Why do atheists hate logic and science?

>causality is imaginary. Things happen for no reason.
See argument B

It seems like you failed to make an argument.

Settle down.

It's this retarded thread again.

You appear to have no argument.
Imagin my shock

Attached: A3DF86A6-2879-413B-AE04-D06A556650D6.jpg (657x527, 38K)

how so
you assume that cause always happens "before" the effect, im pointing out its not always necessarily true

First off, you aren’t,.

Second off, in such a situation that you were correct you would be misatributing cause and effect.
And you can’t prove otherwise.

Your entire faith is built around effectless causes and causeless effects; something that is definitively anti-scientific.

Which was my point, atheists hate science,

This is like analytical philosophy for toddlers. Haha. Jfc this board.

Our board has intellectual toddlers.
Argue, accept the necessity, or move onl

>Therefore our universe began with an external cause;

it's fair to suppose that, without further evidence, I guess...

However, can you prove that this "External Cause" was anything like literally ANYTHING in any of your holy books?

use the same rigorous logic, now.

Gotta point out we’ve had a few belligerents and none have even attempted to address the argument.

Wierd? Right? If there was an error it would be so easily pinpointed by big rain atheists.

My holy books? Seems like you are attempting a straw man argument to avoid addressing the proof

I mentioned no holy books and no deity.

Can you feel your own desperation?

I used to argue with people at parties about this stuff--or anything, really--and what would happen is that the other person (the kind op is talking about) would inevitably pull out their phone and try rebut my argument with a Ted Talk clip or something.

>"He definitely addresses that and totally refutes it. Just watch. I think it was this video..."

So you can see that the essential quality at work is pure credulity in the face of celebrity authority.

Attached: imagine.jpg (576x768, 132K)

The jewel is inability to defend a personal position.
They can’t. None of them can. They chose a poor position for reasons beyond logic.

>I mentioned no holy books and no deity.
>Can you feel your own desperation?

You were addressing Atheists in your OP post.

Meaning that you are NOT an Atheist.

So, which holy book do you pray to?

So few responses, is Jow Forums truly a Christian board?

If not, why can’t atheists rebut?

Are you really this fucking braindead? Are you pretending to be retarded?

Look up deism, and try not to dwell there too long,

>obligatory indication you have zero arguments.

then why are you proselytizing?

I have no problem with controlled evolution.

My problem is christmutt, jews and moslems shoving their jew god into it.

I have to add, you are a zealot. You don’t understand or recognize that, but that is what you are.

You turned a purely logical proof of the existence of a creator into an ideological argument about which creator is correct even though you “don’t believe” in a creator.

You are a blind unthinking fool.

Address my proof or fuck off.

the position of atheist or theist is a non-starter. Anyone who uses science can only claim to be agnostic.
If you want to discuss the validity of any particular RELIGIONS, however, it is quite obvious that essentially all of them are wrong. Especially the abrahamic faiths.

there is no God

Attached: 1554191064690.jpg (165x115, 3K)

I would have to ask why you are using words you don’t know the meaning of and why you are avoiding the topical argument

Is it because you can’t find a fault in it?

Imagine being so stupid you can’t briefly show how stupid stupid people arguments are.

Not an argument
Feel free to try again (you won’t)

Some version of you comes here every day, it's so tiresome, you should understand how many others have come here and said the same things over and over, been rebutted or not, ad nauseum.

And an agnostic would never claim god doesn’t exist, right?

Stop pretending to be retarded.

Explain free will you LARPing faggot

Hard mode: dont reply unless you actually have free will

i dont have to, cuz its true

Why is it always american with the dumb christianity worship?

inb4 jesus isn't a jew/judean
inb4 muh judean is aryan

Wait, you have heard countless arguments against my position but rather than simply present them you decided to be a big gay?
Powerful.

Certainly you will dismantle my proof at any moment, despite taking time to explicitly not do so,

>tfw it’s so true you have no argument.
Atheists, everyone.

Attached: 0C051D09-181F-4D9E-9CEB-004543947B39.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

enjoy the void

>And an agnostic would never claim god doesn’t exist, right?
An agnostic would claim "I don't know if a god exists or not."
Would it then be rational for the agnostic to live as though he "knows" a god is real? And how would this agnostic know what this god wants? Your turn.

I can’t wven imagine how someone would perceive this to be a meaningful enough response to click 4 cars.

Seriously, I’m so retarded yet NOOONE. Has even attempted at addressing my OP.

Perhaps you are all just religious fanatic NPCs, since otherwise you would actually address my proof,

Attached: FDD45D25-7A98-48BD-8563-DE45E75C8A29.png (645x729, 159K)

>you are correct
>also, dumb fucking questions
I’d like to again address you to the OP which has not only been disproven but also Entirely unaddressed.

>addressing my OP
im not gonna address your cope, there is no God, period, no amount of As or Bs or word plays will change it

>You turned a purely logical proof of the existence of a creator

No, I did not.

It's not a logical proof, it's mere speculation.

We don't have enough data to conclusevly prove ANYTHING like you were asserting, I merely took it as a hyperbolic hypothesis, and attempted to refute the central thesis of your argument, that you are trying to create converts towards your religion....

Since this isn't the place for general social interaction, especially on metaphysical topics, and is instead a board dedicated to politics, I guess I assumed that the purpose of this thread is for politics......

So, are you off topic or not?

>I have no arguments and I have a position based entirely on faith rather than logic or science,

I’m okay with this,

>Is it because you can’t find a fault in it?

can't find fault in what? your opening argument?

I can find several arguments against it.

We don't know enough about the universe to say really anything about it, so most of your original axioms are just wrong, thus your argument has no basis on reality.

sound logic upon a false premise isn't sound logic.

>assuming that there is a beginning

You abviously don’t know what the logical term “proof” means and also have no logical arguments against my proof,

As a guess, you are a dumbfuck who isn’t even capable of being wrong in the arena you stepped into.

Feel free to try again, the argument is at the top of the page.

>add numbers and letters and call it logic and science
lmao

Attached: 188b6775030d0fd7dfcdd10aad86c74f.jpg (1680x1050, 107K)

Past, hey retard: how about presenting one or more of the multiple arguments you have,

I addressed your OP completely by calling it a non-starter. It does not mean anything, and I explained why... atheists and theists likewise deny science and logic. The only scientific position is that of an agnostic.

Now you're not answering the questions I asked you at all. Why would an agnostic live his life as a theist? The starting position for agnosticism is living like an atheist. How does an agnostic know who to pray to, or what to call some sort of being that might have created everything?

These were rhetorical, of course. An agnostic would not have any clue what god would be responsible for creation, just like how he wouldn't have any clue on how this god would want him to act.

Is this schizophrenia?

nigger, our universe does not equate to the beginning of time. But I dont expect nazi kikes with maga hats disrupting their energy flows to understand simple concepts.

This is a 12 year old's idea of what god is like

>have no logical arguments against my proof,

we don't know enough about the "beginning" of the universe to say anything about it.

Your conclusion is based on a false premise.

>atheists and theists likewise deny science and logic.
This is the best response I have ever gotten

Attached: D662F278-C9AE-4D8E-8885-43DAC6CBE6F5.gif (200x199, 476K)

Great but you got it in my first comment

So your argument is that effects proceeded causes in the beginning?

Do you have any data to back that up?

Attached: E04C9F4E-DC8D-4C93-BA07-214AB98B7E80.jpg (396x385, 31K)

>So your argument is that effects proceeded causes in the beginning?

No. it's not.

Okay so... everyone denies science and logic.

That is your stance?

Attached: 113E383A-134D-4BE0-9987-62D7415627B8.jpg (332x332, 21K)

Oh, so causes preceded effects then?

Both premises are bald assumptions. A2 the worse

Atheists never use logic, especially when it involves god.
>are human beings alone in the universe?
“Of course not, the universe is so large that human beings can’t even accurately comprehend its size so the odds of us being alone in the universe is nearly 0%. There are millions, if not billions of stars in the sky, and any one of them could potentially have a planet orbiting it that could contain life, intelligent or otherwise. Given these facts, I think we can accurately say that humans are not alone in the universe just by the sheer size of the number of possibilities alone”
>is there a possibility that God exists somewhere in this nearly-infinite universe?
“Of course not.”

Be more specific. Aka: make an argument.

Worth noting that in a secular universe it is still totally possible earth contains the only advanced life forms, but fuck that because math based on nothing,

If ur god is so fucking great why don't you go ahead and name one good thing he's done for you're miserable fucking existence?

it would be funny seeing religiouscuck cope when an alien 100x more advanced lands on their church

>Oh, so causes preceded effects then?

yup, that's how it works.

You are not going to get an answer because atheists are absolute fucking brainlets that lack imagination. Their only arguments revolve around "muh skydaddy" fallacy and "i'm too good for religion so I'll just poke holes in the expired dogma of the day"; in neither case do they ever have an answer for the vacuum they've created in explaining their own pitiful existence. Since atheists can't present any evidence that there is no God their hypothesis is actually less scientific than a theists. It's quite humorous actually.

Then I’ll have to refer you to the OP while I roll my eyes.

Attached: 20F9A28E-CA46-4E2B-82A3-A00729C40EC4.jpg (500x500, 28K)

I’m aware. This argument as deliberately constructed to pit their competing gods against each other, I’m actually surprised this Fare into the thread no one has denounced science outright, which generally happens,

hard to find evidence against something that doesnt exist, so if it doesnt exist then it doesnt exist, no need for evidence, checkmate christcuck

>external cause

Multiverse sound less idiotic than god.

Attached: 1536242809110.png (571x618, 111K)

Itt: brainlets getting fucked by Aquinas of Jow Forums

You seem to have failed to present an argument,
Would you like a second chance?

Religion is complete degeneracy, there's not a bigger falsehood and rabbit hole than relgion.

I can except the fact that maybe there is a god, but he clearly isn't on our fucking side.

>every child has a mother
>therefore the mother of all children exists
Why should there be only 1 first cause and not 10 of then? Or 58934?

I read through your thread and it seems to me you just had your logic 101 classes but forgot your basic philosophy classes. The first cause "argument" has been discussed numerous amounts of time. But sure, you know better, OP. Make yourself feel smart.

skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/

>he's not a brainlet atheist therefore he must be a christcuck
It's all so tiresome

The only evidence christcucks have are there mentally ill spazms about how "aMaZing" god is.

That's why it's not valid

why do a dozen of these threads pop up all at once

While I appreciate the credit, it is actually different to Aquinas. Aquinas poorly assigned several qualities to our creator that are not logically sound (within his construct) and I intentionally juxtaposed the necessity of god against the atheist’s last stand of science.

When both logic and science demand god, the atheist becomes (in my experience) quite deranged. I very much enjoy atheists denouncing science because it leaves them in quite the predicament.

It hasn’t happened yet this thread (though also zero arguments have)
I imagine once people start providing reasonable arguments against OP we will see atheists denounce science.

Are you trying to argue that there wasn’t a beginning to the human race?
Or life in general?

Please help me follow your argument,

Baka your argument has the implicit premise that there is one and only one first cause. From a purely logical point of view there is absolutely no reason why there couldn't be 10 or 100 or 1000... first causes. Another example: every car has been manufactured, so there exists the one single manufacturer of all cars?

>Magic man everything
>Everything was made by something
>Except magic man

Attached: blowjob-queen-19993796.png (500x522, 173K)

I understand this isn't actually the argument that Aquinas made, just drawing a parallel to your application of logic to the problems of theology.

As an aside, I'm curious if you believe there must exist only 1 God. In your proof you didn't preclude the idea the the universe was created by a set of simultaneous causes, rather than a singular one.

There is one thing your logic misses: there doesn't have to be a first cause if the causality chain is infinite. To phrase it differently: the universe (or, for a lack of a better word, the "omniverse", if you will") could as well just have "been" here - forever.

Is the existence of two or several thousand gods a valid argument against the existence of a creator of our universe?

I do believe there must exist exactly one god. That doesn’t mean our universe was made by that god.
I hate to give credence to Gnosticism but yeah, the window is open.

But this isn’t really a thread about theology so much as logic. Our universe was created by a supernatural being/force.
This is the argument presented which has yet to even be addressed.

You seem to be retarded. We live in a created causal universe. That doesn’t mean the creator has a similar situation.

People can design cars, but people don’t need gasoline to run.

Assuming the causality chain is infinite is not only ridiculous, contrary to scientific thought, but also doesn’t address the argument presented.

You avoided the argument by presenting an unprovable hypothesis with no backing while still ignoring the actual argument,

Why would you presume an infinite chain of existence on faith alone? Especially in light of all evidence that the universe is approaching heat death?

Are you trying to make a claim contrary to all scientific thought based on faith alone and expecting respect for your position?

Is your position somehow special or better in tune with our current knowledge of the universe, or is it so,etching that makes you feel better and that’s all that matters?

Also my proof was inspired by the mistakes Aquinas made.

He definitely had a hand in my proof, but he made many mistakes and wasn’t actually trying to convince non-believers.

Aquinas want to prove the Christian god as logically evident, which was a mistake from the start.
But he did lay the groundwork for proving a creator was logically evident. He just tried too hard.

224315606
>A1 steak sauce.
>Derrr. Where universe come from? Needs cause.

I can't explain so nothing ever will
Therefore theology?
Lots of physics theories, lots of grand design ideas.

Now
1: intelligent deity exists and makes universe.
2: op is a faggot.

Therefore deity is responsible for OPs faggotry.

you know in the begining there was nothing, and then god said let their be light. could that be gods way of explaining the big bang through divine inspiration? i don't understand this obsession with taking genesis completely literally when its clear from context thats not how its meant to be. its like song of solomon is clearly poetic but the creation story can't possibly be explaining the big bang evolution and the enlightenment and downfall of man. its a literal tree and theres a snake and a snake and thats final. frankly its bizarre and its helping kill faith in the west.