Does anybody here actually believe in a magic jew sky fairy that grants wishes ...or is it just a meme?

Does anybody here actually believe in a magic jew sky fairy that grants wishes ...or is it just a meme?

I don't want to be insulting, but anybody who believes this kind of stuff is a brain dead moron.

Where's the evidence?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub
strawpoll.me/11881019
youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>I don't want to be insulting

>brain dead moron.
>magic jew sky fairy that grants wishes

>Does anybody here actually believe in a magic jew sky fairy that grants wishes

I'm sure some do. Why wouldn't they? It's a comforting thought having a magic Jew looking after you. Regular Jews make great lawyers after all.

No but i'm saying, why do they believe it without evidence?

I mean it's like a belief in leprechauns

believing in god is not a literal thing but a transcendental , people never used to "believe" in god as a fairy , but rather as a common sacred tradition


without it you are nothing but a replaceable formless machine

>Where's the evidence?
Right where the evidence of biogenesis is, you knuckle-dragging retard.

Option 1: The universe has always existed.
Option 2: The universe was created by an outside source.

Neither can be explained by anything we understand, currently, and for either of those things to even be possible, scientific laws necessarily must be broken. What religious people call God and what you blindly assume science can explain are one and the same. Except there's been prophets and a Messiah, but there's been no evidence to support a scientific explanation. But yeah, we're the dumb ones.

sage

>I don't know what happened, therefore magic jew sky fairy's exist.

wut

There's no scientific laws that need to be broken.

so...no evidence?

>Option 2: The universe was created by an outside source.
>Logic dictates it must have been an intelligent source
>Logic dictates that the same source told prophets during eath's bronze age in the near east
>Logic dictates a Messiah was sent to save us from our sins in the near east

Just bad logic. Just say you have daddy issues and were raised believing you're a shit for being human and only the death of a Messiah (Jewish carpenter) could redeem you

The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim. Religious ppl are making the claim that God created the universe, so the burden of proof rests with you to prove it. If scientific evidence comes along which offers an explanation for how the universe came into being, we [atheists] will accept that, the same way we accept evolution because the evidence is there.

You guys are the ones making claims without evidence. "The universe always existed" isn't what atheists or agnostics claim, we are just saying "We don't know how the universe came into being at this stage of our scientific knowledge".

Only catholics believe in sky fairies (see catholic art). Christians believe in God.

The percentage of atheists only claiming not to know is, at best, a silent minority. The reason atheists have a reputation for being assholes is because they have a fetish for shitting on Christians without provocation.

When I hear about atheist organizations rallying against the atrocities of Islam and Judaism, I'll be a little more sympathetic to the Godless heathens.

Proof?

The eleven dimensions.
Mind of God in physics.
Music of creation.

Look it up.

Besides. God is not explainable.
Just like the 10 and 11 dimensions.
Are those inexistent too?

I'll answer your question with a question. What do you think mantains the laws of the universe? What keeps a forest existent when no one is there to see it?

>atheist organizations

Like demanding cats be herded.
Once you do find them herded you'll find Atheism + which is feminism.

Then the cherubim lifted up their wings with the wheels beside them, and the glory of the God of Israel hovered over them. The glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood over the mountain which is east of the city.
Ezekiel 11:22-23

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub

Protestant heretics BTFO by scripture!
How will they ever recover?

Yep. Because atheists lack objective morals, they realize they want a mechanism to enforce their subjective morality on others, and the state is the easiest way to do that.

Just one more reason to hate fedoras.

Same goes for Christians who unironically want to impose their religion on the rest of society via laws. Did you know there's laws in some US states banning atheists from holding public office? Are there any banning Christians?

>implying that there aren't Christian politicians who want to enforce their morality on others via the state

>Same goes for Christians who unironically want to impose their religion on the rest of society via laws.
You mean like laws against murder, theft, and rape? :^)

That argument is one Hell of a slippery slope. Objective morality can't exist without religion. I'm an edgy ancap, but I'd take a Christian-based system of law over anything we have currently, to include the exclusion of atheists from office.

Ideally, though, I'd rather a cultural shaming of any atheists that did try to run for office, rather than an actual ban.

The difference is that Christian morality is a lot different from fedora feminist 'morality.' Laws against cyber-bullying and "hate crimes" come to mind.

>Because atheists lack objective morals

No such thing as objective morals.
However you like to view us people, we're always subjective.
Christians argue among themselves; 'what is God really saying in this part of the bible' based on their subjective understanding.

My personal view is that we're a species of ape, apex predator apes and with this model, we can predict our own behaviour better than from the point that there's a great 'God-King Ape', which is 'absolute authority'.

Everyone is subjective. Figure out who wants what in what situation or position and you'll be able to predict the future actions of said apes (humans).

That's a nice theory. But even if it's true, it doesn't change anything; without objective morality, you can't have successful societies. Why do you think the rise of atheism and downfall of support for religion are paralleling worldwide civil unrest?

Atheists largely claim to be somehow more supportive of the greater good for society, but if you don't believe in objective morality, there isn't any "good."

The only logical God one can believe in is Spinoza's God.

Other than that, mere fairy tale. Not that that's wrong, melikes a good night story every now and then. I just don't base my worldview on Jewish or Christian scripture, which is moronic.

Great so without magic sky jews we can't have morals. Who knew?

>Music of creation.
My sides.

>What keeps a forest existent when no one is there to see it?
Nothing

>The percentage of atheists only claiming not to know is, at best, a silent minority.

BULLSHIT

>believing in god is not a literal thing but a transcendental

That's what YOU think, but many people here literally believe it is true.

>BULLSHIT
Great rebuttal. Noted in the, "Stupid Shit Theists On Sup Forums Say," form.

>The only logical God one can believe in is Spinoza's God.
>Spinozism (also spelled Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

Doesn't sound that logical, desu.

>Great so without magic sky jews we can't have morals.
You can't have objective morals, no. Who would decide what's right and wrong, and with what authority?

>BULLSHIT
You're literally in the process of shit-talking religion, holy fuck.

Even the pope of atheism himself says he doesn't know.

All the dawkins atheists claim not to know.

Show me a single prominent atheist who claims to know.

I remember being 18.

>pope of atheism
Also noted. (You)'re two for two. Care to try again?

>Who would decide what's right and wrong, and with what authority?

Sky Jew has no authority to decide it either.

But morality isn't objective, that's a fact. Even basic things like "do not murder" are not objective, they are man-made laws. You know right that once upon a time in Europe trial by combat existed and you could murder something and get away with it. I'm sure also in other parts of the whole there were societies were killing someone was accepted for some strange cultural reasons.

Unless you can prove God exists then you can't

Also you have yet to prove why atheists/agnostics cannot be morally good people. Do you literally believe that someone needs to believe that God will punish them with eternal torture (Hell) in order to be a good person?

>70% of Athiests vote Democrat according to pew research
>70% of Jews vote Democrat according to pew research

Really makes me think

>without objective morality, you can't have successful societies.

No society practises objective morality. It's all circumstance, that is to say subjective.

>Why do you think the rise of atheism and downfall of support for religion are paralleling worldwide civil unrest?

Unless you post an example this is nonsense. Communism doesn't count, it was founded on authoritarianism, that is to say, religiously inspired and enforced.

>Atheists largely claim to be somehow more supportive of the greater good for society, but if you don't believe in objective morality, there isn't any "good."

Good is what is beneficial, all subjective to again situation and position of people.

It's beneficial for us Swedes to think we still live in a up-standing society, yet the same principals that got us to be a first world country is now turning us into a third world country.
So long as most people in Sweden are Swedes, this will ensure, when it's not. Then you'll know the subjective morality has changed and we're an third world country with a set of moralities. That is, everyone for themselves.

So you've failed to produce a single atheist.

Wow nice argument you have there.

>Wow nice argument you have there.
3/3! (You)'re on a roll. Soon this form will fill up and (You)'ll get a GBP.

>not looking at the other arguments
>being a faggot

my fucking sides

Failed 2/2 attempts to name a single atheist who claims to know.

Care to try again?

>God has no authority to dictate what is right and wrong.

What mental gymnastics did you have to do to decide that?

Trial by combat isn't murder, though.

>Also you have yet to prove why atheists/agnostics cannot be morally good people.
I never made that claim, only that objective morality cannot exist without religion; if an atheist happens to follow objective morality without believing in it, then of course they can be moral. You're misunderstanding, or misrepresenting.

Where is the evidence of us being plugged into the matrix, or reality being a simulation run by some computer?

Yet nerds, and even actual theoretical physicist, play with these ideas and questions all the time, and all they did was change "sky fairy" to "aliens".

How arrogant can you be? It's no wonder secular society kills all of mankind it touches. You have a disease of the ego.

Here's (You)'re GBP. Good job!

I'm trolling you because you're an emotional piece of shit and I don't want you, in any way shape or form, arguing my point of view.

>What mental gymnastics did you have to do to decide that?

No gymnastics at all. Sky jew has no special propertys that would give him authority over what's good and bad. Good and bad are transcendent.

You're still not understanding.

The original posts about saying "atheists just claim not to know" implied that they weren't militant atheists, not that they know with certainty God doesn't exist. The point being made was that atheists are, largely, IRL shitposters who are happy to hate on Christianity while ignoring Islam and Judaism.

But I don't expect an atheist who shitposts on Sup Forums to have any grasp of context.

christianity corrupted as soon as the priests started denying the military leader the right to be the religious leader


and it doesnt matter what people believe, the point is that this wasnt the case 2500 years ago


people didnt take god literally and blasphemy was not simply

"not believing in god"

but

"not performing the proper rituals"

3 strikes, you're out.

Who's next.

>Being this fucking stupid.
Actually, I'm an atheist and had different motives. STFU

You know even if the existence of god was proven to an atheist i still believe they wouldn't believe it. its like trying to explain faith to an atheist, some get it and some really dont.

>"atheists just claim not to know" implied that they weren't militant atheists

Well when I said "Show me a single atheist", I meant "I agree with everything you said"

But i wouldn't expect a theist to understand context.

LOL just kidding you're retarded.

All you have to do is prove something theists have argued for centuries was beyond being experienced. Good luck.

Objective morality cannot exist without an objective (and absolute) arbiter. And seeing as we humans do not have objective knowledge of anything, we cannot have objective morals. Literally everything our societies think is right or wrong can be traced back to some law or decree made by a King or whoever. People like you only think some things are "objective" because they've been around longer than you've been alive.

In Western society most of what we call morality can be traced back to the Victorian era.

It is. It's laid out like a geometrical proof. If you accept the definitions and axioms, the rest follow logically. Try reading it. It's in his Ethics.

It's in Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

I'd also add that culture is the same. The idea that someone should marry for love and not for money/social status is taken as absolute these days in the West but once upon a time this wasn't the case.

>It is. It's laid out like a geometrical proof. If you accept the definitions and axioms, the rest follow logically. Try reading it. It's in his Ethics.
So was Xeno's paradoxes.

>literally, "it's not my job to educated you!"
>theist version

Zeno's paradoxes have been refuted by modern mathematics.

And no, it isn't my job to educate you, and besides, I wouldn't be able to present his points in as cogent and logically stringent fashion as he himself does.

If you're interested in knocking it, at least familiarize yourself with it. Otherwise you're just a retard.

>Zeno's paradoxes have been refuted by modern mathematics.
Yeah? Demonstrate it.

strawpoll.me/11881019
strawpoll.me/11881019
strawpoll.me/11881019
strawpoll.me/11881019
strawpoll.me/11881019
strawpoll.me/11881019
strawpoll.me/11881019

>check'd
Judaism is true religion

>and it doesnt matter what people believe, the point is that this wasnt the case 2500 years ago


Well I'm not sure if it was around back then... But I agree with you that what you describe is superior to what we have.

why would God leave evidence?

do you think he's a bumbling criminal who can't play the "they must have faith" game without leaving a stray sock on the field?

There's nothing to play if there's no evidence. What makes you think it's the "they must have faith" game?

theodicy arguments are bullshit, a personal, loving god would not permit a manifestation of evil

if there is a creator, he/it certainly is not devoted to humanity like abrahamic religions preach.

>why would God leave evidence?
Well, Helena's Nail, Longinus, the Grail etc

do you concede that, by definition, a creator who is dimensionally, in every way, of a higher intelligence than you. will not be leaving evidence that you can discover?

It's a possibility that a creator made the universe and left no evidence. It's also a possibility that a creator did leave evidence.

That there is no evidence, however, is not itself evidence of a creator.

If there's no evidence for a creator, why would I (or anyone) believe there's a creator?

>If there's no evidence for a creator, why would I (or anyone) believe there's a creator?
youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc

Jokes aside, blind faith/hope.

because you have no evudence of a precedent of universes, or parts of universes, being created from nothing

>The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim.
Not an actual physical law.
The fact that atheists act as if it is, is a sign of the dogmatic nature of modern atheists.

women love it because they can jsutify you being atm machine