still other animals that didn't. And there is no reason that all those animals should disappear completely.

Also another naive question: bacterias were able to reproduce by dividing themselves. They didn't need a bacteria from the other sex to reproduce.
However, most of animals are divided into males and females. Here comes two questions:
(i) how is it possible to get evolution that would split a speck into two sexes? i.e. that mean that each sex had to evolve independently but somehow still be compatible with the other sex?
(ii) how being split into two sexes is advantageous from an evolution point of view? Wouldn't it be better from an evolution point of view to only rely on itself for reproduction?

>is not logically cohesive nor self contradictory.
..is not logically cohesive or self contradictory...

Atheist literally believe they are mutated monkey semen. They are not well.

It's so important for them to reject the reality of extraterrestrial visitation because they must reject any faith that it is not falsely supported by faith in materialism.

You are just playing with language to favor your point of view, that's why the idea of god is so retarded, he is made in such a way no logic that we understand can contradict him because we do not "understand him"

Attached: what3.jpg (613x533, 107K)

>Do you really believe that the Universe appeared out of nowhere?
Do you really believe that god made the universe appear out of nowhere?

>That in this gigantic explosion, planets and stars formed by chance?
Not by chance, the forming of planets and stars are inevitable so long as there's matter

>And then, by chance, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere?
You mean a small chance repeated over and over and over and over for billions of years everwhere in an insanely huge universe?

>What I meant is that science will not resolve any theological question. The only thing science can bring to the table in this question is that if a book has been revolted by God, then science can help to find contradiction in the book and say that there is this and that mistake, and thus this book cannot have been revealed by God as it contains a mistake. Otherwise, the scope of science do not enter into theological questions.
Just google it, perhaps. First results that I found.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur'anic_scientific_errors

Why does GOD give me a dick that fits so perfectly in the ass? Did he made an error in designing this? Can he make errors?
Are you describing a metaphysical being or just a basic bully that wants his slaves living by his command/whip?

Here again, you explain the how, It is the mechanism of gravity that is bringing matter to form stars. However, where does these rules come from? Why the gravity constant is exactly G = 6,67 x 10-11 N.m2.kg-2, and that if it was a slightly higher or lower values, there would be probably no life, etc.

>Wouldn't it be better from an evolution point of view to only rely on itself for reproduction?
No as this would severely reduce genetic diversity if an organism would only clone itself or rely on the occasional copy error mutation.

FUCK ISLAM AND FUCK YOU go fuck a 9 year old like mohammed the pedo did

>Naive question but then wouldn't we see almost an infinite amount of species: from the original animal to the "final" one with all the evolution between?

There is no end to evolution, just like there is no end to waves in the ocean. We in fact do 'see' infinite number of spieces. After all each animal is genetically different from its ancesstors. Its just that genetic distance between me and my parents is too small for differences to overtake our similarities.

'Spiecies' is just used by us to have a heurestic to judge a group of animals by their commonalities. Its a tool.

>>When an animal evolves, there are still other animals that didn't.

Animals don't evolve. Populations do. Evolution is perceptable over hundreads of generations.

>>And there is no reason that all those animals should disappear completely.

Why? Evolution has no goal. Take a group of animals of the same spiecies, they can interbreed and everything works. Divide them into two groups, seperate in slightly different, seperate environments for a few million years and you are going to get two distinct spieces, because evolution just for the fuck of it.

..contd

If you study religion and philosophy, they ask you a simple question: what would be the "moment" or "action" that would make you an believer and do whatever the voice commands.
Is it a flaming bush? A voice in your head? What would be the level of "special" that would suffice for you.
For some billion people is the servitude by their parents, community thats "enough".
Others have much higher demands.
If I see a burning bush and hear a voice, I would ask: where does the voice came from and why does the voice think they can give me orders?
You can have millions of questions after the aliens ship question, but you will end up at a burning bush with a voice and you either have to accept whatever you hear - or you will not.
Forcing you to accept it by bullying you with the fear of a bad afterlive is big scammy sign for me.

Not an atheist, but are you real? God, I feel sorry for the atheists there.

Jesus Christ dude.

Attached: hahaha.png (1447x1600, 870K)

So, how does this work. You create and universe and then you say to your little creatures with free will that two men and a sheep in one room is bad.
Either you are incompetent or the supposed rules are lies.

Most atheist don't care much if they are criminal genetic rejects from some alien superrace who thought they see what happens if you put all the egenerates on one planet.
At least that would add +1 to the line of reason, that there is no need for magic.
Also, we need to build spaceships and warp drives and go searching for this superrace and get the bitch on.

>Universe exists. How it appeared I know not. I can make theoretical model from which I can track its existance up to a 1 planck time. From there I have no data to make a statement.

Absolutely insufferable.

..contd

>(i) how is it possible to get evolution that would split a speck into two sexes? i.e. that mean that each sex had to evolve independently but somehow still be compatible with the other sex?

Faster gene mixing. As animals live longer, it takes longer for them swtich genes. Making gene sharing a thing makes sense. Mathematically speaking, only two make sense, btw. There is no benefit from three or more.

Bacteria live briefly, so they can rely on mutation only for getting genetic diversity. This is modeled by a different branch of evolutionary algorithms - called immunological algorithms. Their brief lives allow for quick rejection of failures and quick adjustment to environment. That is why anti-biotics start to lose effectiveness - bacteria are outbreading the weak.

>(ii) how being split into two sexes is advantageous from an evolution point of view? Wouldn't it be better from an evolution point of view to only rely on itself for reproduction?

Genders are different thing, built on top of the first, which is gene sharing between two instances of some bacteria. Genders happen when a subset of a spieces takes a different role in mating then the other.

BTW - this blows feminazi babbling out of the water. Gender roles are implicit feature of gendering.

Agreed. 'God' smells like a projection. 'God' of triangles would have three perfect sides.

Might as well ask why is a mountain.
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>However, where does these rules come from?
This question has approximately infinite answers.

Because it empowers me to take full control of the trajectory of my life

Did ya get that from tumblr?

>All people denying the existence of God. What makes you believe there is no creator of this Universe?
The lack of signs that one exist.
>Do you really believe that the Universe appeared out of nowhere?
Do you really believe that your god appeared out of nowhere?
>That in this gigantic explosion, planets and stars formed by chance?
It is a bit more complicated than boom and stars out of nowhere.
>And then, by chance, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere?
I wouldn call it suddenly.
>If you see a castle or a car in the middle of nowhere, would you say that this construction appeared out of nowhere? No, you would say that there is probably a human behind. But for the universe, where a single tree is much more complex than any human-made construction, you just believe it was here just by chance?
There is a difference between a car and a tree, a car can not produce another car.
It is not made up out of reproducing cells, without reproduction evolution can take place.

> Do you really believe that the Universe appeared out of nowhere?

> That in this gigantic explosion, planets and stars formed by chance?

> And then, by chance, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere?

And that's... crazier than believing all that happened... except for god?

Infinite regression much?

Attached: infinite_regress_by_cosmic_cuttlefish-d31t130.jpg (895x892, 163K)

>All people denying the existence of God. What makes you believe there is no creator of this Universe?
>Do you really believe that the Universe appeared out of nowhere?
>That in this gigantic explosion, planets and stars formed by chance?
>And then, by chance, life suddenly appeared out of nowhere?
>If you see a castle or a car in the middle of nowhere, would you say that this construction appeared out of nowhere? No, you would say that there is probably a human behind. But for the universe, where a single tree is much more complex than any human-made construction, you just believe it was here just by chance?

If you consider a tree too complex to just happen, why do you think a creator capable of envisioning and constructing time and all of existence isn't itself complex enough to need a creator?

Also, we know cars and castles are man made objects, so if we see one, we know it was made by men.

When you say God, we all know you're speaking of a specific God. Out of all the supernatural beings that could have created the universe, why do we choose to believe in ones that get mad when we masturbate or ear ham on the wrong day?

OP, God introduces the infinite regression problem.

My view of god is this:

If god is so powerful and has dictated XYZ, where can I see god's wrath smiting the wicked?

I mean, if god is striking people down like Death Note, then yeah I'll buy it.

If there is a god, it's the muslim one because they make their god's wrath real.