Do you enjoy your empty purposeless life as an atheist?

There is agnostic theism ("I can't prove god, but I think he exists") and agnostic atheism ("I can't prove he doesn't exist, but I don't think he does")

yes

ok but that still doesn't relate to what I'm arguing here:

Not really. Why?
I hate the term agnostic. It's just atheism for cowards.

ye

No, it's not

i’m not a satan-worshipping apostate so i wouldn’t know
the only thing gaytheists will enjoy is burning in hell

You're the one promoting the existence of a magic sky wizard whose "invisible touch" on existence has repeatedly been scientifically proven to happen for natural reasons, from language to evolution, biology, disease, to the nature of the universe and the make up of the solar system.

Time and time again the "It's like that because God" turned out to actually be like that because of tangible, real reasons.

It's time for to the religious to prove a single factor behind their claims.

>You're the one promoting the existence of a magic sky wizard

I don't.

NO

Attached: 1508761736175.jpg (220x229, 9K)

Yes it is.

Atheist means youre a smartass edgelord. Agnostic means wise who doesn't assume either shit he doesnt know.

It's because you are a mongoloid who argues semantics.

There are atheists who take it as an absolute statement about existence, but for most it is position on theism that you don't believe in the myths of religion that men have invented.

Your retarded position of agnosticism as some kind of centrist position on this issue is always going to be retarded. People who hold this position must logically concede that if I claim that there is a God who is actually a mentally retarded fish but can create the universe your position is that because you can't disprove it you must admit it's possible it exists.

By this axiom, anything can exist since you can never disprove anything and that is why atheism in it's strict form simply is a lack of belief in any and all theories about deities since none have any kind of proof.

Do you derive fulfillment from your life-denying Jewish sect following the teachings of an outcast who has led one of the most tragic lives in history?

So it would be better to pretend that my life has greater meaning?

I don't think I'm an atheist.
>What do you call somebody who never thinks about religion and doesn't care?

I think you're halfway into realizing how much clueless we are on ontology
Have you ever read the three thesys of gorgias?

A beast

No, what is it about? I don't read a lot of old philosophy, it is too convoluted by the language typically.

Unironically yeah, probably

Yes

sorry I was eating a sandwich
>It's because you are a mongoloid who argues semantics.
Off to a good start, some racism and ad hominems.
>There are atheists who take it as an absolute statement about existence, but for most it is position on theism that you don't believe in the myths of religion that men have invented.
Atheism -there is no God
Agnosticism - I'm not sure
>Your retarded position
Ah ableism
>of agnosticism as some kind of centrist position on this issue is always going to be retarded.
>this stupid thing is stupid because it's stupid
Great argument, bud.
>People who hold this position must logically concede that if I claim that there is a God who is actually a mentally retarded fish but can create the universe your position is that because you can't disprove it you must admit it's possible it exists.
>By this axiom, anything can exist since you can never disprove anything and that is why atheism in it's strict form simply is a lack of belief in any and all theories about deities since none have any kind of proof.
Ah finally an actual argument. Atheists aren't talking about disbelief in a fish God, they speak of disbelief in mainstream concepts of God, and then go a step further and say "there is no God", exactly as I stated earlier, which is the definition of Atheism mind you.

Do you enjoy serving a maquiavélic cruel overlord?

>

Attached: spooks.jpg (390x310, 17K)

No, it is exactly as I said. Atheists will deny the existence of any proclaimed God because there is no proof, someone who takes an agnostic position will have to logically concede the possibility of any and all infinite amount of statements about God or anything else for that because you can never disprove anything.

In logic the position of agnosticism can be defended behind things like incompleteness theoreoms but this simply goes against the experience of a human and how we live.

If I told you I am God, you would by any intuition deny it. But by an agnostic position, you have to concede the possibility that I am.

An atheist will just deny that I am because there is no proof, and will do the same for any other claim of God because they all of have the same validity as my claim.

>then go a step further and say "there is no God"

There is no going further, it is a logical position derived from the axioms above. The philosophical discussion about the possibility of a God is not outside the scope of what an atheist believes.

>the axioms above.
These aren't axioms.
>There is no going further, it is a logical position
You're running in circles, first you say I only don't believe of the interpretations of God that I have heard of and then you say that the statement "there is no God" is a "logical position derived from the """axioms""" above". At the end of the day you are still claiming that which you cannot prove.
Jow Forums atheists seem to be the most like you, a refusal to read perfunctory philosophical texts: and an inability or unwillingness to argue on religious texts. At least the atheists on /his/ build actual arguments.

>At least the atheists on /his/ build actual arguments.
What arguments go you need?
>If you want me to believe in something then show me proofs
That's it.
t. atheist from /his/

>What arguments go you need?
I mean on /his/, and sometimes even /lit/ they build arguments off of philosophers' arguments, and actually go into the specifics of religion(s) and show why they don't believe them, whereas on here it just seems like, "uuhh yeah the ways wherein I see the world are axioms and therefore building on that we can make the corollary that God does not exist."
>>If you want me to believe in something then show me proofs
>That's it.
huh, whom are you quoting? or are you saying asking for proof is the only argument you need.
If so then that's what I'm talking about, you, for example, could ask me for proof of God, and I could make an argument about how the static universe theory was wrong, the big bang theory is correct, and the big bang necessitates a God or something like that, and you could argue to the contrary. Or I could argue from a religious text that it has to be true because of either prophecies or knowledge in it which had to be from God or something. Instead it's just like I said above on int.

You have a fundamentally flawed reading comprehension or you lack in intellect to understand what I am saying.

The axioms of an atheistic interpretation of theism is given in what I have written.

1. The existence of God is dependent on proof.
2. There is no proof of the existence of God.

>At the end of the day you are still claiming that which you cannot prove.

Oh, okay.

Atheism is not a metaphysical position on existence, it is a position on theism, the concepts of deities derived from man. You are the one who is implying that it is, and I have shown you why it is retarded to take this position and why you are unable to answer any of my logical conclusion on atheism. This is the second post you ignore my claim about retarded fish and me being a God because you are unwilling to engage this part of my argument.

Atheism is a position limited in order logic as it constricts itself to concepts of proclaimed deities.

Agnosticism is not, it is a position on incompleteness of any statement if you take it to it's logical conclusion.

>mean on /his/, and sometimes even /lit/ they build arguments off of philosophers' arguments
I did it on int once, arguing with some Brazilian guy. It took forever and in the end he just left. That shit isn't rewarding.
>whom are you quoting?
That's the baseline of atheism. I might believe in anything if that's been proven.

Fuck pussy atheists.
Positive atheism is the only rational position.

Just because you're too lazy to argument. a positive statement (''god is impossible'') or you lack the physics knowledge too doesn't mean we have to consider your retarded agnosticism.

Attached: 1507989780172.jpg (800x800, 104K)

abrahamic religions are nihilistic on themselves my dude. it sees the world as completely purposeless that people should devote more for the afterlife. which thr afterlife is composed of hedonism and has no goals or purposes for people to do. its literally the matrix.
you don't need religion to find purpose in life, its up to the individual to find his own purpose or philosophy plus faith in one's own self. religious people could be as nihilistic as that 15 year old atheist.

tl:dr: religion isn't a prerequisite for finding a purpose in life

yeah internet arguments are rarely rewarding.
I have to dip soon too, have to go to bed.
>You have a fundamentally flawed reading comprehension or you lack in intellect to understand what I am saying.
I'm a smart guy.

>The axioms of an atheistic interpretation of theism is given in what I have written.
>1. The existence of God is dependent on proof.
>2. There is no proof of the existence of God.
Only the first of these is an axiom. The second is a claim.

>. You are the one who is implying that it is, and I have shown you why it is retarded to take this position
again with the ableism
>why you are unable to answer any of my logical conclusion on atheism.
>Atheism is a position limited in order logic as it constricts itself to concepts of proclaimed deities.
you have simply come to me as an agnostic in atheist's clothing
>This is the second post you ignore my claim about retarded fish and me being a God because you are unwilling to engage this part of my argument.
I believe I have proof of God, who is not a "retarded fish" and the existence of this God precludes the existence of any other gods.

yes i do, i dont say im an atheist, i just dont bother with any religion, im not baptised either

. There is no proof of the existence of God.
Only the first of these is an axiom. The second is a claim.

That's a claim, you fucking faggot ?
Go ahead. Destroy all my knowledge of physics (and everyone else's), get all the Nobels, become a prophet too. Come on, blow my fucking mind.

Attached: 1528735496420.jpg (1129x1200, 118K)

the best part of not following a religion is you get to decide your life's purpose for yourself

Purpose is just a subjective feeling, ultimately arising from a chemical reaction occurring in the brain. It would be interesting to know exactly what arrangements and movements of physical matter give rise to these feelings and it's what I spend my time as a NEET researching.

I was just going to call you a nimrod since you called me a faggot but then I realized you're Romanians and I have a deep respect for the Romanian language and people so I won't do so.
>That's a claim, you fucking faggot ?
Yes and to say otherwise is purely stupid. That's like saying
>Go ahead. Destroy all my knowledge of physics (and everyone else's), get all the Nobels, become a prophet too. Come on, blow my fucking mind.
lmao all you pseudo-atheist intellectuals are the same. First it was:
>the universe is static and always the same, because if it weren't that would mean God exist
then:
>oh whoops, turns out it's not static an there was a big bang this means God does not exist even though they were claiming it was not static but expanding years and years ago
LMAO.
Tell me, why did the particle that preceded the big bang just decide to uppity explode all of a sudden?

It is pointless to ask questions about ultimate causes because the answer is never satisfactory in our current paradigm. "But why is it like this?" can be asked about anything at this point in time.

No.

Atheism is literally the philosophical position of a limited scope that deals with the claims about the existence of deities proclaimed by men. Your claim that atheism takes a position on the metaphysics of existence and the infinite possibilities that a person can conceive to be reality does not follow.

It is what agnostics claim and why you are still unwilling to engage with the logical conclusion of agnosticism that they have to accept any and all claims about deities as a possibility. But the problem is bigger than that because by the logic of someone who claims to be agnostic, which is to say that because something can't be disproved it is possible for it to be true, any and all statements about anything will fall into this category as nothing can be proven ultimately. This is much bigger in scope and deals fundamentally with what is formalized as incompleteness theorems.

This is why I am telling you that atheism is limited by order logic, it is based on the physicality of our world and does not deal with the infinite possibilities of possible statements about the universe that can't be proven.

Sure, you can define anyone as an agnostic if you ignore order, but then you are dealing with a universe where you can question anything from 'I am breathing' to 'God exists'.

>why did the particle that preceded the big bang

the concept of ''before the big bang''haha
really dont have the energy to get into this now

Attached: 1506929982084.jpg (800x800, 163K)

No. I tried going to a couple churches and while the experience with the community was good I just couldn't live a lie like that.
Really wish I could be religious.

I'm not really an atheist tho as instead of believing or disbelieving in God I just don't think it changes anything either way.

Do you enjoy fantasizing about a Jewish Zadokite Essene Rabbi from 2000 years ago watching you pee?

Why do you need god in order to have a purpose in life? Answer that first

These are perhaps the most important questions of all, definitely not pointless.
You're just committing reductio ad absurdum and straw-manning my arguments as questioning reality ad infintium.
>I can p-prove my point I-I just don't have the energy to
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHHAHAAH

I'm an atheist and a Buddhist

absolutely

morality is for losers

Attached: 740full-jessica-beppler (1).jpg (740x925, 137K)

I don't oppose the idea of trying to seek answers in metaphysics or teleology or whatever else, but honestly I really just cannot bring myself to have even the slightest belief in the Abrahamic version of God, let alone his Jewish saviour from Nazareth.

If good people get reincarnated as Bhuddas or gods or whatever, and bad people into lesser animals, and neutral people into humans; why does the dalai lama keep getting reincarnated as a man? is he not a great guy? or is it some denominational thing.
pls, have been wondering forever and my bhuddist friend irl doesn't know either

Maybe he is somehow opting not to reincarnate past the human realm so he can continue to help people. I dunno man, explaining religion can be tricky.

This

>>I can p-prove my point I-I just don't have the energy to

The very concept of causality and Boltzmann's arrow of time is an emergent property of quantum field fluctuations. It's not fundamental and there's no reason why it needs to apply before the grand unified epoch.
Who are you to say the scale factor of the universe is not asymptotic backwards ? Who are you to say it needs to be a T=0 ? All evidence points to the fact the more backwards in time you go, the more it contracts, under more and more immense energy densities, until you go past the point where energy makes sense.

Whatever the fundamental nature of reality is, if it is even comprehensible for us, it's going to much much stranger than absolutely any concept of will, purpose, action, intelligence or whatever bullshit we come up with on the surface of this planet to butter up social interactions.

Attached: 1526924681286.jpg (1200x1000, 190K)

Because he's a bodhisattva and actively chooses to withhold nirvana to help uplift others
But apparently only humans are worth saving and not the billions of ants or whatever
It's mostly a denominational thing, only Tibetans and Americans care about him
Tbh I feel closer to the Thai Theravada traditions than pure land silliness

I used to be atheist. It does feels empty after all the hedonism fun. But now I found religion, it gave me hope and destination to where I should headed in the afterlife.

Which religion? Hopefully you didn't just default to Islam because if you absolutely need any of that shit, there are better choices

religion is the opiate of the masses

Attached: 1438265883_329507824.jpg (1600x2289, 546K)

>Who are you to say the scale factor of the universe is not asymptotic backwards ? Who are you to say it needs to be a T=0 ? All evidence points to the fact the more backwards in time you go, the more it contracts, under more and more immense energy densities, until you go past the point where energy makes sense.
Who made you the arbiter all this?
There was a particle of sorts, then it exploded, and thereafter. It was either in its nature to be static (as brainlet atheist physicists thought the universe was 100 years ago or so) or it didn't exist. You're telling me there just was that particle (how did it get there?) and then for some reason there was an internal timer to go off? That must've been programmed by something or someone.
>Whatever the fundamental nature of reality is, if it is even comprehensible for us, it's going to much much stranger than absolutely any concept of will, purpose, action, intelligence or whatever bullshit we come up with on the surface of this planet to butter up social interactions.
ALL the fundamental natures of reality and physics of our universe were decided in the big bang, had it exploded in another way, maybe gravitrons wouldn't be a thing (if they are a thing) and gravity wouldn't exist. Maybe the universe would have been all dark matter. People talk about how earth is in the "Goldilocks zone" for life, but thank God that our universe can sustain life. Have you ever thought about how incredibly lucky we are that our universe isn't something it's not, like a ball of fire or pure antimatter?

Both hope in science and religion serve to save from fear of death. You may believe that immortality technologies is near. You may also believe that Jesus will save you to Paradise. The best way is, of course, to believe in both.

ah yes, russia and the ukraine and all of the rest were so much better under atheist rule
you shouldn't pick a religion because of your perception of it, it should be chosen because you feel it is correct
I see, thanks.
Atheists, or anyone really, seeking immortality through technology is a prime example of why hubris will be the fall of man.

nice proxy shekelberg.

But you're not actually basing this belief on any facts, or even subjective observations. It's just founded on your hope for immortality. That doesn't really make good sense.

What? I'm Anglican by default. Catholicism and Islam is a possibility now. Buddhism doesn't really appeals to me with the never ending moksya and nirvana. That's sound tiring.

>I'm Anglican by default.
Oh okay. Where's your family from? I just guessed Islam because of your flag, obviously.

Statistically impossible that he doesn't:
One universe: happens to have the correct parameters for life. The correct physics for life, the correct chemistry for life et cetera.
Logically impossible that he doesn't:
The big bang and atheism are irreconcilable. At first they said the universe was static because they knew that was the only way they could explain reality without God, but now we know through OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE that the universe is not static but expanding and that there was a big bang.The only way atheists try to get out of it is by arguing for the "multi-verse", which is now under question, given the mass of the higg's boson (I actually don't know too much on this but enough to know the multiverse theory is questionable, my field is computational physics not particle physics). And even that doesn't answer the fundamental existence question (i.e. who created the multiverse?)

I could go into religious reasons too, but those hold less of a baring on you so I won't.

Attached: Ayaat2B2528272529-1.jpg (580x628, 68K)

If I throw 100 dice enough times eventually they will all come up as 6's

You could say that it's a statistical miracle that the God that exists happened to make a universe with life in it. As opposed to a God who decided to make a completely sterile universe, or any other of the infinite possibilities. Where's the explanation for that statistical unlikelihood? Just seems like you're kicking the can down the road so to speak.

>The big bang and atheism are irreconcilable
Not at all true, my man. Atheists can be at peace with not knowing the answers (at least for now) to some questions. The god of the gaps gets smaller as science explains more.

there's only one die, and the chances are much smaller than 1/6
>conveniently avoids the bulk of the post which was about the big band and universe.

well first you have to admit you conceded that a habitable universe was a statistical improbability
then you can argue about God
I argue its in the nature of God to create, and the definition of God requires it, if not he wouldn't be God, he would just be some being.
>Atheists can be at peace with not knowing the answers (at least for now) to some questions.
I can't be, and my point is the big bang necessitates God.
>The god of the gaps gets smaller as science explains more.
It's getting larger. 100 years ago you could get thrown out of a scientific discussion for positing the universe wasn't static, 100 years ago by what science told us there would be no gap for God to need to fill.

I'm arguing that any state of existence is a statistical improbability because there is an infinite number of possible states of reality. This isn't even about physical laws, try abstracting it further than that.

And there's no satisfactory answer to why existence is the way it is. Why is God the way he is as opposed to some other way?

>Why is God the way he is as opposed to some other way?
Don't get me wrong I understand what you're saying, but to me the likelihood that God would be a creator is greater than the likelihood that our one universe would be habitable. And this entire abstraction, and my abstraction of the likelihood of our universe being habitable are somewhat moot given the argument earlier on the big bang and the universe expanding necessitating God.

>Have you ever thought about how incredibly lucky we are that our universe isn't something it's not, like a ball of fire or pure antimatter?

THIS UNIVERSE BARELY has room for life and even complex structure, and under the most extremely rare of conditions.

WHY DIDNT WE GET A UNIVERSE WHERE STRUCTURE AND COMPLEXITY ARISES EASIER ?
We live in the only universe we can live in to observe it. It's as simple as that. But it could have been much better for life.

Religious autism is an obstacle in humanity's way to progress

>my field is computational physics

You're a lying sack of shit with 0 understanding of physics. Why am I even wasting my time.

Based.

Both are retarded.
Reality does not behave computationally, your consciousness doesn't either.
There is no God, there is no simulation. These things are literally impossible.
Simulations and singularities are RELIGIONS for pussy ''atheists''.

Realitylets can't accept reality and the endless mysteries of it.

Attached: 1508111291851.jpg (367x411, 26K)

My point was that the argument from statistics is invalid if you won't apply it to existence as a whole. If you can say, God is just the way he is and that's that, you can just as well say that for the physical universe.

>you can just as well say that for the physical universe.

They physically can't. Their brains are rewired by brainwashing to even consider this simple and elegant retort.
They apply this logic when dealing with anything in their lives, every second of their existence...but conditioning prevents them to apply it to this problem.

>completely ignoring the Big Bang and expanding universe arguments
Brainlet alert.
>WHY DIDNT WE GET A UNIVERSE WHERE STRUCTURE AND COMPLEXITY ARISES EASIER ?
1. Turn caps lock off
2. From an atheist’s perspective you’re moving from one in a trillion into one in a quadrillion.
>you’re a lying sack of shit
No, I really am in computational physics.

I would’ve expected more of a Romanian, you’re the biggest poser in this thread.
But leave if you must, I’m about to go to sleep.
>if you can just say God is just the way he is and that's that
No
I’m saying
Big Bang necessitates God -> the fact that our universe and consequentially our earth is habitable implies God is a creator
>you can just as well say that for the physical universe.
Ok but again then my statistic argument comes in now that one’s eliminated the God, and glossed over the Big Bang.
I’ve already acknowledged your point on statistics via further abstraction, it makes sense on a cursory look, but no God still doesn’t hold.

I'm not one for arguments from science, and in fact many theists are opposed to it as well. I think our understanding of the universe is woefully incomplete and any conclusions drawn from current theoretical models could not be said to be sound.

But just for fun, why do you suppose the Big Bang requires God? I seemed to have glossed over that part of the thread.

>Ah ableism

Attached: 1529840161605.jpg (613x531, 36K)

I have two friends who were molested by religious authorities as kids. No thanks.

Attached: image.gif (116x88, 93K)

>universe is woefully incomplete

Complete enough to say a lot of things with certainty, and recognize impossibilities.

>There is no point of this life, we're nothing more than biochemical reactions that are prone to natural disasters. Our extinction won't make much difference to the whole universe.
>I hate religions and their inhuman teachings REEEEEEE

>There is no point of this life,

There's many points to my life. Why dont you try it ?

>we're nothing more than biochemical reactions that are prone to natural disasters

True.

>Our extinction won't make much difference to the whole universe.

A human being has more of an effect on the universe than any accumulation of matter and energy of this size and mass. We're quite special

>I hate religions

I love religion. Sheep like you need to be kept in line. It's belief in the supernatural that I despise.

Attached: 1504125248991.png (808x805, 446K)

nein

I grew up around literal retards and I felt awful when kids would make fun of them, I’ve been an anti-ableism sjw since then.
>But just for fun, why do you suppose the Big Bang requires God? I seemed to have glossed over that part of the thread.
I’m unironically going to bed so I’ll just spill everything I believe about the Big Bang.
It’ll sound odd to you since I’m combining religious text and modern science, but it’s honestly the only thing that makes sense in life to me:
The Big Bang is about a sound a theory as the theory of evolution/natural selection at this point so taking it as fact or the closest thing to fact we have to observe it. In the beginning there was a mass/particle wherefrom our entire universe was created, this mass then exploded. In my mind this cannot have happened without someone or something. If there was no god, it must’ve been in the particle’s nature to always be static (this is how physicists reasons a static universe a century and more ago). But somehow someone either exploded it or it was destined to go off, programmed by someone.
>Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?
This is how I interpret this verse, which is what we have on the beginning of the universe.
Thereafter the universe went through a maturing phase wherein space dust from supernovas formed necessary elements for us
This happened by God’s will in 6 eons (the original text is ambiguous as the word can mean day or eon, eon makes infinitely more sense to me, there were no days before the sun), as told to us.
Now to the creation of earth and celestial bodies.
1/2

Have you considered that the particle simply exploded? That's just the way it is?

By the way I know fuck all about cosmology and the big bang so pardon me if my terminology is off.

jesus fucking christ you are retarded
I dont even know where to start

>simply exploded

Nothing exploded. People don't know what the Big Bang is. It's not even

Read on the Lambda-CDM parametrization of metric expansion. Pop-sci just doesn't do it justice.

Attached: 1507402659049.png (645x729, 70K)