When did you finally grow out of atheism, Sup Forums?

When did you finally grow out of atheism, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides
boingboing.net/2016/12/05/questioning-the-nature-of-real.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Isn't it hypocritical that a lot of (((physicists))) believe in the idea that we are quite probably part of a holographic universe created by some advanced intelligence, and yet they criticize religion cucks for believing essentially the same thing? I mean if this is a simulation, then wouldn't the Abrahamic religions be a hell of a back story?

>lore fags

No it isn't a surprise. What's funny is no atheist I know reads any theology, or any serious theologian based in objective moralism I.e belief in God. No sound theology can have subjective morality since there is only one good, God, and all is good that flows through him. Thus he can only be subjective.

The obvious reason they don't read Christian arguments is that all theology of the last 150 are forces to be reckoned with. I've made it a point to read atheist books so I know best how to combat their silly ideas. I actually enjoy debating atheists irl for this reason. It's funny to watch them play their mind games and weasel their way out of reason, to observe their open contradictions in terms, to see them try so hard to argue that they themselves are an accident.

"He who never thirsts for God here, will thirst for him before he has been dead a minute".

I'm too bipolar to be an outright atheist. Sometimes I touch on agnosticism, sure, but other times I believe in something. Some of those times I hate that something with every fiber of my being because it seems like that something is apathetic or outright destructive towards my life, but other times it's a more positive feeling towards that something. And often, because of my upbringing, I just take the lazy route of calling that something God.

wow, 65 is very very low

press x for doubt

When I grew into based Deism

the simulation theory is so fucking stupid, I don't get how smart people like that fucking weirdo elon musk entertain the thought of it. Based on the assumption that a simulated universe exists and that within that simulated universe another is simulated and so on, that "the odds" of us NOT being simulated is one in a million. It's fucking retarded

This was a good post until
>Le silly ideas

Kill yourself fedora

Well personally I find the idea of X-tian or other dogmas being the 'whole truth' unlikely because it would seem very trivial and arbitrary in some sense. I feel like maybe it is true on some level but embedded in some more meaningful structure. An rough analogy would be that when we use the Riemann zeta function to evaluate the sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... it evaluated to -1/12 which seems quite ugly and non-sensical, yet at the same time this can -1/12 can be connected to Bernoulli numbers and series smoothing approaching infinity.

Sorry for my terrible writing I haven't slept in 48 hours.

Theology is purely the study of bullshit.

Funny how actual nigger-IQ countries are extremely religious.

As an atheist, I don't want to discard your chart. It's true.

Some people are claim they're atheists because it's a "fashionable thing" to do do.. it makes you look smart.. even though you're not...

That's why I've got a problem with the establishment atheists trying to convert everybody to atheism.

>Some people are claim they're atheists because it's a "fashionable thing" to do do.. it makes you look smart.. even though you're not...
see literally 95% of atheists in the u s of a.
i lived there for three years, and almost all of them were braindead retards

that's normal for seppo scum, don't think about it too much

Can't disagree with you Suisseanon. US populace, in general, are complete retards who will take up anything for "showing off" on the social media/ social circles.

No wonder many US atheists are the same.

I'm a proper atheist.

I don't give a fuck what anyone believes in, as long as they aren't cunts (or blowing things up).

Otherwise, do whatever you fucking want, doesn't bother me.

Respect for being an atheist in Bangladesh. Stay safe.

le sensible moderate face
get out normie

65 IQ is too low too comprehend anything. There's no way to be anything but a non believer in anything.

Oh, come on.

You need to give the relative amount of people that are atheists for your chart to even pretend to be valid.

When I was about 14. I grew up in a non-religious household where religion was something of contempt.

I flitted back and forth between differring religions, trying to find the truth. Then, I found the Truth. Reluctantly, I started to follow Him.

Can confirm no atheist I know reads any theology or anything - and I am one of the few religious people that I know.Can also confirm.

My neighbour has an IQ of 60.
Terrifying.

How do you know your neighbor's IQ?

Do you even know what an IQ of 60 even is?
Those people don't even understand how to use words let alone faith.

Secondly that grapth doesn't say anything about IQ higher then 130 , most peope with a IQ higher then 128 believe in science and are practice their tradition, yet they don't go to church weekly , nor do they pray , most of them are smart enough to say they are a part of their religion.

Graphs like this never show what actually people believe , is what people WANT to believe.

I mean if you were a muslim with IQ of 140 really fucking smart , having doubts about religion and belief as awhole , would you say that you don't believe? you do realise that that means you are dead.

Socially speaking this happens/happend in christianity as well , you don't want to be the social outcast that peoeple avoid.

I was going for a walk one night then realized that it would be profoundly stupid to assume mankind knows even 1% of the shit going on in all of existence. Since then I look at atheists with pity.

fucking normies
REEEEEEE

>I dunno therefore God

Very profound

Yah cause believing in angels and the devil is way more logical right?

Showed me the result.
While I doubt where it was obtained and the authenticity, I do not doubt the low IQ level.

Not a smart cookie at all. Makes mistakes in everything, including grammatical ones.

I don't care what people believe in, just don't shove it in my face. Worship the magic flying invisible toilet god, for all I care.

Believing in nothing makes so much more sense!

>Believing in the existence or non-existence of something without scientific proof

t. Agnostic master race

There is no proof of the gods that live in the various religious texts in the world.

What about for logical and rational reasons?

>implying

your stats are off

65 IQ detected

Give me some

Show me one shred of evidence for god's existence.

No proof doesn't mean impossibility of being.

It does actually. why be fixated on what or who created you? why is stupid to assume we're just here?

First off, the existence of the universe as opposed to it being non-eternal proves that the universe has a beginning.

1. Everything caused has a cause
2. The universe not-eternal and had a cause
3. The universe was caused by something

The fact that the universe was caused gives weight to the fact that the Cause is capable of choosing, so it's Aware. This is along with the fact it could create something out of nothing indicates it's powerful.

A universe can't be self-caused because there was nothing there to cause it to cause itself. Doesn't work. This rules out atheism and pantheism. Multiverse is just shifting the question. Doesn't affect it. Not an answer.

This argument doesn't apply to God as God is uncaused. You can't ask 'who made God?' for this reason. It's a non-question. Occam's Razor simplifies this, too. There's no need for multiple gods. That rules out polytheism.

So we're left, really, with monotheistic faiths.

- Some monotheistic ones throughout the world
- Judaism
- Christianity
- Islam

Christ proves it, IMO.

1. Islam says Christ was not crucified
2. Judaism says Christ is nothing special

1. We know is wrong according to history
2. We know that Christ was crucified and pierced. We know he was deemed dead (would a centurion REALLY mistake someone for not dying?). We know that his tomb was empty.

We know that people saw him wandering around and doing stuff like materializing. That people went to their deaths to say that Christ rose from the dead. No body of his was found.

They had no reason to say it unless they believed it. They received no money, power, status, or influence for what they did. They were despised and hated.

Also Christianity is different from other religions: it's not what was seen by one people. Many did. Islam? One guy. Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.

Christianity? Paul, the Disciples, the 500, and more.

Hope this is a brief rundown. Character limits, you know.

The holographic universe has nothing to do with being 'created by some advanced intelligence', it's a theory on the shape of the universe.

The simulation hypothesis is not the same as the holographic universe theory.

In a sense, both are retarded. But the holographic universe theory is legitimate physics, the simulation theory is just philosophy.

When I realized it was more destructive to society than any alternatives

>Everything caused has a cause
This may be a biological bias.
Not necessarily true for everything in existence.
>The universe not-eternal and had a cause
>3. The universe was caused by something
"universe" means "everything"
The god of the monotheist cannot exist as they define it. This doesn't means that nothing exist but that they are wrong about it.

Thats the most retarded thing ive ever read. You really are gullible.

I was never religious, my parents didn't raise me into any religion so naturally I became atheist. There is nothing to grow out of.

>biological bias
Universal. Things don't appear from nothing.
Even the "nothing" many physicists speak of is not "nothing".
And you don't have to worry about elephants or hippos appearing.

Universe is defined as the sum of everything that exists in the cosmos, including space and time.
All of this had a beginning.

You don't need the zeta function for that.

A = 1-1+1-1+...
B = 1-2+3-4+...
C = 1+2+3+4+...

A = 1-1+1-1+...
-A = -1+1-1+1-...
A-(-A) = 1
A = 1/2

B = 1-2+3-4+...
= (0+1)-(1+1)+(2+1)-(3+1)+...
= -B + (1-1+1-1+...)
= -B + 1/2
B = 1/4

C - B = 4+8+12+...
= 4C

C-1/4 = 3C
C = -1/12

Hope you're ready to defend that and not just copypastaing.

Axiom 2 and 3 are not necessarily valid because you don't know what conditions the universe were made under (from what we gather physics were weird as shit then), and if it undergoes cycles of creation and death eternally, with the "big bang" marking a new cycle. Even today we see physics get really fucking strange in very dense objects like black holes.


This voids the rest of your post but let's assume the axioms are true for the sake of discussion.

You claim God is uncaused. This is an unsupported logical leap. You first claim everything is caused and use this as basis for your entire argument, then you void this rule with God because it's convenient.

Belief is a weak emotion, fit for women and nonwhites.
Even worse when it isn't even the true belief of your people.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The 'holographic universe' has nothing to do with a simulation. It's a term used to dumb down our understanding of the likely shape of the universe for stupid people, given your answer though we can see it doesn't dumb it down enough.

So do you take Zeus and Poseidon into account when assessing the world?

>1. Everything caused has a cause
>2. The universe not-eternal and had a cause
>3. The universe was caused by something

Nothing but assumptions used to nail your arguments together. All writings of christ came far after his death.

>Occam's Razor simplifies this, too. There's no need for multiple gods. That rules out polytheism.

Occam's razor is not proof of anything.

Atheism gets a bad rap because racist, ethnic cleansing commie Jews hid behind it to do their dirty work against Christians.

Ok, thats even dumber than the other thing that just read. Holy shit, no wonder France is falling apart.

I meant it in the sense that the Shannon entropy/or Bekenstein bound is an artifact/piece of evidence for the hypothesis, but you're right I phrased it incorrectly.

Exactly. Following David Hume's argument, we can't even conclude that causality exists at all, since we only observe correlations in time. For all we know everything could be happening at the same time and just appear to be causally connected.

He's saying your a cuck for following a literal Jew, (((Jesus))), when you could at least be following the true pagan religions of your original European ancestors.

(((Abrahamic))) religions are the problem, you people are blinded by cuck propaganda.

"Cycles" doesn't change it, though.
It still doesn't explain what started it. You can't have an infinite past.

>unsupported logical leap
Don't be silly.

>assumptions
I suggest you tell that to physicists.

>Occam's razor not proof
It shows how it's unnecessary. You haven't answered.

>All writings of Christ came far after
Not really. And even if this WAS true (it's not; we see inclinations that they are far earlier than most scholars give credit for, tbqh) it wouldn't change anything. They're still earlier than all other historical texts we take seriously. This is logically fallacious at best.

...

Nice meme

hurtz feefees detected.
Go pray your sandnigger god for comfort.
I'm sure it's better than following the culture of your ancestor.
>inb4 my ancestor were christians.
Lolno if you are white, we absorbed christianity and made a 90%pagan/10%pretend christian mix to preserve our culture and do business with Rome.

Simulation theory is just theism wrapped in 'modern' parlance.

97.8% of the rest of the smart ones are theists.

Physicists have zero data going that far back. Unnecessary is not proof of anything.

They're still earlier than all other historical texts we take seriously. This is logically fallacious at best.

Holy shit no.

>I suggest you tell that to physicists.


It doesn't work like that. Cause and effect is a rule that we observe INSIDE the universe, no-one knows if it could possibly apply to the universe as a whole as we have no idea what is 'outside' of the universe.

It's 2% of the total of atheist, tard, not the total of smart cookies(which you don't belong to).
You're a religious nigger.

You don't know which physical conditions the universe were made under, including time (which is physically much more complex than humans experience it), so you can't make assumptions based the present conditions.

>Don't be silly.
Not an argument. You make a claim for a God that isn't logically supported. You can't just say "God is outside those rules by definition". If you can't logically support why anyone or anything would break these the cause and effect rule. The Bible isn't proof.

This is the mentality thats made your country so weak. Mudslimes will rule you in a few decades.

It makes sense.

Just look at liberal atheists as an example. They say "I'm not going to believe the bible"... but they will "have faith" that some random article is telling the truth about things like man-made climate change.

They are too stupid to understand their own hypocrisy.

While some highly intellectual people just realize there's no god... but aren't hypocritical about it.

It's christian humanism that imported those shitskins.
It's the logical endpoint of christianity, see the pope{import all muslims into europe, this is you christian duty}

We have can get back to trillionths of a second of the big bang.

>Holy shit no
It really is. You can't argue.

>universe as a whole
So you're relying on blind conjecture to for atheism

We have plenty of evidence to support it

>You make a claim that isn't logically supported
It is if you don't deny logic and throw them out as you are doing. Instead of grasping at straws to cling to atheism you can admit there's stuff to search into.

>implying talking about the 'outside' of the universe makes any sense

>christian above judean
What is this shit? JUDAISM IS LITERALLY JUDEAN-ISM.

Bullshit, it's Christian support groups that funnel in undesirables.

Who are the biggest supporters of amnesty and the biggest donators to 'charities' that help beaners get documentation? Christians and the (((Catholic))) Church.

Who is flooding Europe with "refugees", Merkel, leader of the Christian Democratic Union.

Who is kissing the feet of muslims? Pope Francis.

>all writings of Christ cane far after his death

They were written maybe two or three decades after.

>It really is.

Plenty of pre-Christian writings are taken seriously you dumb cunt. We have no data on the big bang, or anything that happens outside the observable universe.

No, its your weak mentality that stepped aside and let them invade.

>
Isn't it hypocritical that a lot of (((physicists))) believe in the idea that we are quite probably part of a holographic universe created by some advanced intelligence

Those (((((((((((((((((physicists)))))))))))))))))) are retards because that theory is disproved by the square root of 2

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of maths should fucking recognise this

no OP's pic is bullshit. there is no study to support his claims. OP is just a muslim who thinks lefty styled attacks work

most east asians in asia are atheist . they have better standardized test scores than the west on average. dont know why koreans are always christian in america. judging that by the signs for a church in korean i have seen all over this state

africa is like 98% muslim and there are some christians. low as fuck scores bruh. boarder line retard and shit

Of course it doesn't, that's my point. That's why you can't make the assumption that cause and effect applies to the universe as an object. Why does something need to have 'caused' the Universe?

>So you're relying on blind conjecture to for atheism

You're the one relying on blind conjecture by saying that the universe needs to have been created by something. In fact you go further than that and say that what created it is 'God'. Truthfully you have no idea.

And they're written at FAR later dates with MUCH less evidence. You fucking moron, that's what I was saying. Ignoring the Bible for being "too late" is retarded if you have any semblance of rationality.

>We have no data on the big bang
We have plenty of data. How poorly read ARE you?

Oh. Wait. You're an atheist. That explains it.

>We have plenty of evidence to support it
Such as? You've yet to give an example.

>It is if you don't deny logic and throw them out as you are doing. Instead of grasping at straws to cling to atheism you can admit there's stuff to search into.
I'm not clinging to atheism for the sake of clinging to it. I'd love to be proven wrong, and am discussing this openly. You just havn't logically proven your arguments.

>yfw you realise that the "simulated universe" theory is BTFO by the square root of 2

This. My hometown was flooded with violent spics by Catholics. My current town i now unsafe to walk around because of Christian homeless shelters bringing in rapists and addicts. The whole time they brag about how based they are.

Kind of like how the Holocaust only sprang up two or three decades after WW2.

Pic related. You're a retard. There is no data beyond speculation and mathematical models.

Most smart people are bluepilled liberals, does that make them right?

>God has to follow the law of cause and effect

If God were to be caused by something, then he would simply not be God

There is also the fact that God is outside of this universe and outside of reality itself. Creation and God are separate.

Please elaborate?

>nothing exists
>appears out of nowhere
>stable enough to host life for billions of years

>what created it is God
>something outside of time
>eternal
>not God
wew
e
w

>such as?
Sigh. Do I really have to spoonfeed you?

Within the tiniest split second, the temperature hit a hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade. “This is much hotter than in the center of even the hottest star, so hot, in fact, that none of the components of ordinary matter, molecules, or atoms, or even the nuclei of atoms, could have held together.

But the arguments *are* logically sound; you're just throwing them out because you don't like the possibility of them. You're going into hypothetical alternate universes and so on, in effect, without any evidence to support them and which still do nothing against the God argument.

If we're playing blackjack, you can't suddenly throw out the rules and say you want to play texas hold'em or something like that mid-game.

Those texts have a MUCH later delay between occuring and being written down than the Bible. As I'm saying. You're supporting what I say. You're just so far up your own ass it's ridiculous.

You're not bright, are you?

...

You know these arguments which combine ontology and definitions are nonsense. You wouldn't accept the atheist argument of "can God create a rock that he can't lift". Or "I can imagine a perfect unicorn. An existing unicorn is more perfect than a non-existing one. Therefore unicorns exist".

The simulated universe theory is retarded but so is your argument.

The square root of two can be infinite in a simulation, why couldn't it be? It's not like you need to keep a database of the exact value of every single number in decimal places to create a virtual world. Your problem is that you think mathematics is pre-conceived, that it 'exists' somewhere already, but that's not how it works. It's a tool we invented to help describe the universe.

Lying fuck

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides

"Thucydides believed that the Peloponnesian War represented an event of unmatched magnitude.[26] As such, he began to write the History at the onset of the war in 431"

That's a meme theory believed by people like Musk. It's been messed up by popsci like Schrodinger's cat.

This chart makes literally zero sense.

“If our perceptual systems evolved by natural selection, then the probability that we see reality as it actually is, in any way, is zero. Precisely zero,” said Hoffman.

>Epistemological instruments like Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy are limited & flawed.

>Evolution & natural selection has selected for humans to be incapable of analyzing or even perceiving reality.

>Evolution & natural selection has selected only for humans that are capable of surviving long enough to reproduce.

> Humans are incapable of perceiving reality and the universe at it actually might exist.

>Humans prefer to exist in an oversimplified, cartoon version of the world, a "movie inside their own brains", as in a toddler's crayon drawing of himself and his family.

>That's why humans in general ignore facts and prefer to live in a feel-good, fact-free, illusory world of wish-fulfilment & magical thinking that suits their personal taste.

>boingboing.net/2016/12/05/questioning-the-nature-of-real.html

But nothing doesn't exist mate, by its own definition.

No-one really tries to claim that there was 'nothing' before the beginning of the universe; they claim that they have no fucking idea - which is the only reasonable position to hold.

I wasn't born fucktard.
And our people voted many time agaisn't more immigration only to be ignored.
Meanwhile the churches organize donations to the (((needy))) africans.

>If God were to be caused by something, then he would simply not be God

This is an arbitrary, unfalsifiable claim. It's easy to make a definition that defies logic. That doesn't make it plausible, though. See Russell's teapot.

>Sigh. Do I really have to spoonfeed you?
If your argument was valid that woulnd't be a problem for you to do.

>Within the tiniest split second, the temperature hit a hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade. “This is much hotter than in the center of even the hottest star, so hot, in fact, that none of the components of ordinary matter, molecules, or atoms, or even the nuclei of atoms, could have held together.

Again, the physics during the creation of the universe were vastly different than they are now.>

>But the arguments *are* logically sound
No, you just don't understand logic.

>You're going into hypothetical alternate universes and so on
I'm not hypothesizing anything. It was merely an example to show that more logical explanations -could- exist. We don't know the explanation. That doesn't mean God.

>you're just throwing them out because you don't like the possibility of them
I just told you the opposite. I'd love for God to exist, there's just no reason to believe it.


>If we're playing blackjack, you can't suddenly throw out the rules and say you want to play texas hold'em or something like that mid-game.
Which is exactly what you did in the original post I responded to.

You mean Aquinas, Descartes and so on? Pls. Those are feel good crap that has about as much rigour and logic as wet spaghetti. Like that quote, what does that have to do with the existence of God?

The fundamental unscientificness of established religion is it tends to start from solid reason like there are higher powers then jumps to crap like Hell and Heaven.

This thought always haunts me. I swear i can trace people's personality traits back to some kind of environment that selected them.

this

That's a very good argument in favor of religion.

The fundamental problem with all theistic arguments is that they start from the position that god exists, it's all a circular argument; they try to use god to prove god.