Atheism / Religion

Shut fhe fuck up retarded incel

Attached: 1525901896017.jpg (800x800, 152K)

Why should I believe that there is a floating sandnigger in the sky?

Attached: 1493911919555.jpg (369x387, 35K)

Your flag literally has a cross on it. Its your culture.

Fuck off Swedecuck

Cant argue with that

Attached: 1531315909698.jpg (657x527, 36K)

man has innate predisposition to believe in a greater power

>doesn't have any arguments
Sad!

Also not an argument.

Well God doesn't have any substantial evidence. Would you believe in invisible pink elephants without any evidence?

>no arguments
Sad!

Exactly.

>it was formerly your culture, therefore you should believe in it
Should I believe in witchcraft as well then? Since that used to be part of European culture.

Terrible posts.

This isn't a viable reason for believing in God.

Shut the fuck up retarded incel. Atheist are literal reddit tier
>gOd dOnt ExCis cAuze i CaNt SeE eM
-you

Nah just kidding god is fucking retarded

Attached: 1527380928815.jpg (225x225, 15K)

ok but how do you disprove the existence of a God

Attached: 5F962B85-F9BD-418B-BE2A-3D6AD0FAE67A.jpg (454x402, 43K)

archive.nyafuu.org/bant/thread/6370173/#q6371074

How do you disprove Gork and Mork?

Attached: 180975177591616.jpg (483x504, 47K)

Ad hominem isn't an argument. Are you seriously this retarded?

Good post, Sven.

You don't. Atheism doesn't mean that you can prove that God doesn't exist. It just means that you lack a belief in God.

you cant disprove it but you cant prove it either
these threads always devolve into a carrousel of the same thing being said over and over again

Attached: 023E7F5F-6615-4A62-9463-190914E0BC2D.jpg (540x650, 64K)

cool I hope you enjoy that

Do you believe in invisible pink elephants? I'm going to guess no. And why not? Because there's no evidence for such a thing existing, that's why.

Same with God. There's no reason to believe in God existing. It used to be that humans didn't understand how we got here, and that's why they came up with an easy answer - "there's a supernatural being that put us here". But now we know so much, about evolution, the origins of life, the origins of the solar system, etc. There are no longer any good reasons to believe in God.

The people who wrote the bible must have been on some pretty strong shit, alcohol just doesn't cut it.

Attached: 1529536818869.jpg (900x900, 74K)

>le dark ages meme
The only people who believe the Medieval Era was an era of technological and cultural halt knows nothing about history.

Also, the moon landing was fake so the only thing the "space age" has done for us is given us the ability to shoot some metal canisters into space. I'm amazed.

We still don’t know exactly how the universe started or why we are here in the first place. Religion as a whole is just a big coping mechanism if you look deep into it. I’m a christian myself because I still believe that there is something out there for us. Christianity also just made me a better person to others in general in my eyes

Attached: 1609E9C3-A671-43D1-B52E-88B65543C640.jpg (876x404, 62K)

Just because you haven't actually searched for evidence of Gods existence doesn't mean there is none.
Thomas Aquinas' Theologica Summa and Five Points undeniably prove a god exists and atheists have been trying for centuries to disprove it and failed.
If you can debunk those two works you will have proven God doesn't exist but
>pro-tip: you cant

when has rejecting instinct helped you

There is a whole deal of truth to it, there was a great amount of technology lost leading up to and during the fall of the roman empire. Furthermore the spread and development and spread of technology was very slow during the rarely middle ages up to the high middle ages. To blame this on christianity is however misguided.

Also this, Summa Theologica is still valid till this day which is saying a lot

Attached: 80D96E6D-C97E-4262-979F-88C74E51B666.jpg (868x1024, 108K)

For one, not beating the crap out of people just because I’m really angry at them.

>Would you believe in invisible pink elephants without any evidence?
No but I wouldn't reject that they exist if I didn't have disconfirming evidence.
That's the thing. :/ Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You or I probably only know 1% of everything humanity knows if not waaaay less. You're telling me a god can't be in that other 99%? And imagine the unknown unknowns. I'm going to stay agnostic.

>Many scholars and commenters caution in treating the Five Ways as if they were modern logical proofs.
lmao desu frens

>Also, the moon landing was fake
S....surely you can't be serious.
Aha....ha.....hahaha.....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>We still don’t know exactly how the universe started
Well we think there was a big bang. But sure, there are still unanswered questions. But the point is that we do understand A LOT about the universe thanks to science. History has shown that even if we don't understand everything now, we will only learn more and more as time goes on, and our technology gets better, etc.

We now understand so much about how life came to exist, how the solar system came to exist, and yes how the universe came to exist as well. And we don't need to postulate a supernatural being in order to explain it all.

>Religion as a whole is just a big coping mechanism
I agree.

>Christianity also just made me a better person to others in general in my eyes
That isn't a reason to think it's true though.

>Thomas Aquinas
Surely... surely you can't unironically think that Thomas Aquinas is worth citing...
Ahaha... hahaha... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I have no instinctive need to believe in God. And besides, instinct is not sufficient for understanding the universe. STUDY is needed to understand the universe.

Attached: laugh.jpg (500x421, 40K)

The summa theologica is nothing but a word sallad. Nothing that he says is backes up by any reason, much less any evidence. I don’t get why people get behind such trash.

Religious devotion in science is just as destructive as religious devotion to myth

>Surely... surely you can't unironically think that Thomas Aquinas is worth citing...
Not an argument.
Not that I should expect anything more from you, you didn't come here to argue type debate despite how credible others proof, you came here to meme and be bullheadish.

Imagine unironically debating religion on Jow Forums. Can smell the virgin from here m8.

Attached: 1426128655167.jpg (453x439, 59K)

Cringe

Attached: CE7F3002-2058-4847-A809-DA6F68003EE6.jpg (243x243, 25K)

Claiming that God doesn't exist also requires the burden of proof. You can claim skepticism but you can't claim outright disbelief without proof

>summa theologica is nothing but a word sallad.
t. too stupid to understand old literature

Well, no one have actually cited him here. All people have done is circlejerked about how great they think he is.

No, it isn't. Aquinas thought he could define God into existence, but you can't. The existence of something can only be verified a posteriori / empirically.

Our notion that there must be an "unmoved mover" is based on our ideas of causation, but perhaps we're wrong about causation. After all, we believed in classical mechanics for ages, and then quantum mechanics showed it to be wrong.

Maybe the chain of causation goes on forever into the past.

But more importantly - even if there IS an unmoved mover, then why the fuck should it resemble the Christian God? Maybe the big bang was the unmoved mover.

you shouldn't just make an answer up if you don't know something

>Claiming to know there is no god with absolute certainty
>Claiming to know there is/are god(s) with absolute certainty
Being agnostic is the way to go
But being agnostic-atheist of agnostic-theist is fine too

Not pissing my pants

A really simple way to look at is If an argument can be used to justify almost anything (or a wide array of contradictory beliefs) it’s a dumb argument.

This.
The only stupid position is the one that stands on a high horse thinking they're the enlightened ones. We're all in this together just stumbling through life the best we can with only flawed maps to guide us. We can't trust our senses. We can't solve the problem of induction. How can we be sure there is or isn't a god?

The person above was making a positive claim in saying that God doesn't exist. I am an agnostic atheist

If you can't be sure then you should choose the most simple answer.

Abandoning thread please stop insulting my underage intelligence

Attached: BD06BB9A-7629-4107-AA07-B90BE2B40FFB.jpg (750x700, 95K)

Let's look at the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist":
>agnostic | aɡˈnɒstJk |
>noun
>a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
>atheist | ˈeJθJJst |
>noun
>a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist.
This is the thing. Atheism doesn't mean you claim that you can PROVE God doesn't exist with 100% certainty. It just means you lack a belief in God. You have no reason to believe in God.

Agnosticism seems to say that we can't know if there's a God... I think that's stupid. We have figured out so much about the universe, and over time we will uncover more. And if we are literally incapable of ever finding out whether there's a God or not... surely that's just a cop out. E.g. if I claim "you can never know whether there are invisible pink elephants floating all around us... maybe there are, maybe there aren't". For all intents and purposes, we may as well say that invisible pink elephants don't exist, at least until we have any evidence for them. Same with God.

>I wouldn't reject that they exist if I didn't have disconfirming evidence.
Okay maybe I can come up with a better example. Suppose I say that I have a Ferrari in my garage. You can either believe that or not believe that - I'm sure most people would come up with an educated guess regarding the truth of that statement, based on certain evidence (my income would probably be the most important piece of evidence). But one way or another, that statement is either true or false, isn't it? It's either true that there's a Ferrari in my garage, or it's false, and there's no Ferrari. And surely that's the same with all claims of existence? Regarding every claim of existence, there is an objective matter of fact that it is either true or false. So why isn't the same for God?

I don't have a religious devotion to science. Science doesn't profess unquestionable dogma without evidence. Every claim of science must be backed by evidence.

See what I said here about Aquinas:

And that would be?

Well then give me his enlightenment. Stop expecting that some magical wizard man will come down from the sky and make your arguments for you.

Atheism doesn't claim to know there's no god with absolute certainty. Atheism simply means you lack belief in any gods.

Agnosticism says that it's unknown or unknowable whether there's a god. I think this is a bit of a cop out. We don't have any evidence for anything supernatural existing. So there's not really any reason to believe in any supernatural being.

To me it seems like saying that there is no god is the simplest answer. Because you do not have to believe in the supernatural

In that op post you did claim that there was no god

>atheism | ˈeJθJJz(ə)m |
>noun [mass noun]
>disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I lack a belief in God, just like I lack a belief in invisible pink elephants floating around my room.

I don't think we can prove 100% that God doesn't exist. But I don't think we have any reason to believe in any gods.

>abandoning thread because you got btfo
Lol.

>I don't think we can prove 100% that God doesn't exist. But I don't think we have any reason to believe in any gods.
I don't either but your op post made it look like you did.

*You did think that you could prove it

No I’m just bored with arguing about religion

Well I think it's very likely that there's no God. Just like I think it's very unlikely that there's no invisible pink elephants floating around my room.

If I have no evidence for something then I have no reason to believe in it.

Guys, there is actually no reason to discuss this shit.
Even if god doesn't exist, christianity is a religion with good morals and helps avoiding existentialism
>but, dah crusades, da science
that's the past, and, as long as i know, they are not radicalists or science-hating anymore. there are even chriatians that believe god created the big bang because the bible was written in a way people from the era can understand
>but, muh reality
why would you care if someone else have hopes and a god to pray? he isn't doing anything against you
>they are homophobic!
"Love your neighbor as yourself"mark 12:30-31
well, i not all of them hate homosexuals...
>what about church income?
yeh, church is greedy like a jew

and i am atheist btw

Attached: modern_religion_in_a_nutshell_by_ocarinaplaya-d5qbzkn.jpg (900x405, 54K)

Well I think it's very likely that there's no God, which is why I say that atheism is true.

The Crusades were justified though

Attached: 20BC1039-B459-4593-97FA-110A07B429EE.jpg (550x422, 44K)

But then you would have to make assumptions on how the universe started, ect. ect.
With that said, believing in a god would also have a fair amount of assumptions to be made.
I do lean towards no god though, since that's what most of the evidence suggests, however I still like to take it with a large pinch of salt.
>Atheism doesn't claim to know there's no god with absolute certainty. Atheism simply means you lack belief in any gods.
My apologies, I took it as knowing there is no god with absolute certainty. I myself am atheist-agnostic, but I don't believe in supernatural things like ghosts and whatnot. When it comes to religion, I mainly just take the creation story as the main thing that needs to be proven or disproven.

I wouldn't say that it's true. Truth is probably the very most certain affermitive word we have in the human Language

not everyone is intelligent like us, and i didn't want a retard using the crusades as argument

>doesn’t believe in god, has no proof he doesn’t exist
> believes in god, has no proof he exists

The answer will be told when you’re dead and when that time comes if the Christians are right then the athiests can suck dicks in hell.
If the athiests are right, we’ll then sadly the Christians can’t suck dick cause they just dead

Because you know that your beliefs are irrational.

>christianity is a religion with good morals
Perhaps, but that isn't a reason to believe it's true.

>why would you care if someone else have hopes and a god to pray? he isn't doing anything against you
Because they believe in something which I think can't be supported by evidence. I think that we as a species should believe in things which are most likely to be true. Because the truth yields the greatest benefits. Believing in falsehoods can lead to tragic consequences.

If you were to believe in all possible afterlife then you must also believe in an afterlife where atheists go to heaven and believers go to hell.

DES-PA-CITO

Attached: GYARI.png (300x454, 132K)

No it's because I understand that arguing about religion of all things on Jow Forums of all places is nothing but a waste of time and won't get me anywhere

Attached: 1532338006883.png (400x400, 85K)

You mean just like everything else you can do on Jow Forums?

Attached: B5B04B5B-B5BF-4040-9470-2D7D522FAFF0.png (2113x1403, 102K)

yeah

Attached: 1531398326113.png (540x650, 115K)

>I mainly just take the creation story as the main thing that needs to be proven or disproven.
Well I think probably most Christians in developed countries these days don't believe in the 7-day creation story anymore.

Maybe I just felt bold when I made the thread.

But anyway, I could say that the strength of my belief that there is no God may as well be as strong as my belief that there isn't a Ferrari in my garage. In both cases, I have seen no evidence to support such a thing.

There is no evidence of an "afterlife" whatsoever. The evidence suggests that we just rot in the ground.

I would say it's because your beliefs are irrational.

so nobody's going to mention that the Catholic Church singlehandedly ushered in the renaissance and thus the modern understanding of science?

And that the dark ages were started via politics and not religion?

hmmmmmmmm

>slightly coherent threads on Jow Forums

Attached: 1538008203624.gif (500x371, 518K)

Wellll sorry about that I believe they are I hope you have a good day

my point is, you are playing chess with a pigeon; it doesn't matter how good you are at playing (proofs), the pigeon will peck at the pieces, shit on the table, and start to fly (deep faith).
>Believing in falsehoods can lead to tragic consequences
there are christian sciencists you know? "science opens doors that lead to other doors, every time closer to god".
tragic consequences are very unlikely to happen, besides atheism and will always be present somewhere

>so nobody's going to mention that the Catholic Church singlehandedly ushered in the renaissance and thus the modern understanding of science?
OH NO NO NO

Attached: D54F1A0E-44CF-4206-8B79-6C2501D955FD.jpg (433x419, 47K)

your instinct tells you not to do that you retarded cunt

No it doesn’t
(Well it does for pissing but not the thing I mentioned).

yes it does edgelord you just want to pretend to be tough and vent but the body knows when to back down

No it isn't instinctual to wear clothes so in nature you would piss wherever

it's instinctual to not want to be wet and dirty you ape you absolute rabid fuckwit

Ok well I'm not following my instincts by wearing clothes. That is one time that following my instincts helped

Christianity obviously helped create western civilisation, which is the best civilisation ever. But that doesn't mean that Christianity's claims are true.

are you genuinely dense
do i have to spell out why making a voluntary choice to do something doesn't necessarily conflict with instinctive interest
do i REALLY fucking have to tell you that maybe early man wanted to feel warm so he covered himself

Ghandi starved himself so that Indians could be considered part of the white race . That conflicted with his instincts and helped him out at the same time

Attached: 1524951274671.jpg (500x350, 31K)

He starved himself to get political backing

In life, there are never simple answers.