When did you grow out of atheism Sup Forums?

When did you grow out of atheism Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=g-lJJmytfPM
researchgate.net/publication/272879474_Existential_Inertia_and_the_Five_Ways
theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/russian-church-wants-creationism-taught-alongside-evolution-in-schools/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

atheism is for leftist cucks

I grew out of atheism the day I discovered Moloch

>Grow out of atheism

Sorry bud, some of us didn't go through that Brainwashed by shitty quotes and edgy "how cum aids if god is real" phase.


Hopefully. You've actually developed a bit of integrity and self identity rather than being a squishy sponge soaking up the latest mindset fads

Atheism begins with the idea that we can know for sure that there is no supernatural power above our own. This is laughable, of course, one, because it claims to know that a thing does not exist without first knowing all that does exist, and two, because even if you knew every natural thing, you could still not prove the supernatural, that which exists beyond our natural senses, does not exist.

Atheism begins with the assumption that logic is the first thing. It continues by preaching that logic is all that is needed, and faith and belief are obsolete, along with hope and all other virtues derived from them.

Then it proceeds to preach its gospel without any semblance of logic at all.

With no logical foundation for morality, Atheists still persist in using words like “good” and “bad”, “should” and “should not”. I would someone who would join Atheism, just as any other religion, would first ask, “What is good?” Or rather, “What should I do?”

The Atheist answer is the most pathetic of all. The logically obvious answer is, “It doesn’t matter what you do. You will die and disappear. So do whatever you want to.” This is the thought that I think most Atheists have.

Of course, the above is simply a recipe for disaster. Moral relativity means what is good for one is not good for all, and so you end up with people who think it’s a good idea to dress up as the Joker and murder people in a theater. So we can’t have that kind of ideology, because it’s simply not good. (Note the logical contradiction here, or rather, the lack of any logic whatsoever in such a statement.)

I scratch my head at the logical inconsistencies one must embrace to be an Atheist. I laugh inside when Atheists violate their own sacred law of logic to preach and argue in the public square. In the end, I pity them as little children. They are simply too immature to really think about what logic really is, and to learn how to apply it in one’s life.

quality post, have a (you)

Claiming that morality can only derive from religion is an insult to intelligence. Saying i cant possibly know right from wrong if im an atheist has zero evidence behind it.

I heard a bit about Elliot on a Catholic radio station a few weeks ago but didn't realize he was Lewis/Waugh/Chesterton level

He's right you know

>insult to intelligence

No, it's demonstrably true you just clearly don't understand. Let me try to spell it out for you. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is based a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.
I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions committed by different countries, often with great vigour.
For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

tl;dr Atheists cannot be 'moral', they can only pretend to be.

Lets assume that what you said is true, since im in a rush and atm dont have the time to get fully into this discussion, what is your problem with pretending to be moral? Whatever the fuck that means...

Hell, I'd much rather pretend to be moral than be truly moral and be commanded to mutilate the genitals of my children, which logic dictates is immoral, yet our beloved and mighty lord claims you must do to prove morality.

>needs big guy in sky to define morality for you
>you assume everyone else needs this as well

lol, nice projecting christcuck. Now go get rabbi to suck the blood from your cock.

>
So you're actually trying to say that there is more logic in believing in a higher power?

You don't grow out of reason and logic.

Well, you can "grow out" of atheism and get some sort of spirituality but you can't regress into being religious.

nature is above our own abilities, power, will and definitions
your concept of nature / supernatural is lliey flawed

your assumptions isolate you

highschool

I was graced with the mystic state, it was an amazing thing, you should read on it.

Atheism is anything but logical. I don't believe in God either, but I wouldn't describe a non-belief in God as "logical"

The arguments are equally absurd when you get to the essentials.

Either there is a God who won't show himself to prove he exists
Or
There isn't a God who can't show himself to exist.

paradoxically the belief in God is as logical as the non-belief in God.
Since God is a concept which, by definition, cannot be proved or disproved. It is equally logical to say
>God exists because I believe he does
as
>God doesn't exist because I don't believe he exists.

Atheism might be a lot of things, but if you want to be logical and reasoning you'd be an agnostic. There may or may not be a God, it cannot be proved, or disproved, therefore I reserve my judgement until evidence (not rhetoric) comes to prove or disprove the concept.

It follows the same thought as particle physics.
"we don't know IF it exists but we'll believe it when we find it, we're looking for it but we don't know, but we think"

Atheism supposed the Truth on rudimentary deductions when the "truth" cannot be determined with the current data

This
Following any religious book created to opress iliterate peasants is not something you grow into.
You can follow certain spiritual princniples abut the moment you get into organised religion you are just stupid.

Quality leaf post

Atheists cannot into reading comprehension, it seems.

Never was one, but I went through a bad phsase after my father was murdered. Didn't come back to Christ until I was about 21.

>he thinks space jesus is looking over him

When athiesm became mainstream

>reason and logic
you don't follw them, they don't lead to atheism, when you don't have evidence you never tested for of white you don't assume black.

You're forgetting the evidence and scholars that support the story of Jesus

>His birth
>His teachings
>His followers
>His baptism
>His arrest
>His death

All without a doubt happened as the Bible states.

That all means that the multiple prophecies written (according to historical scholars) centuries before Christ was born all happen to be correct on the time, place, and person.

>let me guess: lucky guesses ayyylmao

>Christianity invented morality

How embarrassing.

>There may or may not be a God, it cannot be proved, or disproved, therefore I reserve my judgement until evidence (not rhetoric) comes to prove or disprove the concept.

this is literally atheism, no atheist thinks that they can prove for 100% that there is no god of any kind

It's well accepted by modern Christians that God caused the Big Bang. It was first devised by Catholic Priest and Physcist George's Lemitre you understand.

Fedoras of the day hated the idea, because it points to the idea of a creator. All the cool atheists back then thought the universe was eternal. They had maths 'proving' it and everything. But then they realised LeMotre was right, and have spent the last 50 years trying to show how a Big Bang can happen without a creator. They gave up in the end as said 'well it's impossible to know how it happened, but we know what happened 0.0000002 seconds AFTER, so obviously it doesn't matter how it happened'

Can you see the irony?

Atheism is actually simply the disbelief in religion. It is A-theist, without theism.

The red pill is that religion is used to control the masses. If you are religious you are one of the dumb plebeians being controlled by people smarter than you.

>It's well accepted by modern Christians that God caused the Big Bang.

I'm pretty sure well over 70% of american Christians believe in young earth creationsim.

About 4-5 years ago now.
Crazy how the time flies.

Atheism is a contrarian response to Christianity, in the West. The only people not Christian are those in ignorance or those that have rebelled against what they know to be right, and have adopted nihilism to make themselves feel better. See: kikes when they murdered Christ, and any point after that.

I was going to call foolish but you really outdid yourself, user.
Please stop.

Atheism is a lack of belief of a God or Gods as defined by any dictionary you can't be bothered to read. Yet you create a strawman definition of people you don't like because you are too stupid or lazy to handle someone with a difference of opinion.

>what they know to be right
>muh morals trump reason

Provide peer reviewed evidence for your God(s) or continue to get laughed at for believing in literal magic and fables. It's that simple.

And the truth to that matter is that your claim is an early modern anti-religious narrative to promote their anti-"organized religion" thought and you just bought it wholesale.

>atheist

Not even once.

youtube.com/watch?v=g-lJJmytfPM

Watch that you degenerates and educate yourself.

>All without a doubt happened as the Bible states.

You understand that society back then (we cant just check court records and newspapers) was barely literate and Christians literally destroyed documents that challenged the legitimacy.

We have less than 2% of the writings from ancient times. Whilst him being a historical person is strongly accpeted his teachings are far more confused.

Likewise you are neglecting the fact that there is such evidence for other religions equally as well. Christians arent the only ones with recorded miracle workers

In this moment I feel...

Sure.

researchgate.net/publication/272879474_Existential_Inertia_and_the_Five_Ways

And you can keep laughing all you wish, user. You're wrong and your inability to have serious discourse only works in my favor.
Now tell me when you're ready to stop being childish and seriously confront what you disagree with.

>Religion is useful and man made

u playd you'reself

When i'll go senile.

Stop being atheist.

I never had to.
While I have always had a scientific mindset (i.e. prefering facts over feelings), I was lucky to be in a religion that does not put too much emphasis on the whole "feel, dont think nonesense" and instead encourages an inquisitive mindset (not sceptical however) when it comes to studying the bible.

>American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

I asked for evidence. You posted a theological argument. Evidence is tangible. Philosophy is not evidence.

You got evidence.
Evidence can be inductive or deductive.
Welcome to academic thought since the Greeks, user. Theories aren't all that exist. Theorems exist too.

>theological argument

It's about nature. It can only be considered "theological" because it speaks of divinity in a serious way.

Nice job seriousing up but you're mistaken still.

>modern Christians
>american Christians

Wrong, wrong wrong.

Atheism is the non-belief in God. To say "There is no God" That is Atheism. It's literally the entomology of the word.
A
>Latin
>Prefix
>To be without, To not have

Theist
>Greek
>From Theos
>Meaning: God

>Ism
>Greek, Latin, English
>Suffix
>Denoting an action or practice.

A-Theist-ism

Being without a practice of God.

Atheists who say "God might be real" are not atheists, they're agnostic.

He's right, you know?
Formally, atheism is what you describe, but a lot of atheists (who're very vocal about their worldview) are in open rebellion against religion/christianity.

Of course it's man-made. What does this have to do with the existence of the divine?

>To be without, To not have

To be without God is not the same as saying "there is no God".
To not have God is not the same as saying "there is no God".

Some time back in uni.

A philosophical argument is not sufficient as means to prove, support, or conclude on the matter of anything empirical.

I may not propose a philosophical argument if I am making a truth claim to how electricity works, or how stars implode, or any other actual event.

Because of this reason, I hold truth claims about God existing to the same standard. It would be one thing if you claimed God to be happiness, or the wind, or a child's smile or some other esoteric nonsense as such but I do assume you to believe in a physical being who exists in some plane of material existence.

If that is true, then you need material evidence for a material being.

dummy

this

Requiring FSM to be real in order for wrong things to be wrong is incredibly retarded.

As I just explained here That is not accurate. Religion =/= God. Buddhism is a religion but there are many many Atheistic Buddhists.
Theist, as I explained quickly, comes from the Greek word Theos, which is the word for God.
Ism is suffix denoting an action or practice.

Theism means to practice God.

The etymological origin of Religion is a Middle English from Latin, from the word Religio, or obligation, bond, and reverence from the Old Latin.

Abreligio or Areligious or Abreligious or non-religious means not having a religion.

Words mean things. Jesus fuck.

The Holy Books which dominate the majority of modern religious thinking are stated to be the infallible word of God. If they are man made, and their followers are merely following the words of other men rather than the divine.

If you "grew out" of atheism you never really stopped believing in god in the first place. Nobody that has ever truly stopped believing in god ever goes back. Unless Jesus himself appears before you and does some superman shit, you never truly believe again. I've watched many atheists try and do the religion thing again but they don't really ever have the faith and they bounce around from different churches and denominations because really all they're trying to do is find a community somewhere they feel they belong.

Yes, thank you for parroting back what I said. I was explaining the difference between agnostism and atheism because the poster I replied to seemed to think they were one in the same.

Saying "I don't know if God is real or not so I won't really worry about it" =/= "God is not real"

If agnostic doesn't trim your breeches how about Antetheisim? Before a practice of God, implying the supposition.

ah wolfy, I saw your beautiful work in last nights thread completely BTFO'ing the atheists that shill nightly on this sweet Taiwanese Scripture Board, God bless

God neither exist and nonexist. Because existence have meaning only in a physical universe. God created this universe, he is out of it, so he exists and does not exist simultaneously. Even simultaneity is not not a precise term. Kabbalists already investigated all this things.

I built the house I live in. Are you saying that, because someone creates something, they can't then inhabit it?

>
>>To be without, To not have
>To be without God is not the same as saying "there is no God".
>To not have God is not the same as saying "there is no God".

yes it is
and
yes it is

Mistakenly interpreted as being a word-for-word translation from English to Latin, one could infer what you have supposed; however, reading through to the intent, one realises that atheism is the claim that there is no god.

Agnosticism is for nontards who might have an inkling one way or the other but who aren't stupid enough to claim anything without proof.

I have never met anyone, nor have I read an article from, nor have I watched a video from, anyone who claims to know that God isn't real.

You've basically described my problem with Protestantism and other "book worshipping" faiths.

And unfortunately, that has been the mainstream view of Christianity for long enough Bible == Christianity for most people.

Churches based on tradition don't look to man-made books to derive the entirety of their faith.

few weeks ago,aerseeing this meme

hes right! you can be atheist AND culturally christian

...

>A philosophical argument is not sufficient as means to prove, support, or conclude on the matter of anything empirical.

Please tell me your problem with theorems user.
Whats the problem with Bell's Theorem? Whats your issue with the Weinberg–Witten theorem?

Theorems take logical axioms and empirical data and use it to defend the logical necessity of the result. It can be wrong by having incorrect premises and poor structure or missing details but the result is always deduced by necessity. You can hold theorems as evidence for how natural things function - just as Thevenin's Theorem is well regarded in relation to electricity - but it works along inductive knowledge in grasping it just as induction works alongside deduction. That you "may not propose" these are you just you holding yourself back from modern academics for no good reason. Though this might be good if you have no idea what you're doing because such a thing is not applicable to accidental claims.

>Because of this reason, I hold truth claims about God existing to the same standard. It would be one thing if you claimed God to be happiness, or the wind, or a child's smile or some other esoteric nonsense as such but I do assume you to believe in a physical being who exists in some plane of material existence.

?
I'm Catholic. Most of this board and Sup Forums and 4+Sup Forums generally is Catholic/Orthodox. They uphold a Classical Theist view of God, where God is not a kind of being in or outside the universe but rather than the constant and willful ground of being itself. If God were just some kind of object, such as a unicorn, a metaphysical theorem couldn't deduce this at all, but thats not at all what we're talking about.

he did inhabit it when he came back as jesus and he will again. just not right now tho

>666
>Kabbalists already investigated all this things.

What did he mean by this?

>I can derive morality in a natural world from a supernatural force!

I bet you can, sport.

testing my dick

You can't see Gravity. You can only witness the effect of Gravity.
Does that mean, for all intents and purposes, that there is no Gravity? Only our understanding of it?

Early Christians were regularly caught forging documents and The Bible itself contains proven forgeries.

After I somewhat understood quantum physics coupled with a psychedelic mindset.

I rejoined protestant church for the traditions but still atheist.

I don't have problems with theorems. Theorems are at the very least grounded in some empirical fact. It has a basis beyond pure reason.

Descartes used pure reason to convince himself that he could only reasonably know that he alone existed. This is pure reason. Pure philosophy. Completely worthless for scientific claims.

Provide empirical evidence for your empirical claim.

I love seeing these threads on /lit/
Because they actually explain why without shitposting.

the fuck? you know nothing of the history of christianity.

>grew out of

Older people are more athiest than young people.

Remember that those who are old today are not the fifties men portrayed in movies for the last four decades, but the 70's hippies who were marxist when young.

Never was an atheist, thank God

How did you grow out of the doubt? I mean once you get past the shity dawkins/hitchens tier atheism its hard to imagine someone going back genuinely and not just because they want community and a higher purpose to live for.

notice how godless societies become degenerate and decadant as fuck? oh wait yes you do lol you live in sweden

what about Hungary?

only 40 % are believers

Because atheists don't really 'think' about atheism, they just let others think for them.

Growing out of atheism is really the first stage of growing up.

i wish there was a mainstream form of paganism that wasn't just a bunch of faggy larpers tb.h. i wanna do a religion and have a purpose for living but christianity conflicts my wn views on jews, niggers, and racemixing

Christians are insisting we take refugees in though.

The Pope is.
The archbishop of Canterbury is.
The archbishop of York is.
Desmond Tutu is.

Christians WANT refugees in Europe.

We lost our original beliefs and the morals that went with it. the reason atheism and degeneracy is so wide-spread today is because Christianity opens the door for it. Christianity did more harm in Europe than good. Hell the Romans was close to developing the steam engine when the Christians invaded.

That seems like it could apply equally to religious people

the pope is false

the roman catholic church has been comprimised,russian orthodoxy is the only non degenerate church now.

Don't forget the pope is a marxist.

But I'm Christians, and I don't want refugees to taint Europe.

I'd rather see them make their countries better.

> Christians WANT refugees in Europe.

Oh...

Needs a sapper strapping TNT to the dam labeled "liberals."

>russian orthodoxy is the only non degenerate church now.
riddled with corruption and paedophilia, they only serve to legitimize whatever regime springs up in r*ssia.

When I discovered Jupiter last year. Though OP you can fuck off with your kike religions, the old gods have returned and their vengeance will be great.

>I have literally no idea who Charles Martel is or what Byzantium and the Reconquista are

old gods indeed

>russian orthodoxy is the only non degenerate church now.

They literally reject evolution, how is that not degenerate?

theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/russian-church-wants-creationism-taught-alongside-evolution-in-schools/