Go to wiki about atheism

>Go to wiki about atheism
>Their logo is a fucking brain

Why are atheist so insecure about their intellect?
Why do they think not believing in a God makes them smart?

Other urls found in this thread:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paris_Lees
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

JESUS IS MY LORD
MY SAVIOUR
MY PEACE

FUCK KEK FUCK PEPE

Checked, Pepe is strong in you my friend.

...

>God is stupid
>But KEK GOD is the glue that keeps us Sup Forumsacks together

Why do theist faggots spend so much time and effort trying to convince everyone their particular belief is justified. Believe what you want, I don't care if it doesn't effect,e.

...

...

...

Im not sure why theists do this.

Also, before you silly geese go on tangents of strawmen, please remember: atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods due to lack of evidence. Nothing more.

...

like 99% of the thing int he Vatican are unsellable.
I mean
>Good day sir, would be in interest in buying the Sistine Chapel?
>Only 1 Billion (long scale) Dollars.

rationalwiki isn't really an atheist wiki, it's a leftist wiki. Seriously. Except it's not much of a wiki and focuses on articles supporting certain movements and ideas.

> tfw to intelligent too believe in God

More like, they're considered holy relics and by that nature have no monetary value. No one would buy them.

click "random page" and it is mostly crap entries like this

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paris_Lees

what do you mean, goy? we can melt down the gold and make it into nice shiny jewelry to sell for your wives and girlfriends to buy up on holidays.

that's how we'll make the money.

>Norway can't get into ironic stuff

Way to show your autism.

interesting that they believe that all races are equal when objectificaly they are not. sounds more like dogma religion would believe.

I used to be an edgy militant atheist like 7 years ago when I was 18. Since then, I've met numerous religious people who are far more intelligent than most atheists.

they are a mental case

Wat? It's true, not ironic.

The reason for justifying their beliefs is generally that being right about the supernatural world is essential to being even merely okay after you die. They also want others to be okay too, but when you refuse to take care of your immortal soul because you think everything you do is inconsequential, they have to persuade you that it really isnt.

The loss of the art in the Vatican forever is not a fair trade to feeding Africa for a month.

This.
Look at their articles about "feminism", then "the mens rights movement".
It doesn't even pretend to be objective.

Yes, and feminism is just about """"equality"""". What both groups have in common is that they shove shit down in every unbelievers throat.

I don't believe in god but associating yourself with groups as cancerous as atheists is fedora tier

Isn't Rational Wiki the site that compared Gamergate to the battle of the somme?

>TFW youre an atheist and realize you need as much faith to believe there's no God as you do for there being a God
>All the science atheists say you can use to prove science but not God, but they've never used this science and most only pretend to understand it.
>All similar to people trying to interpret the Bible and needing priests to understand.

>it's a leftist wiki
This is accurate. Just find any article about any philosophy that could be considered right-wing and marvel at how hard they project their insecurities and repeat their narrative in it.

Reason I'm so salty is probably because I literally had this encounter about a week ago:(bit exaggerated for comedic value)
>"Are you an atheist?"
>"Uh, no?"
>"Oh wow you actually believe in god ?! I can't believe some people are so stupid to believe in a magical man in the clouds god you're all so retarded not like me i'm a rational human being but everyone who doesn't follow my ideologies or my group affiliation is just beyond retarded"

Good point

Your average atheist couldn't actually explain how the big bang happened, and the science behind it beyond what they've seen on star talk with black science man

>Why are atheist so insecure about their intellect?
>Why do they think not believing in a God makes them smart?
Because they know that their argument is not persuasive, so they wrap things up and couch them in terms of rationality in order to conform to their internal biases.
They ascribe to a higher intellect for the sake of moral superiority.
"Believe in GOD? How can you be so RETARDED! Chortle snicker chortle"

All of it mostly because of an ENORMOUS demography of autism - they both fell for the "autists r smrt!" meme, while being literally unable to pick up on standard social cues, never mind the emotional and philosophical depth of Christian theology.

>Go to wiki about atheism
>Their logo is a fucking brain
Rationalwiki is not about atheism

>Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
>Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
>Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
>Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Religion is not even mentioned.

>Why do they think not believing in a God makes them smart?
Nobody believes that.

/thread is dead

>implying you're any more intelligent

You'll find you'll have more fun arguing against it if you approach it as a theological debate. Atheism is a religion after all.

>TFW youre an atheist and realize you need as much faith to believe there's no God as you do for there being a God
>Lack of faith
>Faith
>Equal amount of faith
>Maths

>Your average atheist couldn't actually explain how the big bang happened, and the science behind it beyond what they've seen on star talk with black science man
This I can agree with as an atheist. Most people don't are not PhDs in Cosmology.

>Atheism is a religion after all.
>Off is a TV channel
>0 = 1

Not a brain with a fedora on it, fail.

They don't truly represent us.

Atheism has:
A set of texts which are given scriptural significance (ironically, most of Atheism's adherents haven't even read them).
A doctrine in that they disavow any diety but value humanity as a morally omnipotent being.
A set of beliefs wherein the totality of human experience, and it alone, defines reality.
An orthodoxy, a standardized mindset expected of it's adherents (like their unwarranted assumption of their mental superiority over others, although this is not the only way it manifests).

Dont forget athiesm also has free pizza every tuesday for lunch - thats how they hook people

Source? Or did you just make that up after encountering 5 internet atheists?

Because they were likely raised by religious parents and they think they are so smart and progressive and above everyone else because of their atheist 'revelations' they think are unique

You should pray for your country desu

It's attempts to disavow the existence of a deity do not preclude it from being labeled a religion. In fact, in attempting to so it ended up becoming the exact thing it set out to defeat.

In what way should it not qualify as a religion?

Meant for

>A set of texts
source? and list?

>A doctrine in that they disavow any diety but value humanity as a morally omnipotent being.
nope. only criteria to being an atheist is 'lack of confirmed belief in a deity'. even being 'uncertain' about your belief in God makes you an atheist fucko

>A set of beliefs wherein the totality of human experience, and it alone, defines reality.
you either made this up or don't understand the words you just used

>An orthodoxy
not even close. try again next time fucko


I am a theist who loves Jesus. eat me

lol the fuckos are already coming out to try and call atheism a religion. you're a fucking idiot if you don't agree with Gf9cHjyC

Atheism has no central doctrine, no central beliefs, no orthodoxy and no scripture. It's simply lack of belief in deities, a passive position. It is not even the endeavor to counteract religion in any way, which would be something like Anti-theism.

>You lack belief in leprechauns and fairies ergo you a part of the Aleprachaunist and Afairist religions.
100% the same reasoning.

Atheists lack belief for different reasons. Some (like me) try to base every belief on what empirical evidence shows to most likely be true. This path leads to not believing in the world religions because the empirical evidence simply do not correspond with the propositions. It doesn't however exclude the possibility of a creator entity, a first cause, or whatever you want to call it, but it does exclude everything that is demonstrably and evidently not true i.e. the world religions.

You can be an atheist because of the simple fact that you were not brought up to believe. You can be an atheist as an act of rebellion - although the intention to rebel against God is contingent on believing in his/her/its existence, which doesn't really make you an atheist as much as it makes you a rebel. Many people lack belief in deities, but have no problem with having faith in magic healing crystals

>source? and list?
Their beliefs come from some nebulous, socially filtered understanding of Dawkins et all and a watered down, common core reading of Darwin and Huxley's works. They don't actually read these, but they are nonetheless the foundation of their faith.

>nope. only criteria to being an atheist is 'lack of confirmed belief in a deity'. even being 'uncertain' about your belief in God makes you an atheist fucko
It goes deeper than this. The main reason I would call it doctrine is because their understanding of Atheism is mediated by a "clergy" of intellectuals who have digested the texts for them and rendered their core concepts for mass consumption.

>you either made this up or don't understand the words you just used
They want to believe that human agency is absolute and that morality is possible absent theism. They do so in the face of evidence of the limitations of human perspective and the rationality upon which it is based. In doing so they fall prey to the very same thing for which they criticize theism.

>not even close. try again next time fucko
Perhaps you are just having trouble understanding what an orthodoxy is. Dogma is perhaps more accurate.

>Their beliefs come from some nebulous, socially filtered understanding of Dawkins et all and a watered down, common core reading of Darwin and Huxley's works. They don't actually read these, but they are nonetheless the foundation of their faith.
Mine doesn't, and none of the atheists I know subscribe to that line of thought. I study science, most of my peers study science aswell. Some of them are lawyers and in other applied fields, but they do not subscribe to that line of thought either.

So you just further affirmed this point >It goes deeper than this. The main reason I would call it doctrine is because their understanding of Atheism is mediated by a "clergy" of intellectuals who have digested the texts for them and rendered their core concepts for mass consumption
So you are indeed talking about the folks on the internet. Well they do not represent every atheist, just themselves.

Also, the argument you use to justify the proposition that atheism is a religion can equally be used to assert that it is an ideology.

>They want to believe that human agency is absolute
The ones who believe this know nothing of science. Absolute certainty in science is regarded as bollocks.

>and that morality is possible absent theism.
Morality, the set of convictions upon one base one's behaviours on which proves to be beneficial for the sustinence and prosperity of the group. Pretty much every animal species has got this. Piranhas don't kill each other off, bears take care of each other etc.

I behave morally, I am never violent, I try my best to uphold the truth even if it is to my own detriment. The aim of my studies is to contribute to the betterment of mankind. I have never cheated on any partner etc. But I am not moral because I don't believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence of? I am not moral because I reject an epistemology that is based on belief without evidence?

Redpill me how.

Ment for

is that the fucking atheism plus logo

Why are christfags so sensitive about what other people think? Aren't you the chosen people? Oh wait... that's the Jews.

>Why do they think not believing in a God makes them smart?
Because it does make them smart compared to people who believe in a specific God, you fucking pleb.

No the Atheism+ logo has a +. Atheism+ is dead anyeays and is hated by the majority of serious atheists (Thunderf00t and his likes) because of the leftist infestation.

> leftard wiki

>So you just further affirmed this point
His point is self defeating because he conflates empirical evidence and truth, an argument which precludes skepticism.

>Also, the argument you use to justify the proposition that atheism is a religion can equally be used to assert that it is an ideology.
You're just arguing semantics now. Ideology and religion are interchangeable.

>Morality, the set of convictions upon one base one's behaviours on which proves to be beneficial for the sustinence and prosperity of the group. Pretty much every animal species has got this. Piranhas don't kill each other off, bears take care of each other etc.
>I behave morally, I am never violent, I try my best to uphold the truth even if it is to my own detriment. The aim of my studies is to contribute to the betterment of mankind. I have never cheated on any partner etc. But I am not moral because I don't believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence of? I am not moral because I reject an epistemology that is based on belief without evidence?
In this case you aren't arguing morality, you're arguing social Darwinism. What you're engaging in is mimicry, not morality. Darwinism is not morality because it precludes human agency in morality and externalizes it to natural selection. You could argue that it facilitated the development of the physical framework for moral reasoning (ie the frontal lobe) but it is insufficient to decide what is and is not moral.

A FUCKING BRAIN

Tell me how empirical evidence is not the best way of finding what is true or not true.
>inb4 revelation
There are different faiths with different revelations. Either revelation is valid and they are all true - which is self-refuting - or revelation is not a valid epistemological method.

>You're just arguing semantics now. Ideology and religion are interchangeable.
So libertarianism, socialism etc. are religions? No.

>In this case you aren't arguing morality, you're arguing social Darwinism. What you're engaging in is mimicry, not morality. Darwinism is not morality because it precludes human agency in morality and externalizes it to natural selection. You could argue that it facilitated the development of the physical framework for moral reasoning (ie the frontal lobe) but it is insufficient to decide what is and is not moral.
Empty assertions.

>In this case you aren't arguing morality, you're arguing social Darwinism. What you're engaging in is mimicry, not morality. Darwinism is not morality because it precludes human agency in morality and externalizes it to natural selection. You could argue that it facilitated the development of the physical framework for moral reasoning (ie the frontal lobe) but it is insufficient to decide what is and is not moral.
"You are arguing semantics"

>Tell me how empirical evidence is not the best way of finding what is true or not true.
It is "not the best" because its completely worthless for any and all metaphysics. Empirical evidence is, and can only be, locally true.

>So libertarianism, socialism etc. are religions?
That is exactly what I'm saying. They fit the exact same rubric that I outlined for Atheism.

>Empty assertions.
That's a pretty good tl;dr of my critique of your Darwinist "morality." I expected you to actually have a useful argument especially after I practically handed you one by dragging determinism into the argument.

Only in the first two sentences, and they're only there for clarity. They aren't the crux of my argument.

>metaphysics
>being this far behind
Study philosophy and study science.

I have a date to attend. Bye!

>Sell every piece in the Vatican
>Feed even more niggers
>population explosion
>more famine

wow totally worth it

Goodbye. I told you it's more fun if you approach it as a theological debate, didn't I?

You're a bigger fool than I thought if you think metaphysics has been settled. That conceit is the exact phenomenon I was talking about with Atheism having an orthodoxy.