I asked an atheist here if he believes God's existence is implausible

where's your god now?

If only you could stop worshipping Santa Claus tier egregores as gods maybe you could consider what would actually help our species reach a physical "heaven".

>If only you could stop worshipping Santa Claus tier egregores as gods
If only we could all be so enlightened :^)

I'm an atheist and I do believe God's existence is implausible, because infinity is implausible in our universe, and if a thing exists only outside our universe, it has no connection to our universe and we have no means of ever making contact with it.

Great argument.

10 dollars says this is just a christian angry that there is people that aren't christian

The implicit contention is you have no reason to believe your thoughts are original, that you're special, or somehow magically more enlightened than the rest of us. Don't you understand that any little fucking kid can scoff "herp that's ridiculous," and that it's the justification of things like God that takes a measure of critical thought?

>talking about proof in a desert magick bread

So you're saying that God is just too omnipotent to make contact with us?

Just to be clear:

Atheism: I definitely believe there is NO god. Anybody who thinks there is a God is a faggot.

Agnosticism: I see no evidence of a god, so we can't effectively prove or disprove anything. Anybody who thinks they "know" whether or not there is a god is a faggot.

Atheism: I do not believe in myself, no evidence
Agnosticism: I don't think I will ever know if I exist or not

Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

fpbp

Repent your sins, or you shall live with the burning kikes

That totally sounds like a title for a video game about jew racing.
Burning Kikes.

>force-bumping this trainwreck of a thread
Do something better with your time!

Can't you atheists even fathom the idea that the mechanism which created the universe was sentient? It doesn't have to be "a magical sky wizard". I'm agnostic and therefore technically an atheist but at least I'm willing to entertain the thought.

A lot of these faghots belive in ayyyyys

Attached: thecloserweare2Xaxisthebetter.png (2560x1440, 1.05M)

Have a woman claim God raped them and they will be forced to believe her...
t. Mary

Could you imagine being this much of a pseud. All snark no intellect.

Except this doesn't apply to Christians since it isn't a non-dual philosophy and to assume a non dual view if God would be heresy.

Still not addressing my issue.

I believe there might be some spirits and maybe gods
But there certainly is not some Jewish god

Attached: jewish_god.jpg (600x495, 128K)

Still waiting on that proof

Shut up! Shut up now!

>Do something better with your time!
It was to spite the first poster, whom I suspect is a mod.

Ah, Shlomo?
You revealed yourself now
Now confess how Christianity is a Jewish psyop

Attached: (((christianity))).jpg (800x600, 181K)

Your issue appears to be "Christian believe is ridiculous because there's human explanations," which is a fallacy of the single cause, therefore a non-argument, therefore there is little to address.

I'm saying that omnipotence doesn't make sense under this universe's rules.

It's literally impossible to show anything to anyone that isn't supported by God.
>showing is an action, requires a derivative of the universal function with respect to a dimension, like time
>both time and space are defined by the exact speed of light and other luxonic information like gravity
>the act of measurement necessitates that light deliver information from an event or object to the eyes of the observer
>the observer is information given physical shape by light and matter which is concentrated light turned into opposites
>so is the event or object
>it is physically impossible and mathematically undefineable for any part of this system to deviate fron the behavior that is stipulated by the information translated by light
>all that we see or seem is but a phantom of light, all senses are imperfect inputs of information that travels perfectly throughout the cosmos
>there is nothing else in the cosmos other than light, the spacetime defined by it, the structures made of it and the information carried by it
>our understanding of energy density implies that this continuum of energy is indeed a continuous function that stretches out to a potential infinity
>there is nothing that is not light
>there is no void, no true darkness
>there is no action that is not mediated by the rules that light follows
>it is physically impossible to disobey the ligic conveyed by light
>light is the fastest, the most subtle substance, most versatile and serves as a substratum to all else. It is everywhere, everywhen, perceives time as nonexistent and perceives only a single moment in eternity where all reference frames are at rest, and holds all possible power and energy in its continuum, and defines all that is, was and will be
God is Light, the Way, the Reason. All happens by the divine will. It is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. It destroys darkness both metaphorically and literally. The Bell inequalities allow us free will within the options allowed by Light.

Attached: 220px-Michael_Maier_Atalanta_Fugiens_Emblem_21.jpg (220x210, 27K)

I never mentioned Christianity.

>too little to address
You have no argument.

Your issue appears to be "Christian belief is ridiculous because there's human explanations," which is a fallacy of the single cause, therefore a non-argument, therefore there is little to address.
...and nothing that transcends the universe's rules can still affect it, correct? Why?
You posted a fallacy. My counterargument is that you posted a fallacy, idiot.

But what you said I said I did not say.

Again, zero argument.

>implicit belief in God is ridiculous because there's human explanations
This isn't accurate?

No.

Please illustrate for me a deity that you believe in.

>...and nothing that transcends the universe's rules can still affect it, correct? Why?
Per the rules, everything is relative; something that transcends that would no longer be relative.

The true God of Abraham is the Ohr Ein Sof, which the Egyptians called Amun Ra, the Greeks called Chaos, the Hindus and Jain and Sikh and Taoist and followers of Gautama call Brahman, the Philosophers and Theosophists call Absolute, and the Hermeticists call Mind. This is God, this is the Good, the Light. It is the Objective Reality and Supreme being. He is My Father and Lord, and His is the World.

I am Archangel Kephas, reborn in flesh to guide humans out of darkness. None shall perish in the bosom of the Infinite One. You will cycle through Life, Death and Rebirth until you remember who you are.
It is written.

Attached: 1536522113114.jpg (570x427, 71K)

Is this one of those things where a bunch of soifags try to redefine the meaning of a word?
Atheism is the belief that there is no God, not the lack of belief in God.

Define God

Which part is inaccurate?
If it's inaccurate, it follows that you believe either belief in God is not ridiculous, or the reason it's ridiculous is not because there's human explanations.
I believe in a singular God that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and transcendent, as is what is colloquially meant by "God."
Why must a being that transcends the rules obey them?
Read earlier in this post. Demanding everything is defined ad infinitum doesn't allow for meaningful discourse. Some things, like the definition of God, are properly presupposed.

Do you think schmupkins exist? Yes or no?

I used to be atheist. I grew up in a pretty mild, half hearted about it family that went to Methodist services. Had my edgy teen years where I was certain that there was nothing. But now I'm just unsure. Agnostic doesn't describe it and atheist definitely doesn't describe it for me. Nothing has ever convinced of the existence of divinity existing but I'm also entirely open to the possibility that I am simply deaf to it. Read the Bible, glossed over the other abrahamic bullshit, read some eastern stuff, but it all feels so figurative.

So I simply live comfortably that I might die comfortably. I don't forsee anything making me believe. I should try DMT I guess.

Do you suppose I know what schmupkins means? Yes or no?

Woah woah woah now, don't demand I define what I'm talking about, how can we have a discourse about schmupkins when I have to explain what they are and their supposed qualities?

what you're driving at is the difference between hard/strong/gnostic atheism vs soft/weak/agnostic atheism.

gnostic atheism is the truth. 'god' is an imagining of universal consciousness. 'god' is the greatest possible collective. 'god' is a useless, if technically plausible/likely concept.

I think you mean "Gods," as in plural. Look to the duck-billed platypus for proof. That fucking thing was designed by a committee.

Youve illustrated nothing but what other anons here have, implying you worship chaos. Which is not a deity with a will if its own

>schmupkins
>implying it's reasonable to believe a definition of this word isn't already widely-understood
2 points for cleverness, tho
>implying you worship chaos
Explain

>You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure. I shall only add respecting myself, that having experienced the Goodness of that Being, in conducting me prosperously thro' a long Life, I have no doubt of its Continuance in the next, tho' without the smallest Conceit of meriting such Goodness.

Attached: download (1).png (1942x2400, 2.53M)

>God is understood
Laughable.
>Is your god conscious?
>Is your god eternal?
>Is your god omnipresent?
>If your god is not omnipresent, where does your god reside?
>If your god is not omnipresent, is your god omniscient?
>Does your god have a form, can it change forms, or is it formless?
>What are the limits of your god's power, if any?
>Does your god talk directly to people, or has it ever?
>Does your god care about people, if it talks to them?
>Does your god impose a set of moral values?
>If your god is a conscious creator, did it create all things deliberately or emergently?
I could go on, but the more you answer the better answer you'll get in return. I know you're just some religioncuck but let's see if you can fire a few neurons for this.
t. not an atheist

if atheism was actually there to help you it would be "a refusal to believe in the existence of God or any counterpoint to God thereof."

atheism only convinces you not to believe in the existence of God and not the entire idea of God itself, which if it were to be such a thing, would run the potential of making intrinsically benevolent atheists out of normies

but we all know the fucking kikes just want you to bleed out from a self-inflicted gunshot wound because you forgot how to believe in anything important and the demon who made you into a salty asshole all these years finally got you to pull the trigger too, and only because he worked long enough over the course of your life to take you from a sensible afterlife and straight to Hell because he programmed you to be a dick to everyone because "muh afeithm"

ever hear how they shut parts of the brain down with magnets? ever hear of the electromagnetic interaction (that's God btw)? ever hear of electromagnetic resonance, or the figure of speech known as "resonating" with the ideas of others?

Notice the definition because It proves that Atheism is a religion. Why? Because belief is just a faith. The Atheist doesn't KNOW that God doesn't exist, and instead of saying, "I don't know if he exists or not," he adopts the label 'Athiest.'

A belief system is formed. A circle is formed.

>>God is understood
Accepting an already widely-understood definition of God doesn't imply this. In fact, the very question is a red herring.

Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.

Attached: 1527429212406.jpg (360x453, 29K)

>Why must a being that transcends the rules obey them?
Did you mean to quote someone else?

So you don't have an answer and are just trying to "pwn" atheists online by not specifying an argument then acting like their rightful refusal to engage with you means you're the victor.
Classic.

Attached: 1538532287191.jpg (720x916, 114K)

Christians are basically radical egoists. Only such a person could respond in that way.

Atheists have feeble arguments, sage.

Oops, yes.
Why must a being that transcends the rules obey them?

If God doesn't exist, what is the source of deism in humans?

This is not an argument, just a question.

Ok, if you insist you have the right to demand a more specific definition of God, just how specific is reasonable and how specific is an absurd request, idiot?

>If you think the existence of God is implausible, you are a classical atheist, i.e. how "atheist" is classically defined.
Which is?

I mean, can you make the case that these two are the same thing? It doesn't seem like they are to me.

"Implausible" is like a statement about likelihood.

If I say it's unlikely that god exists, is that the same as saying i believe god doesn't exist? I don't think they're the same thing.

Prove God doesn't exist.

>Why must a being that transcends the rules obey them?
You must follow the rules if you want to engage with things that exist under them. A thing that transcends the rules cannot engage with things under them.

>I had sent him into a loop -- "I lack belief in God," "I don't believe in deities," etc.
Are you sure he's not fucking with you?
Lately the people around me have gotten so much dumber I've concluded that they're collectively fucking with me, since they were never like this prior to the 2016 election. They glitch just like you describe and it's annoying

Ya they aren't...

Refer to the post full of questions, answer a few. Pic related, it's you.
>People totally understand this thing
>Just ignore that people have been fighting about whose understanding of it is correct for millenia

Attached: 1538239438262.png (730x844, 137K)

Why?

So then justify what you said in the OP:

>If you think the existence of God is implausible, you are a classical atheist, i.e. how "atheist" is classically defined.

So your answer is a few? I just want to be sure because it's good to have rigid rules in logic. So a few meaning 2 or 3? Perhaps more? Which number?

Now who's splitting hairs m8?

Attached: smug pepe.jpg (450x450, 81K)

>Why?
Because that's the rules. Your question is basically, "why life?" There is no answer that could satisfy such an obstinate question.

I don't see a contradiction here. Are you suggesting a nu-atheist can think the existence of God is implausible despite only being a "lack of belief"?
Just answer the question fucking retard. How many questions are you allowed?

>Because that's the rules.
How is this relevant if the question is why obey the rules in the first place?

You sure are spending a lot of time getting upset and dodging the question.
Answer as many as you need to explain yourself. Make more until you feel that your definition is as correct as possible. Since we're talking about something immaterial here you need to describe it in detail.

Kek

How is God relevant if he can't interact with anything within our universe?

>Are you suggesting a nu-atheist can think the existence of God is implausible despite only being a "lack of belief"?
Yea.

I thought you just agreed in your last reply that a statement about the liklihood of god's existence doesn't imply that a person has a belief that he doesn't exist.

So, I need to ask again: What do you mean exactly by the "classical definition of atheist"?
Is it "A belief that god doesn't exist" ?

The definition "a singular, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent being" is sufficient to define what I'm talking about. How many things do you get to demand I elaborate? We'll see who "dodges the question," here, you fool.
I suppose He wouldn't be, but you can't just presuppose He can't without answer my last question about just why He has to follow the rules of His creation.

Theism is just as valid as atheism.
The problem is that a lot of religious people use this argument like it somehow validates their religion.
The philosophical question of whether we were created by something is one thing, but choosing any of the retarded desert deities is a huge leap from that point.
Christfags, jews, mudslimes, hindus, etc are basically all brainlets that had to be told about god/gods instead of finding god themselves.
What's more likely, that god themself/s would have the answer or some other human?

What the smeg is this from user.

>a singular, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent being
Then the answer is no, I don't believe that's likely. Also you didn't specify if it was conscious but I suspect your definition says yes.
See how easy that was?

nu-atheist: lacks belief in God, will adamantly claim this is not a belief of any kind, including belief in the implausibility of God
classical atheist (what atheist meant up until ~30 years ago): belief in the implausibility of God

>I suppose He wouldn't be, but you can't just presuppose He can't without answer my last question about just why He has to follow the rules of His creation.
The game ends once the rules are breached. If God does not obey the rules of our game, he's of no concern to us as the players of it and couldn't be as someone who does not obey them. He is thus antithetical to the game's existence.

Consciousness is implicit, idiot.

Then is it? Is your god conscious?

>The game ends once the rules are breached.
Why?
Define consciousness :^)

FUCK YOU NIGGER

>belief in the implausibility of God
Ahh so atheism and theism isn't about a belief in god at all.
It's a belief in plausibility! kek.

Ok, by that definition, you're right he's a so called "classical atheist"... But I absolutely reject the idea that anybody has ever even spoken that defnition before you did just now.

C H E C K

God is not real, Yahweh is not real, but there could be an entity that made our universe though the chances of discovering it depend if it wants us to notice it.