This triggers the christfag

>this triggers the christfag

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/_RfUj09pWfM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

should trigger you,
willam of ockham was a christian

>falling for the atheist meme

>the truth is a meme

so you're one of those gnostic atheists?

how does occams razor imply non existence of god?

>implying atheism is the truth
>implying your not being manipulated by the jews and commies

>gnostic
Not even Christain, but kill yourself.

>Christians literally worship a jew
>don't forget to offer your money to the church
>remember a good servant obeys his (((master)))
But I see your point, atheism is clearly a Jewish trick

...

>implying theres not a difference between a Judean and a (((Jew)))

>(((Sam Harris)))
>(((Christopher Hitchens)))
>(((Peter Singer)))
>(((Carl Sagan)))
>(((David Silverman)))
>(((Lawrence Krauss)))
>(((Bill Maher)))
>(((Stephen Pinker)))
>(((Alex Rosenberg)))
almost all the leaders of your religion are jews

only argument i can see for existence of god is this: Nature repeats itself. Conscientious exists and therefore could be repeated "up the chain" if you will

Christians just care about the fate of your eternal soul user.

>atheism is a religion
Also outer space is a planet

>Implying the universe is simple
Occam razor is the most stupid shit a Fedora can say its just based on your ass

getting this triggered over his religion

Any sort of belief system centered on unprovable "facts" neccesarilly requires a leap of faith. Belief system centered on faith is a religion user.

you can't do the "atheism is merely the rejection of blah blah" if you're a gnostic atheist

so is "atheism the truth" or is "atheism what my fee-fees tell me?"

This is u ritenow xD

Religion? So are we now saying things like not being a feminist is a type of feminism?

Also not sure if you're Christian but just know they worship a literal superjew as a god.

fuck-off, kike

>Religion? So are we now saying things like not being a feminist is a type of feminism?

you're thinking of the word "irreligious," not atheist.

there are plenty of atheistic religions:
>scientology, taoism, atheism, theravada buddhism, raelism, etc

It's a fact that no tangible proof for a god of any sort exists, other than hearsay. No demonstrable experiment has yet to prove of the existence of a divinity. Any evidence of written history can be countered with a similar level or lore and similar levels of pedigree when it comes to god-like beings.

You have absolutely no footing to stand on.

...

but user

lots of people say thing

so thing must be true

checkmate atheists

That doesn't disprove his point at all moron. Atheism can be the closest to truth we have while also not being religion you fucking inbred. Or are you saying that any fact based reasoning is also a religion?

Do you see how quickly this falls apart user?

willam of ockham was a christian! He used occam's razor to prove christianity.
Atheists got butthurted about that - and claims ockham's razor as their agrument

>It's a fact that no tangible proof for a god of any sort exists
that's not a fact, that's an opinion, and one shared only by a marginalized fringe group of nothings.
what amount of or sort of evidence to warrant belief in a proposition (proof) is subjective to the individual doing the appraising and the epistemolgy their feewings say is the best.

What is the truth as you put it then? Current models for creation still don't give us the cause. The big bang is just as unfounded an idea is just one step shorter. God > bang > universe vs bang > universe.

By the way, if you're trying to be scientific about it, Occam's razor is a fucking meme. At most it's a philosophy for developing a hypothesis.

if you can't prove god is real, it also mean you can't prove he's not.
atheism, belief.

Refute me with hard evidence.

>if I call a sheep a cow, it is biologically a cow

You haven't substantiated your point man. Continuing to call atheism a religion when it is not does not magically make it one. A lack of belief in a faith based cult does not mean you are part of a faith based cult "because haha you totally are!!XD!". Stop being purposely dense

Just because we don't known the answer to a questions doesn't mean we must make leaps in logic or assert that unverifiable things are their cause. It only means we don't have enough knowledge.

Were atoms not mostly empty space prior to thr "plumb pudding" experiment. What is and what isn't, is not contingent on what people believe or any proof that they have seen.

>!!XD!
cancer

first, how would define the term religion? just so we're on the same page

Exactly. That's why saying atheism is the truth is incorrect. No one knows. Religious people hypothesise that a deity did it. I don't believe that myself; but, there's nothing more absurd about believing that then believing it just happened out of nothing.

To my knowledge, atoms are still mostly empty space. What are you trying to say?

This is a fair point!

>So why not believe Hillary Clinton is a great person who has the best intentions for the American people?
Its because while we cannot scan every neuron of her brain to check if she is a good person, all the evidence leads to the conclusion that she is, in fact, a monster. The best evidence we have that a god does not exist is that we have NO evidence that one DOES exist.

I don't think anyone argues that something popped into being out of nothing. Individuals say that the big bang is the most likely model for how the universe originated in terms of how it propagated from a singular point, but very few people claim to know what happened before that.

my bad, read that wrong

I can't disprove that a pony is revolving around the earth in low orbit right now, but I can't be necessarily prove it either. Theories must be falsifiable, which is to say testable. No such test or evidence exists (that cannot be refuted) for a god's existence.

You're a fucking retard if you think atheism comes with a knowledge claim

Protip: look at the graph and never open your mouth about this garbage again, it's not an argument anymore it's just pedantic

Okay, so you don't actually have a complete truth then, so there's no way to definitively say that a deity didn't cause it to happen. Is that right? I don't think religious people are being unseasonable until there is at the very least some evidence of what kick-started our creation and they refuse to believe it. 4000 year Christians are categorically wrong but intelligent design fags are at least accepting of what has been scientifically found to be the case. They just sprinkle some allahu in there.

Occam's Razor wasn't even explicated by Occam. John Duns Scotus was the first to formulate this principle. I mean, Scotus was a Xtian too, but I feel like being a pretentious douche today.

Plus Scotus is so much cooler than Occam. Occam was a dirty nominalist. Scotistic Realism is God tier, no pun intended.

Everything triggers the christfag. Other christfags trigger the christfag.

>Theories must be falsifiable, which is to say testable.

Theories have to be falsifiable. No test exists for divinity. Provide evidence in your particular brand of sky god that outshines every other culture's evidence and I might entertain the notion. Until then, your books are no better than fiction edition by Tolkien.

no one cares about your preferred adjectives.

gnostic atheism would come with a knowledge claim anyway, and OP is a gnostic atheist, so. . .

prove to me that asatru isnt the one true religion you dumb christcuck

Serious question, since I'm shit at physics and not all that knowledgeable on the how point of the big bang. How do we test that the big bang could have occurred? Is it just using models of how we can best guess it would have behaved?

>this triggers the empiricist
Violating an informal device that doesn't actually have anything to do with truth - but only with convenience - is a whole lot better than literally and unironically endorsing viciously circular reasoning your epistemology~

>confusing the theory of demarcation with methodology
Try again.

He didn't say god isn't real, he said disbelief in any manmade god is a logically correct assumption because nobody has effectively proven their gods existence. Do you believe in unicorns? Would you say not believing in unicorns is the same as saying they don't exist? Pull your head out of your ass

your wording itself serve what i said.
>the best evidence we have that a god does not exist is that we have NO evidence that one DOES exist.
>the best evidence
>NO evidence
then, it may means that we can't use logic to answer this. it's a choice to believe or not in Hillary.
if a pony is revolving around earth, you can observe it, or observe his absence.
there is no way to observe god.
you like words, i see, god is irrefutable (epistemologicly), you can't prove his existence or inexistence based on science or facts. it's about an individual choice, based on the lack of evidence, to believe or not in something existence.
i don't need to prove faith, we can't verify it.
you want to live in a world where science is the all knowing one.

Hawking proved that the Big Bang was in fact a singularity before it went "bang". Time does not exist in singularities therefore there was no "beginning" of the universe

The faith based belief or worship of a god, gods, or sentient power.

>he says
who?
>Do you believe in unicorns?
yes, you don't?

We take the direction and velocities of galaxies as they're moving and plot them, then turn back the clock. It's mostly just math and 3 dimensional plotting to determine that all of the galaxies came from a singular point (that we can see).

Im actually an implicit theist, I have no idea whats "behind the curtain" but I have long stopped forcing the belief that its "nothing".

I just hope its not Hellraiser-tier.

we still searching for the graviton. LHC didn't delivered.

youtu.be/_RfUj09pWfM

Catharsis. That's all it is.

People terrified of their own mortality protecting their own sanity with fantastic lies they willingly accept as truth.

>The faith based belief or worship of a god, gods, or sentient powe
yeah that definition is horseshit though, i already listed religions that don't here: ( )
if we're using your made up definition, then yes, atheism is not a religion

But you said it had to be testable, I thought. How do we test it? Is it just computer models based on our current understanding of how things work?

I'm a biofag so all of the lab work I've done has involved rather simple ways of testing things.

...

Behold - God!

(this is what cucktians actually believe in...)

Morality can be determined through logic and without the need for religion. That being said, not everyone has the ability to do this, thus the unenlightened require a divine punishment and reward system outside of the state to keep them in check.

Yes but we dont assume wild statements or beliefs are true by default, they are false by default. We can tit for tat about thiesm/athiesm being on equal ground all day, but the fact is that if there is no physical presence of a god being that we can so far detect in our universe then faith alone is not a good reason for assuming there is one.

(((christianity)))

You're a child and your arguments amount to little more than pedantic nitpicking.

He is OP Atheism is true because it is the disbelief in any god, not the assertion that god does not exist. You are conflating the two, which is the distinction I made with my graph.

>occams razor
>my idea is simply better than yours because!

Only Catholics

Behold - thy Holy Father!

>parsimonious

If that word had a picture next to it in the tiptionary it'd be a fedora

All religions are a joke. Atheism is the only logical position until there is evidence to think otherwise.

(pic related, this is what christians actually believe)

If there were no evidence for something, there would be no belief in said thing. However, quality and uniformity of evidence is a reality. If one person provides you evidence that one thing is so and another provides you a level of counter evidence, you have to open to both options. However, if the quality and quantity of counter evidence exists so as to disprove one of those claims, then it's safe to say that said claim is not worth your time.

According to any evidence you might provide, gods presented themselves to mortals so that they might know them and their demands. However, no such incident has been documented in the modern day. Unless you can provide hard evidence, there's no real reason I should believe in your particular god over any other.

All definitons are made up you gigantic fucking retard.

I'm not going to argue language theory with you when you refuse to open or acknowledge a dictionary

FPBP gaytheists on suicide watch.

But don't worry, your sect of your religion is totally the one and only true religion.

>a non-belief can be true
no, it would have to be a belief to be true or false, and if it's a true belief, then it's knowledge (gnosis) which would make it gnostic atheism
>You're a child
k

The computer models are backed by mathematical principles that coincide with the laws of physics. Basically all matter and energy in the universe was packed into a tiny ball the size of a tennis ball. This created a gravitational field strong enough to distort light and time (a black hole). However this black hole had so much energy that it reached a critical point and exploded this realesing matter and energy into the universe. The stuff the primordal black hole was composed of had "always existed" because the black hole's graviton all field distorted time and created a singularity meaning time did not exist. All of this was proven by Hawking's formulas

>Doing exactly as Christ would have done
>This triggers the Sup Forumsack

...

The logic of atheism applied to other things:

You can't see love, therefore it doesn't exist.

You can't see gravity, therefore it doesn't exist.

You can't see AIDS, therefore it doesn't exist.

You can't see your own dick once you put clothes on, therefore it doesn't exist.

I could go on and on about how absurd your autism is.

>if the universe is really big, god doesn't care about what we do
>the universe is really big
>therefore, god doesn't care about what we do
>christianity says god cares about what we do
>therefore, christianity is false
that image is one of my favorite arguments you guys make

It's funny that Sup Forums hates real Christisnity and only likes Catholicism for the crusading, not even Christian part of it.

Neato. Thanks for explaining it, user.

Nice straw man. All of those things are observable and testable, with the exception of love. You can measure that on an arbitrary scale, but it's not something we understand fully as of yet

Eat a dick.

>Morality can be determined through logic and without the need for religion.
LOL

Strange insult to Catholics, who have nothing to do with Christ.

Are you an idiot?

Basic logic:
1) World was built by intelligence.
2) World evolved on it's own and it worked out by accident.

The first only assumes a creator. The second assumes that every time evolution occurred it did so accidentally, yet correctly to pop out a faggot like you.

for the last fucking time, occam's razor means:
>when testing a hypothesis, rule out the simplest premises first

it DOES NOT mean, "the simplest answer is often the correct one." You fucking simpletons.

Sup Forums likes Christianity because they see it as a way to strengthen the traditional, white, west. It's a binding factor for them, not something they actually worship. They're praying at the alter of western revival, not at the altar of God.

i'm baptist though

What color is gravity?

One day, God creates universe.
One day, a mix a random chemicals created in a perfect environment that modern science still can't replicate, life appeared. The universe also came out of absolutely nothing. Then this life had kids. Which were diffrent. Eventually this mirocscopic creatures xth grandson was a monkey, which gave birth to a human.

>love
>observable and testable
LOL

...

>the fact is that if there is no physical presence of a god being that we can so far detect [...]
refutability, we can't prove anything about his existence/inexistence, how to know ? there is no way.
faith and facts are incompatibles, there is no common ground.
>in our universe then faith alone is not a good reason for assuming there is one.
i.m.o, faith alone is all you need to believe or not until there is proof (one can dream).
here my goalpost btw.
atheism is a belief, they talk about it like a fact.
a scientific acceptable way to atheism is to be agnostic.

>Scotistic Realism is God tier, no pun intended.

Mah nigga