BTFO Atheists Thread

Why is there a skydaddy rather than nothing?

Theists never have an answer for this question. The fact that they can't answer this, means that isn't skydaddy is real.

Which God? The Judeo-Christian God? Allah? Vishnu? Any God at all? I can't disprove a poorly worded statement for you

Attached: article-1201841-05BEFE30000005DC-740_224x328.jpg (224x328, 24K)

I'm an atheist. I was being facetious.

Attached: christian protecting illegal migrants in iceland.jpg (992x620, 129K)

What keeps me from religion is that no religion seems truer than any other. Why should the abrahamic god be the true one, instead of lets say Ahura Mazda?

Because Ahura Mazda has very few cultists left to scream about how real he is.

You can't even properly define what is God. It will be just another semantic porrige based on your values and effect of upbringing. So it doesn't really matter if you belive in God or not.

For thousands of years, the assumption was that God existed. Atheists insisted that he didn't, making a statement that they've yet to prove.

So no, the burden of proof falls on you?

Various interpretations of God. That's like saying "There's many interpretations of Democracy, therefore, Democracy doesn't exist."

What keeps me from political ideology is that no ideology seems truer than any other. Why should Communism be the true one, instead of let's say, Fascism?

I don't know, it kind of depends on the person.

>God exists.
Prove that statement right... .

The burden of proof falls on anyone who makes a statement requiring proof. If it's an assumption then you don't prove it, you just assume it.

Saying that there's no God requires that you provide proof for what else created the universe. What if I say that space doesn't exist? That your assumption that space exists requires that you prove it to me? And I know what you're going to say, we have proof of it, sure. Have you, personally, researched it, or do you just assume it's true because that's what the "experts" say? Who's to say that they're experts other than themselves and society at large?

Communism and fascism are ideological systems though, they can exist at the same time. Religions are sets of facts which are supposed to describe the nature of reality, and most disagree or contradict each other in some way. I can create fascism or communism as a human, I can't make religion real though.

Physics has proven that all matter emerged from a singularity before time began.

>Saying that there's no God requires that you provide proof
Yes.
>for what else created the universe
Now you are assuming that it was "created".
>What if I say that space doesn't exist?
Then the burden of proof is on you.

Sure, but the divine is inherently unknowable. We're not talking about a thing like politics, which is a human construct. It's god telling us what god is, not us making god.

Okay how do I report posts on this shitty site? Where is the downvote button?

Also I will let you know that I am a very greedy man, I won t accept as evidence any biblical stuff or the thousand of years of human history that have revolved around cults. That Gods should appear before me/humanity and personally say that he exist and show us proof that he is what he says.

A more apt comparison would be a relationship. My relationship with my mom is vastly different from my dad's relationship with my mom. That doesn't mean that one of us is wrong in our relationship per se, or that my mom doesn't exist.

I think we both believe the universe had a creation "date" as it were, the big bang. For a long time, atheists insisted that the universe had no beginning, and therefore, was not created. If the big bang theory were created now, atheists would likely be strongly against it despite the fact that it's true, because it kind of destroys the premise that there's nothing in the universe but the universe.

>Then the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong, if the burden of proof is on me for denying that something exists, which is assumed to exist, then the burden of proof is on you for denying that something, in your case God, exists that is assumed to exist. You can't have some requirements for things that you do believe and others for things that you don't. Be intellectually constant.

statement exists
god the above prove wrong

Well there's your first problem really. It's an inherently selfish proposition to demand that God reveal himself personally to you. But also, as a mental exercise, what would free will really matter for if God just said "Yeah, I exist" to everyone? We'd have a choice to go against His will, sure, but nobody really would. So then what would this life count for?

>scientific observation of matter
>therefore god

But you're claiming any delusion being equal in faith. Many deities in the past have been worshipped with blood sacrifices of innocents. Maybe I''m getting you wrong here, but wouldnt that belief be equally true to your faith in the abrahamic god? Don't you need to prove that your god is more right than the aztec gods?

>I think we both believe the universe had a creation "date" as it were, the big bang.
I can inform you, that you are wrong. I do not believe that.
>If the big bang theory were created now, atheists would likely be strongly against it despite the fact that it's true
How do you know it is true?
>Wrong, if the burden of proof is on me for denying that something exists, which is assumed to exist, then the burden of proof is on you for denying that something, in your case God, exists that is assumed to exist
You do not understand the concept. The burden of proof lies on whoever makes a statement that requires proof. Examples:
X exists.
X doesn't exist.
Both require proof.

>God is a cute loli.
Prove the above statement wrong.

I don't want to. Though I can't stop seeing the beard.

I'm not saying it's equally true, I'm saying that all faiths are based in truth. If I say that the ocean's made of water, I'm right. If someone says it's made of saltwater, they're right. Surely saltwater and regular water aren't the same, but neither answer is necessarily wrong, it's just that one is based off of more information than the other.

Well then we fundamentally disagree. The premise of the big bang is fully backed by science.

>The premise of the big bang is fully backed by science.
That's an appeal to authority. There are other explanations for the so-called evidence.

So if I suffer from some delusion And genuinely believe god is a loli, you're saying im as qualified as the pope on the nature of divinity?

the big bang isn't a date of creation, its when the universe started to expand

Guess there will never be proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct judging by this thread.

Time is infinite as far as we scientifically know. "The big bang" is just the fartest we can "look"

and what has the big bang to do with god anywayz.
Let's say that there was nothing before the big bang and the universe after. How does that prove your god exists?

You should focus more on understanding and less on convincing.

God is real if quads

Obviously not since god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis by design. It's only possible to prove it, it's literally impossible to disprove it.

>literally ignores all comments who can prove his statement wrong
>reply only to atheist brainlets
>"hurr im so smart"

Attached: 1529531359062.png (663x537, 194K)

Do you actually believe in god or are you just an argumentative asshole?

Well if God has created humans, then he did leave it in our nature to be selfish and greedy, no? If he wishes for all of us to live a life without sins and get in haven, then why is there favoritism? Why does he chose to reveal only to people that are virtuous or people that had a a virtuous life and are one step away from "sinning". Doesn t he love all of us equally? Why HE wouldn t make just this one step that could save some1 from "eternal damnation"? If I am not important enough for God then why should he important enough for me?
I think You don t really get the christian teachings. God says that those who have a pure heart would get in heaven ... . Meaning? Those who would follow Christianity only because of fear wouldn t be pure so they are still condemned to hell. Also have you been living under a rock? Useless humanity would be beaten in to submission there would be always people that wouldn t accept or oppose something. Waiting for an answer rn. English isn t my first language so I could have made some mistakes.

at one point I would've debated you. now I just don't care... sorry desu don't have the energy anymore

That's not at all what I'm saying. You certainly don't have as much knowledge as the pope. What I am saying is that if you actually believe that God is a loli, and you certainly don't, then you're basing that off of what you know about God. And that's fine.

Alright Dr. Jow Forums User, tell me what these explanations are.

This is weird, I haven't ever had to tell an atheist that they were being an unscientific jackass about this sort of thing before.

Here's the main problem is that if the universe does not have a creation date, then it must be infinite, which is a fine premise, but for something to be infinite, that is, without time, it has to actually be without time, and something cannot be without time if time affects it. The universe is fundamentally reliant on time, and so for it to have not been created, it would have had to have been infinite, again without time, and then at some point become uninfinite, but then it wouldn't have been infinite in the first place.

That's not what the big bang does.

It would prove that something created it, and then we could argue about what, but I would argue it was an infinite being.

He values freedom over what's "right". We have the freedom to be shitty human beings.

I have to go, but it was fun, as a former atheist, to indulge myself in this. God's blessings!

The idea that anyone can look at the complexity and grandeur of creation and think an intelligence wasn't behind it seems absurd to me.

>He values freedom over what's "right". We have the freedom to be shitty human beings.
If we have the freedom then why does he intervene at all?

Also you rly btfo-ed me, did you even read all I wrote? You replied in less than 2 minutes.

>The idea that anyone can look at the complexity and grandeur of the multiverses and think an intelligence was behind it seems absurd to me.

fixed that for you

Prove that you aren't sexually aroused by caterpillars, then I'll get back to you.

>Alright Dr. Jow Forums User, tell me what these explanations are.
I don't think it would make any difference if I told you. You are being condescending and clearly think whatever is written by academic "authorities" is true, even when it's clear you haven't the slightest clue how they came to their conclusions.
>an unscientific jackass
>it's unscientific to disagree with the consensus.
Okay, brainlet.

>I made this thread because i was bored of jacking off and watching anime.
(you)

god as a concept proves that he exists but so does anything else humans can think up which is pretty broad but ultimately derivative. God is real but he's just dervative of natural phenomena which is technically raw input into the human brain.

>want to explain the complexity of the universe
>posit infinitely many universes
Yeah, okay.

You aren't answering the qurstion give us a straight answer instead of your fedora bullshit

Attached: momo-yaoyorozu-66870.jpg (300x441, 23K)

>I don't know, it kind of depends on the person.

You can't both be right. It's more likely neither of you are.

it would be pretty awesome though,actually being proven that a god exists...

daily reminder
originalissimo

Attached: QeiTidZ.jpg (800x7200, 705K)

What's wrong with liking caterpillars?

the way atoms behave presupposes the existence of other atoms. there is no way this could happen without all forms of matter first existing within a mind.

yea, i don't have evidence for my claim... disprove me then...

see what i did there

i don't masturbate, no reminder necessary

define "mind" please
and why not?

If god exists why kids and other people who still have much to do die, while I am still alive and well? Pls explain

Attached: 1530399144553.jpg (270x306, 19K)

>i don't masturbate
PFFFFFFFTTTT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

you can't lie either, isn't that a commandment or somehting?

This life isn't our real destination; it's the afterlife.
"Yolo" is a horrid thought virus that has affected the current generation.

>You made the statement, the burden of proof falls on you.
You made the statement that the burden of proof falls on the person making the statement, prove that the burden of proof falls on the person making the statement.

Checkmate.

Why are Christfags so much more obnoxious than Atheists these days?

Personally I blame the fedora meme and Jow Forums crusade shit creating a bunch of pretend Christians.

Attached: io2jedw.jpg (741x711, 102K)

Ok I'll wait explain.

Prove it.

Origanal.

I'm waiting...sir prove it.

>if the burden of proof is on me for denying that something exists
Let me correct you on this.
The burden of proof is on people who make claims, whether those claims deny or assert God's existence.
When atheists say there's no god, they don't mean that they have evidence of no god. They could mean they have a standard for accepting factual evidence that hasn't been met.
"There is no God." triggers morons into arguing for god's existence with no evidence so you look bad.

The burden of proof is on you good sire, I shall wait for you to prove your point.

Check and mate.

Why would I believe something that has no proof?

I'm more than happy to accept that there might be a god, but that's not enough for me to start believing in one.

There *might* have been a mistake at my bank that caused them to put $100,000 in my account. That doesn't mean I'm going to start walking around assuming they did.

He didn't say that God didn't exist, you made the thread claiming that God exist, so you must prove that he does. If he had made the thread saying God doesn't exist, then he would have to prove he doesn't, but you made the claim for God's existence first so you have to show empirical evidence.

I know i'm waiting prove it.

All christfags on Jow Forums are ex-fedora atheists that lacked the self-awareness to realize that the fedora memes were specifically about them, and jumped ship as soon as it wasn't cool or edgy to be an atheist anymore.

allready discussed in thread

these are teh funnay ones

...

All Atheists on Jow Forums are ex-fedora atheists that lacked the self-awareness to realize that the fedora memes were specifically about them, and jumped ship as soon as it wasn't cool or edgy to be an Christian anymore.

Funny enough, I believed in Santa Claus longer than I believed in god, probably because Santa always gave me presents and overall seemed like a good older person, whereas god was always described like a cunt, a child that created the humanity just to fuck with us
>AYY LMAO I put that beatiful tree right in the middle of Eden, if those retards eat those fruits they get BTFO to the desert
>AYY LMAO incest
>Hmmm all humans are building a huge tower to reach the heaven? LOL mindfuck, how will you comunicate now? LOL
>Hmm I'm bored... let's flood those fuckers LOL
>AYY LMAO incest
>Hey, retards! This is the 10 Commandments, these are signs of tru virture! (even tho I broke most of them LOL) Oh btw if you break ONE you get BTFO to hell for eternal torture LOL
I don't want to believe that such piece of shit exists. Why do you belive in him?

Attached: 1527716389041.png (483x486, 435K)

Cool projection, but this is not progressing the discussion.

Pretty much exactly this to a t

Attached: 4phdhhwvp0e01.jpg (1200x488, 105K)

mind as in a being that can hold an idea. in order for atoms to interact with each other, they must first exist as an idea. in the system that is our world, no component or part, such as an atom, can be self-sufficient or self explanatory. when you have a system of any kind, you need to presuppose all parts as they are within the system. an oxygen atom can't act without other atoms to interact with. any one part could only be self-sufficient if it were the cause of the the whole rest of the system, which is impossible because a part cannot be the cause of a whole. all of the parts need to exist as an idea before they can exist physically.

>Why do you belive in him?
because its the most logical conclusion. (not empirical)

At the end of the day, doesn't everyone have to use faith? You can't have evidence for every belief you hold. Everyone must have some presuppositions

yea, i'm not following

i was just being clever by switching
this arround:
>The idea that anyone can look at the complexity and grandeur of creation and think an intelligence wasn't behind it seems absurd to me.
was not expecting all that gibberish as an unironic answer

but to come back to the first statement... believe all you want mate. nobody cares

So it's more like, "I'll pretend to believe, just in case"?

I haven't read it, that's just common sense.
Had to google what a "skeptic youtuber" is supposed to be. What an odd club to belong to.

which god and which specific interpretation you fucking retard
t. theist

There's a big difference between reasoned confidence and "faith".

no its that the existence of God is a logical conclusion that can be made

use faith how and why?
I get by just fine interpreting reality

Fat neckbearded fedorans were definitely cringy assholes, but yelling "EDGY FEDORA TIPPER!" at any atheist or any criticism of religion is blatant ad hominem, and can't possibly apply to every atheist. It's just a bunch of butthurt religious morons trying to meme their way out of feeling like they ought to justify their untenable assertions when they're challenged.

Attached: le hat joke.png (640x480, 26K)

please, enlighten us
clearly, you are way ahead of the curve

Well that is obvious that Allah is exists! If you realized that then kill yourself already and give us your woman white pig!

Elaborate, then. What's your argument for the existence of god you think is so cogent? And try to make the distinction between an argument for the god of your specific religion and an argument for a more vaguely-defined creator entity, along with wether or not it takes interest in human affairs.

>untenable assertions
shit like that is why you're a fedora fag. you don't make an argument you just always resort to MUH SKYDADDY STUPID SANTA CLAUS RETARDS!!!! XDDDDDD
you just resort to acting superior, what an ironic post

Attached: tipsfedora.jpg (1200x794, 106K)