Even though no society has ever developed to any semblance of social cohesion without the idea of a higher power. They throw away the concept as if it’s what held humanity back from their ideal of “progress”
As they mock the improvable existence of god, They act under false axioms and unproven assumptions that constrain their critical thinking strictly within the framework of materialism. While accepting immaterial concepts like consciousness.
Basing their dogmas on their class of authoritative intelligentsia, they go through life using abstract interpretations of unobservable and unquantifiable phenomena based in theory such as quantum mathematics to uphold their world view. While suggesting scientific method is the most objective means of attaining information, they apply circular reasoning to the most mundane of concepts such a simple the origin of measurement itself.
What’s worst is they adhere to loose ideas like universal morality and abiogenesis when faced with questions they cannot answer when debating theists who have theories of their own , all the while failing to realize their world view is in fact less plausible than intelligent design .
Because Atheists are more likely to be hedonistic, nihilistic or not value a search for higher truth.. Who has time for philosophy when you could be making dollars to spend on chocolate milkshakes and PS4s.
Aaron Bell
i was in the "skeptic" community before it became what it is today, the vapid shallow dogmatic ideology that seems to only exist to give 20 somethings something to "believe". It's literally a religion. I started to notice this when the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy podcast people were LAUGHING and MOCKING an obviously mentally ill women for having delusions about rainbows in her water sprinklers. They didn't care that this person was clearly not right they only cared that she said some obviously bullshit science paranoia and they used her as a strawman to paint every person who questions modern scientific thought as a fucking psycho and that made them happy. It's the same reason "liberals" think republicans are all stupid hill billies. They have to think that otherwise they would have to be more intellectually honest about their "beliefs" they would have to admit that they don't actually understand most of the popular science ideas that the news tells us about. You'd need to spend your whole life learning about this stuff to really get it and this is probably the first generation that really had access to all the necessary knowledge so easily.
i used to be a skeptic and atheist but they became all crazy richard dawkins cock suckers and they became mean and cruel. I think there are a lot of other people like me who became disillusioned by the aggressive liberal agenda. The great thing about the internet is the best answers nearly always rise to the top no matter what, even when massive corporations and governments try to suppress it the truth wants to come out.
Many philosophies are rooted in theology, but just as many are idealistic nonsense with no ties to theology or outright rejection of it.
Elijah Scott
It's literally autism. By that I mean that these guys are really good at playing their little games of 'logic' and 'rationality' but they don't bother to think about the meaning of those terms and the implications of them. When asking atheists about the implications of this universe being bound by the rules of logic the response I generally get is 'that's just the way it is.' When I ask about the implications of that I'm often told that I'm 'overthinking,' which is funny because they're wrapped up in layers upon layers of abstraction to try and justify what they believe. I meet people who believe everything must be proven scientifically, but they dogmatically reject the possibility of evidence for any deity. Having a non falsifiable theory is bad when obvious nutjobs like psychics do it, but when they do it, well that's just 'being rational.'
I do think that the trend is dying and a lot of people are seeing the logical contradictions in their positions. That and they're embarrassed of the over the top fedora tippers you'll occasionally see.
Noah Bell
>memeflag >philosophy is literal autism >Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle had autism
Noah Phillips
They fear what is unknown. They choose the comfy pill and will defend that comfy to the death. Additionally, I’d take a look at any arthiest’s home owner insurance. 555-UNSURE.
Caleb Gonzalez
Sorry I misread your post. You’re spot on
Wyatt Foster
Based self actualizer
Caleb Hernandez
Hehehehe the Big Bang God came from nuffing. I’m a loser and when I die, I’ll still be a loser.
Xavier Wilson
Tfw the first posters all have agreeable well considered positions based on experience and answered the question so there’s no debate to be had.
Mfw this is why Jow Forums is mostly bait and shitposting. If it wasn’t there would be no posts
1. because Philosophy is not a particularly useful field of study even compared to its liberal arts peers like history and . 2. because most people realize that material needs on this planet are far more important than the arcane details of cosmological event that happen before our planet existed 3. Intelligent design isn't even a coherent argument.
What do you even want? What is the fucking endgame for you? We all accept god as the great creator and then....?
Do we just jonestown at that point or do we still need to go back to work and feed our families?
Unless there is something I am missing it seems like this is all a bunch of inconsequential semantics. I ,and many of my intellectual peers, have realized that study of Science not philosophy will lead to positive change in the world.
Unless priests get a huge buff and can start performing miracles again, I dont see that calculation changing anytime soon.
Benjamin Cook
>memeflag Forgot to change my flag back after trolling, not actually a muslim
Mason Sanders
You realize you can be an atheist, but still believe that man made religion is essential in order for society to function properly. Stupid people need a higher being in order for them to get answers to life questions all in one convenient place. Being that I am not stupid, I do not actually believe the trash written there for a second, but can admit it is a net positive for society if religion exists. That being said, I don't really call myself an atheist, rather a secular christian as a meme.
Ryan Wright
The biggest redpill about atheism is it is anti-intellectual and close minded by nature. When someone believes in god, or even something lesser like ghosts, they are willing to believe in something they have 0 tangible evidence for. Because of this a spiritual person is more willing to accept something outside of their comfy world view. An atheist has no incentive to think outside the box because fundamently they only operate within the confines of what they can physically prove, no matter how close minded that may be.
Alexander Robinson
I’m selling great rates on insurance. No one here seems to be sured.
Blake Jenkins
Well said fren, we’ll said.
Jace Bell
True, but don't you think we should probably update some of our man made religions?
Its clear that they are not optimal designed at the moment. For example protestantisms obsession with working all the time was great when we need everyone doing as much manual labor as possible. Really makes things awkward for when people get replaced by automation. Its at-least partially responsible for all the suicides.
catholics got that + 1 studying trait. We should find a way to get that into more main stream Christianity.
Cooper Edwards
OP wasn’t ready.
Brandon Morales
What are you doing about this?
Colton Jones
I don't think they need updating, at least with Christianity the New Testament was the major update. I would use your example of Protestant's obsession with working as a drive to prevent automation, or at the very least tax it and create a UBI. You can very easily manipulate/focus on particulars, and ignore other parts entirely. It's all about how you direct energy.
Logan Parker
>Philosophy is not a particularly useful field of study even compared to its liberal arts peers like history
Not if the society itself runs on a paradigm that rejects objective truth itself. We use paper as money, we are guided by advertising towards our desires, and the universe around us has been constrained into a materialist wet dream where nothing matters except sense pleasure.
> I ,and many of my intellectual peers, have realized that study of Science not philosophy will lead to positive change in the world.
Science is nothing without philosophy. Objectively and evidence are aspects of philosophical terms
>intelligent design isn’t coherent Implying the opposite is any more coherent
>Jonestown The fact u can’t spot your own fallacy in reasoning is why philosophy is important
Mason Gomez
Jesus Christ, get insured.
Leo Collins
Pourquoi?
Wyatt Perry
>While accepting immaterial concepts like consciousness
They sure as hell don't accept consciousness as immaterial. They think the brain is just a computer and consciousness is just a computer program running on it; see every piece of trash Ray Kurzweil has shit out in the last 30 years for reference. To the average atheist plus faggot, the Singularity concept is as inevitable as the Christian Rapture, universally as a spiritual reaction to this type of existential crisis.
>because Philosophy is not a particularly useful field of study
The scientific method is ultimately a branch of Philosophy you fucking moron, as is all forms of applied logic.
>because most people realize that material needs on this planet are far more important than the arcane details
Material needs are sufficient for literally all of us posting here. Not an argument.
>Intelligent design isn't even a coherent argument.
Why not?
Anthony Moore
>philosophy is useless he doesn't realize that his scientific method and entire framework for evidence based reasoning is an idea developed by philosophers. he doesn't realize that philosophers have philosophized his entire reality........................................................
Joseph Young
>Stupid people need a higher being in order for them to get answers to life questions all in one convenient place
I guess that’s why religious centers were the storehouses of knowledge , and pilgrimages are pretty much encouraged in every known faith
Eli Watson
Gravity is not found in this thread
Andrew Russell
I already knew your opinion on all those things, that is why I addressed them in my fucking post.
please just answer the main question.
What do you even want? What is the fucking endgame for you? We all accept god as the great creator and then....?
Do we just jonestown at that point or do we still need to go back to work and feed our families?
Jeremiah Rogers
Have you seen where Jesus was supposedly laid to rest? I just imagine it filled with biblical scholars, writing and fabricating stories like the Ministry of Truth in 1984. This is inside a fucking cave.
God, Jesus, the creator of all things, is absolutely real...and the existence of atheism is yet more evidence of his existence (which deniers will ignore).
If there is no God, why must you profess that you don't believe in God? The answer is quite simple - all who are alive today live because God has granted them the opportunity to do so...and all living things know God is sovereign, whether they admit it or not.
You see, for atheism to be legit you have to accept that God exists, and that you REJECT him. People who engage in atheism or other false teachings/beliefs are simply trying to rationalize and comfort themselves because deep down they know they are wrong for denying God.
Atheism is a synonym for moron. That's the easiest way to understand it.
Evan Jackson
Your claim "that for atheism to be legit you have to accept god exists, and that you reject him" is as autistic as it is unsound.
Ryan Walker
There is no endgame, I only discuss the fallacies of atheistic paradigm on modern science and the abandonment of philosophy which is why we have a society of materialist npc
Intelligent design opens a door of possibility modern thinkers wouldn’t conceive because they’re wrapped in their own box .
Think of all the problems we face in the modern world, so,e of them can be solved with applied logic . But you can’t apply logic if you constrain it to a few fallacious axioms , the. Pretend you’re the smartest alive and collect your check
Jaxon Diaz
>Science is nothing without philosophy. Objectively and evidence are aspects of philosophical terms
Science is the application of the 'scientific method', to enable us to understand our NATURAL, PHYSICAL, OBSERVABLE world.
Anyone trying to extend the scope of science to spiritual matters or anything that isn't physically testable is no longer engaging in science.
Science is not philosophy...philosophy are purely opinion-based and embrace relativism / post-modernism (i.e. whatever you feel it means to you, is what it means).
True science, which is rarely taught or practiced today, is quite rigid and based on what can be witnessed by our natural senses.
Kevin Allen
Guys come on. I know what the Ph in a Phd means.
I was responding directly to op's question. >Why has philosophy been abandoned? And my response: because Philosophy is not a particularly useful field of study
Which is clearly true in the modern day. I am not saying philosophy was never useful, or that it won't be useful again in the future. But right now it is not particularly useful compared to other fields of study.
Maybe in a few decades when AIs start getting to impressive levels.
Bentley Hernandez
Your response does nothing to counter my statement, therefore it stands. You may not like it, but it is the truth. Get used to truth and not liking it.
Benjamin Evans
Rejecting the concept of a being we call god. Is basically what atheists do.
They deny the existence of a cornerstone of civilization itself
God came first, atheists came after. So to be atheists,by definition you acknowledge god, and reject him.
Carter Ortiz
So its just intellectual wanking...
This should be a clear message to you why philosophy is losing popularity.
Austin Sanchez
But you are stupid for not being able to separate the deception of religion from the truth of the Word of God, the Bible.
The Bible is not a book of religion, and becoming a follower of Christ is not a religion. It is simply one of two possible choices you can make while alive.
1) Choose Jesus, repent for your sins, life a life that glorifies God in all that you do.
2) Choose something else. Defacto worship of satan. Your fate will be shared with him.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that our life on earth is the endgame - it's the prologue. Humans are made in God's image. We are eternal beings, and people who wake up to this truth can be saved through Jesus' sacrifice.
Nathan Powell
Ok Buddy.
Prove the scientific method is objective by applying the scientific method. You cannot as that is circular reasoning.
Define natural, physical and observable. You cannot without philosophy.
The scientific method itself is inherently to apply philosophy
Philosophy is the study of thought itself . It’s not limited to relativistism or post modernism
The problem is you treat science like a god, something all encompassing that exists outside of human reason.
That’s called scientism.
Austin Mitchell
>intellectual wanking
The desire to minimize to concepts to nothing more than sexual referencing buzzwords may be why. But that’s because people like you have no capacity to think beyond the next time something touches your cock.
Kevin Butler
This is a straw man of obnoxious proportions, and useless besides. No, Atheists don't believe God exists but hate him, that would be Antithesis/Satanists. I think one of them has a thread up right now. Atheists say they don't think there is a God. Let's not pretend mind we can know their true thoughts, that is needlessly arrogant. Unless an individual proves to be misrepresenting himself should we not accept ones claims about their own thoughts?
Do you have any evidence that God came before man (Outside of a book that was written by man that claims so)?
It's a logical fallacy. "If atheism is to be legitimate, then you must reject God."
You reject god, therefore God must exist.
I reject the existence of bigfoot. This does not somehow justify his existence.
Ethan Sullivan
>Ok Buddy. >Prove the scientific method is objective by applying the scientific method. You cannot as that is circular reasoning.
The scientific method is objective; the subjectivity is introduced by the scientist, either intentionally or not. If you evaluated the scientific method according to the scientific method, it would pass as a logical test.
>Define natural, physical and observable.
That which is in front of us, which can be detected with one or more of our natural senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, hearing).
>You cannot without philosophy.
Yes, you can...and those like you who attempt to blend philosophy with science are the same who think that science can be used to "test for the existence of God".
>The scientific method itself is inherently to apply philosophy
No, that is propagandizing and that is a MISUSE of science known as scientism, which is 99% of all that is called "science" today...when science became an adverb, it ceased being science.
>Philosophy is the study of thought itself . It’s not limited to relativistism or post modernism
It absolutely is, for if you think the thoughts of men are worth "study" while the thoughts of God are never given consideration, or are brought down to the 'standards' applied to human thought...that really only works with a lot of relativism.
Take away the subjectivity of relativism, stick with God's law and his OBJECTIVE truth, then there isn't much to study. You either agree with God and are CORRECT, or you disagree with God and are wrong.
>The problem is you treat science like a god, something all encompassing that exists outside of human reason.
No, I do not consider science a "god". Science is a tool, and you're apparently unable to understand my point.
>That’s called scientism.
Scientism is wrapping philosophy in a secular veneer - i.e. quantum theory, outer space, time travel, etc.
Gabriel Roberts
To say there is no God, you'd have to explain who other than God did all the things that God said he did...and you have no answers.
If something doesn't exist, you can't claim to believe it doesn't exist. Sorry, champ, but to be an atheist you need to accept what you are - a DENIER of God, and you are no different and no better than a satanist.
Xavier Morgan
>They sure as hell don't accept consciousness as immaterial. They think the brain is just a computer and consciousness is just a computer program running on it; see every piece of trash Ray Kurzweil has shit out in the last 30 years for reference. To the average atheist plus faggot, the Singularity concept is as inevitable as the Christian Rapture, universally as a spiritual reaction to this type of existential crisis.
I don't see the singularity as inevitable. There are so many things we could be wrong about that would stop that process cold. We could also intentional prevent it through regulation or just bombing ourselves back into the stone-age.
It seems pretty clear that the brain is a computer, but consciousness is definitely not just a computer program. The experience of consciousness, at least at the human level, is so different from any currently existing in computing that it would be disingenuous to make the analogy.
I am satisfied with a simple "I don't know" for that currently.
>Material needs are sufficient for literally all of us posting here. Not an argument.
I work with the homeless everyday. I even know a couple who use Jow Forums.
>Intelligent design isn't even a coherent argument. >Why not?
iirc its called denying the antecedent. But its been a while since I had time to read about the holes in that particular conspiracy.
Isaiah Evans
Do you have any evidence he didn’t? (Besides books written by man)
Brayden Diaz
>It's a logical fallacy. "If atheism is to be legitimate, then you must reject God." >You reject god, therefore God must exist. >I reject the existence of bigfoot. This does not somehow justify his existence.
I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is.
You cannot reject something that does not exist, and atheists deny that God exists...but if he does not exist, why must they deny him?
You could apply the same faulty reasoning, devoid of sound logic, to bigfoot and you'd be just as wrong...because the act of denying bigfoot's existence means that you've accepted that there is some possibility that he does exist.
It's really not that hard to understand for the average 80 IQ bot, but the 25 IQ atheist may have trouble.
Nicholas Stewart
its not reference its a metaphor. I am trying to say that it not a fruitful endeavor. That those who have such advanced capacity for though should being applying their talents to more concrete probelms.
Austin Morris
Quite the opposite, though that same standard cannot be applied equally. What I have are books that span over thousands of years, across the globe, across multiple religions that document a trend of Organized Religion being written by Religious Scholars, and being approved by the church. Religion is a big business, and a tool of the Crown to control the people. Jesus was a false flag.
Hudson Williams
>If you evaluated the scientific method according to the scientific method, it would pass as a logical test.
Doesn’t understand logical fallacy of circular reasoning
>The scientific method is objective; the subjectivity is introduced by the scientist
Because anyone else but a scientist(human) will apply the scientific method somehow
>define natural >uses natural in definition
>failed to define scientism properly
Jaxon Diaz
Modern science originated from the tradition of thought laid down by scholastic theologians, who themselves picked up the bits and pieces from the Hellenistic Neoplatonists and Academics, centuries of Roman thinking, and Aristotelian writings inherited from Islamic scholars. Enlightenment rationalism is scarcely removed from the religious beliefs of the British and German thinkers who cooked it up, and it is so few steps removed from religious thought that it's difficult to draw a line between them. To say theology is a "dead end" is a bit of a stretch. It often surprises atheists when you clue them in on how much of the foundations of the scientific-naturalistic worldview they take for granted comes straight out of religious thinking. I don't even mean in the obvious ways like "Newton was a Christian!", but even basic assumptions, like asserting that there is an orderly and rationally-comprehensible cosmos that science reveals to us (which is a view that only traces its lineage to Christian theology and originates in Plato's metaphysics). I have unfortunately spent a lot of time around atheists before I realized they were awful and obnoxious sperg-cases. They talk about their atheism the way the nuttier religious folks talk about their faith (loudly and constantly), and this is no coincidence. Psychologically and socially it really is a religion for them. Being willing to write off Aquinas, Reid, Occam, Bacon, Buridan, or Duns Scotus because Daddy made you go to Church isn't showing intellectual progress, it's just being ignorant to show off for other clueless shut-ins.
Andrew Collins
>applied double standard
Aiden Collins
Possibilities do not equal reality, which is why it is a logical fallacy. The only person with a 25IQ here is you.
I like how you capitalized science you bitch loser
Lucas Williams
The post tries to sound intelligent, but it's literally 4 paragraphs of ad hominems
Zachary Moore
If we both showed evidence for why God exists, and doesn't exist, it would be the exact same. The only difference being that I believe it is overwhelming evidence that man created religion, and you would say that they are tools of the divine. Now the onus is on you to provide evidence that they were influenced by God. This is clearly impossible, which is why the same standard cannot be held for both.
Matthew Hernandez
It's literally the LNC, retard.
Jace Scott
I couldn't resist I am sorry. It was pure bait :^)
Bentley James
No shit man created religion. Religion and god are not interchangeable concepts.
You’re correct in that if the standards were applied equally we’d both reach the same conclusion. Which is why you apply a double standard with the addition of an institution to tip the argument in your favor.however you ignore the fact youre basing your view on appeals to population and authority , which are as fallacious as appealing to priests .
Because you cannot disprove the existence of god you attack the messengers to prove to you that their subjective experience can be recreated to your satisfaction.
When you but have to sit on the words on man a sword the foundation of your beliefs, when you wouldn’t accept as much from those you challenged.
Therefore it’s a double standard nothing more , which you have wiggled your way out of, even though the denial of the divine is your extraordinary claim.
Carter Parker
Which is why it is a logical fallacy, retard. I cannot both believe that God exists, and deny his existence at the same point of time.
Camden Smith
The problem with scientism is not that it is too materialistic. It's that it believes in the uniformity and sovereignty of the subject. They believe language is a mere instrument and not that which creates our relationship to the world that surrounds us. They actually believe the world was meant to be known through the scientific method.
Jeremiah Bailey
I am basing my views on historical evidence of man writing stories, and passing them down from generation to generation. I am also basing them on the historical evidence that rulers used religion as a means of controlling the lower class. To make someone believe that they were somehow divinely guided would require additional evidence, which if you have I'm sure everyone would like see. There is no double standard here, only the need for more evidence.
Owen Brooks
You can. That’s the problem with divinity. The concept is there already ingrained in society itself.
Because you know of god, you acknowledge his existence conceptually. And thus you deny his existence. Even though the divine concept remains in your mind. It’s the pivot you react against as an atheist. If there was no god, there would be no atheism
Ian Young
>Doesn’t understand logical fallacy of circular reasoning
You're claiming something that is not circular logic is circular. This is the problem with believing you are smart - the truth is you're not.
>Because anyone else but a scientist(human) will apply the scientific method somehow
A human can choose to be objective or subjective in the application of the scientific method. Do you think making false "either-or" claims is somehow going to win this for you? Because you lost after your initial post...just replying out of pity, honestly.
>>define natural >>uses natural in definition >>failed to define scientism properly
Uhuh, you keep beating on perceived definitions in your desperate attempt to appear intelligent as you make shitty "arguments" that we are all embarrassed for on your behalf. LOL
Lay off the onions, stop being a passive-aggressive cuck, and then, if you have a valid point to make you'll know it.
Brody Smith
>They actually believe the world was meant to be known through the scientific method I hate how they fellate what is an epistemological system as "objective truth"--the scientific method is a tool which is useful for understanding natural phenomena governed by law-like regularity (motion of planets through the sky is the canonical example). God is not natural phenomena governed by law-like regularity; therefore, the scientific method is not useful for understanding Him.
Noah Edwards
Many atheists in the past where New atheists are just liberals which means Christianity without a god
Daniel Stewart
>Continues his non-argument, tries to save face, plants face in pile of horseshit.
By stating that you DENY A you are accepting that A exists.
You cannot deny something that does not exist...and if you are so sure God does not exist, why are you so triggered when I point out that you are rejecting him and condemning yourself to an eternity in hell?
How stupid are you, exactly?
Luis Lee
First: I am Christian, I just find your claim to know the minds of atheists to be misguided.
>To say there is no God, you'd have to explain who other than God did all the things that God said he did...and you have no answers.
They do think have answers though, what do you think macroevolution is but an answer to how humans came to be, what is multiverse theory but a way to explain the origin of the big bang? These answers are flawed and ultimately wrong, but to say that they have no answers is simply untrue.
>If something doesn't exist, you can't claim to believe it doesn't exist.
Sure you can. There is no cake on my desk, and I do not believe in the existance of any cake on my desk. That is called having an accurate belief.
>to be an atheist you need to accept what you are - a DENIER of God, and you are no different and no better than a satanist.
There is clearly a difference between the Satanist and the Atheist. Both deny God, true, but in different ways. The Satanist accepts God's existance but denies God's authority, wanting to be his own master. The Atheist denies God's existance. He also denies God's authority, but only as a consequence of believing He doesn't exist, just as we would reject the authority of Zeus or Allah due to non-belief. Weither the non-believer would become a Christian or Satanist if convinced of God's existance depends on the individual, as I don't deny that plenty of atheists would reject God even if they accepted that He exists.
Long winded ad hominem argument. Nothing of substance.
Using scientific method to prove itself as objective while beginning with the assumption it is objective is circular reasoning. The fact your can’t see that is hilarious.
Scientific method is object because it’s the scientific method
Bible is true because bible says so. Holy shit you wouldn’t t accept this logic from anyone else but here you are being retarded and acting like this isn’t a demonstration in the failure of philosophy, but a game in rhetoric you won
Nicholas Gutierrez
Triggered cucks be triggered.
Stop rejecting God you dumbass bitch.
Logan Powell
Does he have a choice?
Jeremiah Baker
>Muh ad hominem
>no retort or counter argument
You seem upset.
Brody Harris
You added a lot of extra baggage to the concept of being an atheist. Just like how you believe the Quran or the Book of Mormon is full of bat shit crazy lies, we feel the same about all text of that nature. You aren’t stupid for believing in a claim without proportional evidence, you’re just gullible.
Agreed. The Achilles heel of scientism is not its atheism but its dismissal of philosophy and social sciences as if they were failed precursors of modern science. They fail to recognise that what we call modern science is in fact part of philosophy, the faculty which Kant (in his Contest of the Faculties, 1798) called the "inferior faculty" (compares to Theology, Law and Medicine, in his time), but whose role was perhaps even more important: to ask questions of the other faculties' (the "higher faculties) claims to truth and knowledge without reserve or interference from political power. The natural sciences, as well as mathematics, what we now call philosophy and history were the place where thought was exercised and, as such, the only faculties that did not answer to politics - or need to be useful to government - but only to reason. In everything else you must obey or serve to a certain extent, but never in the exercise of reason as a permanent tool for the critique of power.
Tyler Rodriguez
You should rule over people
Thomas Roberts
What kinda bullshit are you pushing here?
The moment you start demanding "proof of God" is the moment you lost, because it shows you are willfully ignoring the abundance of evidence all around you, everywhere.
Objectively practiced science confirms God. This is why all the sophists posing as "men of science" spend so much effort spinning their false, baseless theories...and it works because idiots ascribe false authority to them and the institutions they're associated with.
Jesus did not come to earth to promote religion or a religion - he came here to take the punishment that we humans deserve for our sins so that we may be saved from an eternity apart from God.
It is up to YOU to go to Jesus. He does not come to you. If you are too much of a cuck to save yourself, well, sucks to be you then because I know what your eternity holds.
Noah Murphy
>The Satanist accepts God's existance but denies God's authority, wanting to be his own master A lot Satanists seem to think Lucifer came to free humanity from the "oppressive" vision God had for us. Obviously this is false, which is why Christ says he (Satan) was a liar from the start.
Jason Russell
You understand what he means when he is talking about atheists Fedoras was a popular term not to long ago
John Allen
>Presupposes all religious texts have the same nature
I guess all science text are of the same nature
Atheism would not exist without god to deny, denial doesn’t carry a context for fictional concepts. And the argument so of atheists are absurd when they tempt to rationalize the foundation of their logic
Jonathan Smith
It's new atheists/atheism+ that adds all the baggage. Old atheists like Camus/Nietzsche used to acknowledge their spiritual emptiness.
Noah Watson
You cannot both deny the existence of something, and simultaneously believe in its existence. Santa exists, but is not real. The idea of God is very real, however I am not denying the existence of an idea of God, I am denying Gods existence. Keep calling me stupid, it's really cute.
Isaiah Edwards
Which one?
Easton Williams
This guy knows what he is talking about
It’s easy to deconstruct others it’s hard to turn it on your self
Jose Martinez
Because you know Santa is not real, yet there’s no term for those who don’t believe in Santa. But there is for god. The reason for that is because divinity is inherent in logos itself
Adam Hill
What is real Or what does it mean to be real
Josiah Green
The average atheist believes all sorts of things they can't actually feasibly falsify themselves, such whether or not there really is an RC car on Mars, or if the ISS exists as officially described, but if you try to tell them that they just cite "science" and tell you you're retarded. Typically people like this also insist that others who don't believe in these kinds of things that are impossible to be proven by the laymen also shouldn't be able to vote.
Vaccines are another common cause, even saying that vaccination on the whole is a good and useful thing, but that many vaccines are contaminated with unhealthy additives in the facilities that make them, mark you as some kind of luddite who hates science and thinks the moon is made out of cheese. Again, the way these people think one such as this should be dealt with is by removing as many rights as feasible, such as the right to vote, or to have children, or to even be able to voice such opinions.
They're just as dogmatic and religious as the pious they hate so much, only they worship a warped understanding of the scientific method based off of pop science and IFLS and buzzfeed articles. So of course they're stupid fucking assholes.
Bentley Sanders
The burden of proof is not on the unbeliever. You are claiming God is real, and using the Universe as "evidence". If asked to explain said evidence, you have nothing, outside of faith. I do not have faith, which is why I cannot possibly believe in its existence.
Luis Anderson
The problem with that is that you can claim anything as a deity and there is no way to ascertain whose version of a deity (or deities) is more likely than another. If you step out of the scientific method, there is no human way to understand the supernatural, and therefore positing any god is like positing the existence of no god at all. How can you possibly imagine Him to be more likely than a pantheon of different gods without attempting to defend your position with the only method we have (and that you need to dismiss when it comes to understanding the supernatural realm)? even prayer is a form of logic - bad logic, but still within the scope of a certain logic.
Cameron Edwards
The question is irrelevant, for we cannot know the answer. Basically what you have is the confrontation between imagining what the solution to the dilemma could be and negating the solutions others are inventing for lack of proof. Personally, I can't believe in something that can't be proven. Trust me, if I could choose to believe in a higher purpose for my own life I would do it. Unfortunately I can't brainwash my own brain. You shouldn't ask from an atheist for an alternative explanation to your own mythology. We don't have it, we can't be certain of any solution.
I will not argue with you that being an atheist doesn't suck because of course it does. I can't imagine how good it feels to wake up everyday with a sense of purpose. It seems to me as if we had evolved to have some kind of superstitious belief that would keep us going. Without it, we feel lost, and many of us take our own lives. I wish I could be shown "the light" but it's too late for me.
Joshua Perry
Your flag says you are just as easy of a target as a Christian
Connor Martin
Replace "real" with "exists" and you have your answer. I know you're trolling because I chose to use the term "real", but I'm not going down that ontological rabbit hole that either of us could just good.
Camden Allen
why does that shit province get fucking everything they don't even speak dutch there
Levi Hernandez
>the best answers nearly always rise to the top no matter what Atheism or indifference to religion -atheism in function- has become the default position. There are still a lot of christian and muslim voices, but they have to argue in the atheistic frame of reference indifference to religion provides. So yes, I agree with you.
Elijah Gonzalez
Google*
Charles Martin
How are you denying the existence of someone that in your mind does not exist? Doesn't make sense to wear that as a badge of identity, calling yourself an atheist...rather than just being someone who claims to be unaware of God out of ignorance, but would not be opposed to knowing God.
Whether you believe God exists or not has no bearing on the fact that he exists. So if you want to pretend God does not exist for whatever reason (there are no good ones), you default to glorifying satan.
To be an atheist you accept that God exists and reject him. That is why you feel compelled to talk about it, and often try to convince others to join you, often squealing for "proof" as if that somehow justifies your wrong choice.
