Religion fags BTFO

Long live the fedora, long live atheism!
Why are people so stupid the still worship a spaghetti monster in 2017?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPwIQ6GCj8
m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6XKcsm3dKs
atavisionary.com/the-cathedral-compilation-page/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=b270ka2eB_4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Shut up you useful idiot

>have no idea what created the Universe
>"If you can't prove your position, my position is right by default."
>this is what fedoras actually believe

Science is their faith and holy book, too bad they'll never realize it.

(((science)))
i'm pretty convinced that researchers just find whatever their (((patrons))) pay them to find.

>this arbitrary axiom that I BELIEVE to be true lets me shirk responsibility on this matter because well... it says I can. DUH! I'm just being intellectually honest here, friend. *tips le fedora*

It's not even actual science, it's pop (((science))) that teaches you to believe whatever mr TV science man says.

Go lick a nigger's feet like your pope.

I think the key idea you're missing here is 'proof'

>have no idea what created the Universe
>"If you can't disprove my position, my position is right by default because the kike bible says so."
>this is what christcucks actually believe

>Christianity is no longer white
>All Christians are Catholic

Just stop.

The fedoras show themselves, here's a science question
What created the energy and matter that allowed the Big Bang to happen? What created the dimension that this mass formed in? If you can't prove those then How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I think the key idea you're missing is "faith."

Christians don't claim to be right, they claim to have faith that they're right. There's a difference.

Except Christians don't make the claim that their position is right by default.

it was always there :^)

atheist =/= anti-christian but nice try JIDF

>i'm pretty convinced that researchers just find whatever their (((patrons))) pay them to find.

Not the main problem, although this does happen. The real problem is they want to find what will get them more (((citations))) and therefore (((grants))), and so the literature is flooded with false positives, outright fraud, minor variations on existing results, and lots of quick, sloppy work with very small sample sizes to make data mining/p-hacking easier.

I'd estimate that less than 20% of papers could stand up to serious scientific and statistical scrutiny.

t. former grad student

>null hypothesis
>doesn't realize not all theistic philosophical views involve a supernatural being

Just because your position is wrong doesn't mean my position is right. I just support the position that has evidence and reject the one that relies on "muh faith"

>supernatural being
>supernatural

Why would the creator of the natural world be SUPERnatural? It would just be natural.

>I just support the position that has evidence

Where's the evidence pointing towards the non-existence of a god?

It is intellectually dishonest to not entertain the idea of a greater being who can influence you but can't be directly seen.

We've already seen scientific theories which would support this as a possibility with a high probability.

From a scientific standpoint it isn't impossible for there to be a higher being or being. The problem is if you give these autistic cultists an inch they feel emboldened and think their particular death cult is the one that trumps all others. If the followers of these Jewish sand cults weren't so violent and insane then we wouldn't need to take a hardline stance in rejecting all ideas of a higher spiritual entity

Because the creator itself would not be of that world since it existed before, thereby making it supernatural

I'm an agnostic, so I don't really believe in a god, but I know you atheist fedoras are completely full of shit and can't answer what should be simple questions

>Because the creator itself would not be of that world

Says who?

Here is a redpill for you to choke down; even if you don't believe in Christianity you should shut the fuck up about it because A, you're a boring cunt, and B, CULTURAL Christianity is healthy for the West, you're just eroding your own culture for everyone else's.

>atheist =/= anti-christian

If you build a garden. You are not of that garden. You aren't a plant. That's simply how the classification would work. The reason a creator would be SUPERnatural and not natural is because you are a lesser being to the creator. An irrelevancy and if you lived in a universe with a creator. Your lack of existence would have no effect on the creator but the creator disappearing would greatly effect the creation. Understand?

Who will lose more if Christianity is right? Just ask yourself this

It's impossible for Christianity to be right because humanity existed thousands of years before the advent of judaism.

>The reason a creator would be SUPERnatural and not natural is because you are a lesser being to the creator.

Having a baby doesn't make you supernatural compared to your offspring, nor does being a human being compared to a lesser animal like a dog make you supernatural either.

>An irrelevancy and if you lived in a universe with a creator. Your lack of existence would have no effect on the creator but the creator disappearing would greatly effect the creation. Understand?

No, because that doesn't make any sense at all. Just how consciously aware are you of the properties of the Universe itself, let alone the possible creation of said Universe? You're riddled with presuppositions.

You are honestly a shit eating fuckhead. Do you even into revelation?

And what is Islam is right? Or Zoroastrianism? Or what if the Greeks were right this whole time? Have you spent your life perusing the eight-fold path because the Buddhists might be right?

So you have faith that science is right, and that scientists are being honest?

>muh null hypothesis!

Life did not originate in this universe. It's not large enough, and by "large" I'm including the dimension of time.

Odds of abiogenesis: 1 in 10^450 (per Marcel E. Golay; other estimates are even worse)
Odds of evolution by mutation/natural selection to the complexity level of a modern mammal: 1 in 10^3,000,000
Number of atoms in the universe: 10^80
Number of potential chemical reactions since the Big Bang: 10^120

If this universe were a sim you could run it 10^100 and still not expect to see first life.

If we're wrong and this universe is actually infinite in space and/or time, then you would get first life. But no habitable zone would last long enough for that life to evolve to the diversity or complexity we observe on Earth.

It's also pretty damn obvious that things like the Cambrian explosion were not natural.

So a being or beings not of this universe seeded and guided life in this universe. Evolution is not random. It's a genetic search algorithm. And it has quite clearly been "upgraded" at multiple points in the fossil record.

>hurr durr who made god?

We have no idea what exists outside of our universe, so we can only speculate.

* Maybe life originated in a universe with laws conducive to truly natural formation/evolution of life.

* Maybe life from that universe found a way to access this one.

* Maybe this is a sim. Maybe life in a universe where natural evolution occurred is simulating that evolution, but running into the limitations of their computing power. (In other words building a sim so large/old that first life and evolution could occur naturally would be impossible.)

* Or maybe the traditional Christian perspective is correct. Maybe there is one living being who has always been and always will be, and all other life is his creation.

I can't tell you for certain. But I can say, with mathematical certainty, that life did not originate in our observable universe.

>Having a kid is the same thing as forging an entire reality
Nice false equivalency. I would expect nothing better from a leaf. However, you did raise a funny point. Yes it is possible for a god to create the universe and then just leave and not interfere. Like a hand winding up a clock.
However, if that is the case that means Christianity is wrong.
Also, to the person who asked where the energy for the big bang came from, the answer is a previous universe collapsed in on itself then re exploded into our universe. Anything before that is presently being human comprehension. So... take a guess. Because odds are you'll be wrong no matter what

"The null hypothesis is that there are no gods"

First, the faggot who wrote that wanted to sound intellectual with this shitty wording but wrote the contrary of what he meant. In hypothesis testing, the "null hypothesis" is not the stuff you assume is true until someone disproves it, but precisely the hypothesis which is to be tested.

Second, believing that God doesn't exist = believing that the Universe has no external cause, no beginning, that it generated itself ex nihilo. This is neither more credible, nor more intuitive, nor more consistent with scientific knowledge and human experience than believing in God.

So, no, the burden of proof is on theists and atheists alike. The only truly skeptical position is complete agnosticism : we do not know if God exists or not and there is no evidence for either thesis.

Well all humans believed in something above them, egyptians had better architecture but failed at spiriual correctness ,+all cultures had gods, it s a need in us humans. All atheists follow a cult in the end, and science is they're religion but that s just rational thinking, when it comes to spirituality they just think they die...and that's all

>perporting to be an intellectual
>cannot distinguish between faith based belief and evidence based belief

>if you are unable to find a solution the logical conclusion is that nothing exists
Are you even real? Guess not because no matter what you say I can say that there is a way you could not exist and therefore you are not real.
>this is actually how retarded atheists are.

>Nice false equivalency.

You are the one who stated "The reason a creator would be SUPERnatural and not natural is because you are a lesser being to the creator." Maybe you should have flushed that out a little more if you wanted someone to take it seriously.

>Yes it is possible for a god to create the universe and then just leave and not interfere. Like a hand winding up a clock.

Wow, thanks for the information. Didn't know it was possible for a god to have it's own intentions. Really soaks my almonds in water.

>However, if that is the case that means Christianity is wrong.

Wrong in the sense that Christianity teaches us God is actively involved in the Universe and with life, but again, God would still have his own intentions and could do any number of things. Who's to say God is even revealing everything we need to know?

>Also, to the person who asked where the energy for the big bang came from, the answer is a previous universe collapsed in on itself then re exploded into our universe.

Then the question becomes where did the previous universe come from? See, what you're doing right there is throwing the question back at the asker while thinking to yourself that you answered it. You didn't.

>Anything before that is presently being human comprehension. So... take a guess. Because odds are you'll be wrong no matter what

Remember what I said about you having presuppositions? You have presuppositions.

>muh faith

All scientific hypothesis is based upon unprovable axioms, aka: faith based belief

All pics of you could be photoshopped, therefore they are photoshopped. Any DNA you mail me could have come from someone else therefore they do. Any evidence you present could be fake and therefore it is. When given a false statement you can prove anything, and you sir have given me an excellent one. The idea of "null is always correct" is prehaps the most retarted, illogical thing I have ever seen. Thinking themselves to be wise, they have become fools.

That's not an appeal to authority. He specifically asked why one is more credible than the other. An appeal to authority would be if he said, some scientists think this, so you should too. Like when people say 97% of scientists believe in global warming, so you should too. An appeal to authority is when the perceived authority is given as the reason or evidence.

Furthermore, the null hypotheses is not that there are no gods. Man has believed in gods for all time. This belief works. That, then is the null hypothesis. Whatever belief one has to begin with, regardless of how well founded it is, the fact that it is held first makes it the null hypothesis. It is the working theory, which atheists disagree with. Before copernicus, the null hypothesis was that the world was flat. And this means that atheists don't just have to prove one religion as being wrong or inconsistent, they must prove the complete impossibility of their being any gods, even for religions that have not yet developed. After all, that is their stance.

And, the atheist ends with an ad hominem. Some intellectual honesty that is.

Of course, people can use any fallacy they wish. So long as the argument does not depend on the fallacy, they are just a matter of rhetoric. You might find it distasteful, or underhanded, but half the fun of a fight is in the tricks and bluffs.

Scientific evidence has demonstrably proven that human perception could be completely illusory, and that we have no way of confirmation any material experience. Science literally has no ground to stand on, because it can't even prove that the ground exists.

Science isn't their faith. Being a cunt is. They are the opposite of logical but they claim to be so. Just like Muslims claim they invented the universe and NOI claims that white people were invtented by black people. To substitute their lack of actual intelligence they jump on the atheist bandwagon so they can "feel" smart.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPwIQ6GCj8
Science never explained this, so they have much to work....they can t explain it because they don t believe in God but believe in darwin

>All atheists follow a cult
>I'm not smart enough to understand how science and math actually work so I'll call it faith to give a false sense of legitimacy to my fairytales
Ok

>Accuses me of presuppositions
>Presupposes Christianity is infallible and correct by default
Really gets my noggin joggin
To say what was before our previous universe is beyond our comprehension is not a presupposition. It is an objective fact. Don't strain your cultist brain too hard. We all already know you're incapable of processing any nuances explanation for how the universe functions beyond 'god did it'

It doesn't work that way.

All scientists could be lying 100% of the time, but that doesn't change the lack of evidence for a god. The only proof of a god is a single book, and there's no evidence the book is fact or that it was written by anything other than normal, lying men.

It's not a zero-sum game, both answers could be completely wrong, and one being wrong doesn't magically validate the other.

And again I'm using an example here. Muslims claim they are smarter than other people. I didn't mean they literally believe they created the universe.

>null hypothesis is that there are no gods
Nope. Null hypothesis is that you don't know and can not know.

Well, "white" people were invented by black people. Just like "black" people were invented by white people. Before black people saw white people, white people saw each other as completely separate races. And before white people started clumping them together, black people were many different races. But once each group started being treated like a group, we all started acting like a group.

No. the null hypothesis is whatever hypothesis you begin with.

>Presupposes Christianity is infallible and correct by default

Yeah, nowhere did I say this or even imply it. You're a complete retard. Basically what you failed to realize is your definition of supernatural is dependent on the intelligence of the being, meaning it's relative. A highly intelligent being who can cross dimensions would be considered to us supernatural, but obviously not to itself. A sort of supernatural relativism if you will.

>To say what was before our previous universe is beyond our comprehension is not a presupposition. It is an objective fact

The presupposition comes from you supposing that there was a previous universe and this universe somehow exploded into our universe, which completely fails to answer the question you didn't answer: where does a universe come from?

"Well it comes from another Universe!"

Do you see why this doesn't make sense?

>We all already know you're incapable of processing any nuances explanation for how the universe functions beyond 'god did it'

Complete. Fucking. Retard.

As long as religion is a secondary thing it isn't a bad thing. I'm catholic but my qt3.14 uses birth control. Relgion is useful when advertising morality.

>I'm not smart enough to understand how science and math actually work
someday you'll have a long think about how the big bang was a really fast thing
then everything slowed down
and now we are speeding up
and no understanding of science of math will reconcile those ideas
so they invented a god called dark matter that is just as unfalsigiable as yhwh

I thought there was some research recently that showed the number was even less than that. Of course, how can you know? It's sensational research after all.

define evidence

You can't know that there isn't a flying teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars.

If I told you that I strongly believe there is one, would you say that's as valid an opinion as the guy next door who says I'm batshit crazy?

Didn't think so.

Atheists essentially want to be spoonfed the truth, that's why they always make the best useful idiots for Marxism.

Reality coming through.

With a human mind you can t understand all, it s too complex for us.

>You can't know that there isn't a flying teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars.

Except a teapot is a specific object created by humans for a specific purpose of brewing tea. How is a teapot comparable to a god?

> The only proof of a god is a single book, and there's no evidence the book is fact or that it was written by anything other than normal, lying men.

Case in point, deism is separate from Christianity yet most atheists act like they are one in the same. The fact that they can't make this distinction shows their obvious bias against Christianity.

You may as well be arguing that a fish should be judged by how it can climb a tree. Faith by definition doesn't use proof. And no one ever claimed religion to be a science.

>He doesn't realize dark matter is a cluster of gravity and that we are speeding up again because the universe will once again one day collapse in on itself and be reborn in another universe
Or alternatively. It will drift apart and the universe will die out in the cold dark expanse of space. Once again. You being too stupid to grasp science and math does not make them any less valid.

You cannot be catholic and support pre-marital sex with birth control. That's sin. In this day and age, maybe it's venial if you haven't thought about it, but if you have, probably mortal. The creation of human life is sacred. Sex for pleasure diminishes your respect for that life, and so takes you away from the grace of God. It changes your focus in life, and causes you to see the world differently, becoming more material, and more pleasure-seeking. This is a deadly path to walk.

It should probably be noted that almost every single major figure in the atheist movement is Jewish. You could make a compelling argument that atheism is specifically being pushed by Jews in today's society, and they seem to largely be targeting western Christians and only them.

For example, Sam Harris, Chapman Cohen, David Silverman, Michael Newdow, Gregory Epstein, Sherman Wine, Bill Maher, Eric Kaufmann, and of course, Richard Dawkins's mother has a Jewish surname and was stated to have lived in the only Jewish suburb of the city she grew up in. But he hasn't explicitly named her religion.

But that's only a tiny part of the list. We could discuss the Jewish atheists who aren't pushing atheism so much as atheism-enabling political views like Marxism. For example Soklonikov, Trotsky, Deutscher, Lenin, Uritsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Sverdlov.

And what about atheist Jewish public entertainers that constantly run down Christianity? We can go ahead and recycle Bill Maher here and also include Jon Leibowitz, Stephen Fry, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, Daniel Radcliffe, Larry David, David Silverman, and... I'm sure I'm close to the post cap, so rather than just name the rest of Hollywood, you get the point.

PURE COINCIDENCE though.

The thing about atheists is they have faith in many things, but they identify belief in god as a bad faith. The idea that we are all equal, or deserve equal rights in western society is rooted in Christianity because we are all equal under God. Atheists still believe in egalitarianism, yet admonish Christians for their faith in God.

Matter is just an excited state within the quantum field. All the energy in the universe was condensed into a space-time singularity.

Religious people claim that their faith is objectively correct all the damn time. The Christians here screech about how everyone not like them is a degenerate who will burn in hell. The Jews think everyone who isn't like them is cattle and the muzzies murder anyone not like them.
>Our faith is the one true faith
>Oh but we're not science so you're not allowed to debate or criticize us
Nope. I'm afraid they have to face the consequences like everyone else

>You cannot be catholic and support pre-marital sex with birth control.

He can, he's just not inline with the church's practices and likely God isn't too happy with him. This is like saying a alcoholic Jihadist who martyrs himself to get into good graces with Allah isn't really a Muslim.

He's just a shit Muslim who thinks he'll be redeemed. The way to heaven should be through Jesus, the Church is corrupted and beyond saving.

Anything ranging from a verifiable experiment to a spoken logical argument.

It's important to remember that evidence doesn't necessarily prove something is right or wrong, and that evidence comes in different weight.

Additionally, there can be evidence pointing to two or more conflicting conclusions.

This is actually the basis on which science is built; science has never claimed to have the complete, objective answer. Science simply lays out all the evidence we have and tries to pull conclusions from that, with conclusions changing or being invalidated completely as new evidence is provided.

And right now you're screeching and spreading absolute bullshit and misinformation. Funny how you ignored my earlier post.

Don't want anybody to think you're being disingenuous. Best not to reply to anyone anymore if that's the case.

Which would suit your preference? Popperian or wholly axiomatic logical proofs?
Either you begin with axioms that everyone agrees with, and work from there, or you assume everything.

pure theory
we are not blank slates. Religious belief is common and innate. These rants about evidence and burden of proof just seem silly in comparison

>Our faith is the one true faith
>Oh but we're not science so you're not allowed to debate or criticize us

This sounds like progressives
>you are white therefore you are inherently racist
>all whites have white privilege
>the wage gap is real
>criticizing a woman is evidence of misogyny

It's not the early 2000s anymore, it's moralist progressives that push their religion down everyone's throat.

>Atheist
>Jewish
Pick one and only one
>Richard Dawkins
>Only attacks Christianity
Holy fuck you should see the things he says about muslims and jews on his twitter

m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6XKcsm3dKs
You just need to believe ...not search for things that can make you crazy, I m bad at english....but I accept it

Common, yes. Innate? Don't you remember when you were introduced to your cultures predominant religion? That, or the religion of your parents? Demographics easily show that people adopt the religion and axioms of their culture. Culture changes very slowly. It took generations for people to accept that medical examination of cadavers was not unethical.

Nah, Dawkins used to criticize Islam, but progressives embraced it so he can't anymore without getting a lot of heat.

Do you even realize, shitloards, that for 99%+ of people the actual question is "does god exist here and now, watching over us and judging us? Is there life after death?".
Not if god (or something similar) existed 13.6 billions of years ago when the universe transitioned into the current phase.

Christians Jews and muslims all still do this. Don't lie. They do it all the damn time.

>he doesn't realize people can be Ethnically Jewish

This thread isn't for you. You don't know what the fuck you're even talking about.

>Holy fuck you should see the things he says about muslims and jews on his twitter

The guy also says most sects of Christianity are benign, but you're comparing Christians to Judaism and Islam as if they're comparable religions.

>Demographics easily show that people adopt the religion and axioms of their culture
of course
and it is good that way

what exact variation and religious doctrine is not so important but religion is innate.
it is rather atheism that is acquired, and new

There's actually plenty of evidence to suggest that, though the writers were mortal men, it was not an act of sensationalism, nor did it lead them to profit. The story itself is rather boring, and the character of Jesus is unlike any other messiah or hero archetype ever encountered. His teachings are very clearly Jewish in origin, and yet do no reflect any recorded Jewish thought in his time period. The religion spread amongst some of the poorest and least literate people in the world, conveyed only by oral tradition. Despite this, a survey of oral tradition consistently found 4 distinct versions of the story, each of which verified most of the same events. The four versions were consistent with each other, and with themselves, despite multiple passings. The growth of the religion itself is remarkable. It follows a pattern unlike almost any other. You may say that it isn't true, but that still leaves you with a very difficult human event to try and justify. The fact is, Christian teaching, based on basic and primal human behavior, shouldn't have become popular. It is antithetical to almost all known created belief systems. It shouldn't exist, but it does.

I mean, really, religion is, like, 1% metaphysical questions of the nature of the universe and 99% fear of death and desire for divide justice/retribution.

Since when do Christians force you to worship and believe their beliefs and teachings?

You can't live a comfortable life in Israel if you're not ethnically Jewish or practicing Judaism, and in any Islamic country you'd likely not be allowed to live there, be an ostracized minority and the daily target of Muslims who are taught the kaffir are literal evil.

Why don't Christians have a specific term for a non-believer? Why are you such a chickenshit you won't even acknowledge your own bs or my posts directed towards you?

>(((science)))
Learning is Jewish!

Progressives justify this, they will call me transphobic for criticizing this. They are worse than Christians.

Read neoreaction, perhaps you will hate progressives if you realize they're just a heretical evolution of Christian thought.

atavisionary.com/the-cathedral-compilation-page/

>Crypto-Calvinism didn’t just appear overnight, it has been slowly evolving in the United States and particularly in the northeast ever since the constitution was written and religion was banned from government. In the same way natural selection can create complex emergent forms in nature without conscious guidance or goal, so too can the same process create complex and intricate memeplexes in culture without the requirement of central planning or a pre-imagined endpoint. (The current version of this article on la wik appears to have been gutted, so I used an archive)

Fair enough. I could have phrased it better. It does mean he is most likely out of communion with the church. Not the physical church, but the heavenly church. It's also not a teaching you can just toss aside. You'd need a pretty complex theological argument to knowingly deviate from the core teaching and not commit a mortal sin.

>God put the teapot there because it's part of his divine plan.
Go on, debate this.

>protip: you can't
Every time you show me evidence of the teapot not existing, I can just say you didn't look hard enough/God doesn't want you to see it.
It's an argument that can't be won, just like trying to disprove god himself.
If I say that there is in fact a flying teapot, it has to be up to me to prove it because the other way around it just can't be done.

I know you can be ethnically jewish if you descend from one of the original tribes. But just because someone converted to judaism and then had a kid does not now make the child ethnically jewish, you complete and utter retard.
>They're not comparible religions
They are all jewish desert cults and they need to go

Based white evangelicals. Atheists and other mudslime allies are high on the list of cretins that ought to go extinct.

An axiom is an assumption. Everything is assumed already. Literally. Existence is an assumption that we make every day. It's kind of dumb that we have to address any of these problems from this standpoint, but that's the state of the western world right now. Material reality is assumed, not proved.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=b270ka2eB_4
Do you feel something metaphysical about this colgate?

>You'd need a pretty complex theological argument to knowingly deviate from the core teaching and not commit a mortal sin.

Or just a sense that the people supposedly running your Church aren't even following the rules they're prescribing to you. I have respect for Catholics but the Church isn't the Church of St. Peter anymore. Far from it.

Maybe ya'll need a reformation to drain the sludge.

Evangelicals have their heart in the right place, but they've completely lost their way.

So, how can religion be innate to the child (religion being associated, or "innate" to a specific culture is a separate issue and equating the two would obfuscate the topic) and still be learned or acquired from the parents and surrounding culture? Are the two not mutually exclusive? Religion is the set of myths, legends, and doctrines which describe the Human condition. That's all. Is questioning our condition, probing it for the Five Ws to see what our "purpose" or best course of action is innate to Humanity? That, I will grant, user. Religion? No. It's a result of that deeper, granted innate need or compulsion to ask questions of ourselves.

It doesn't take much to believe that some if not most of the events in the bible are either based on actual historic events and people or biographically chronicle their life and teachings.

The issue comes from depictions of miraculous events and claims that certain events, words, or even people were directly influenced or created by God. Those become extremely difficult if not impossible to prove.

A teapot was a specific object created by human beings, which again isn't comparable to the idea of a Universe creating being.

Of course I hate progressives. They're anti science. I just happen to also hate religion. Yet despite my dislike of religion Is find myself on this board among hardcore christians because despite their fairytale delusions at least they're one of the few people willing to admit that there is an evolutionary difference between the races.