Are atheists real?

Can you seriously be delusional enough to be an atheist or is it simply spite?

Have people who call themselves atheists ever thought how it's logically impossible for a God to not exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Have people who call themselves atheists ever thought how it's logically impossible for a God to not exist?

This is retarded even by sheep-shagging standards but nonetheless a omnipotent being can by definition hide all traces of His existence. Thus the assertion that there is no God rests on the same blind faith as the assumption that God exists.

So his plan was to keep the obviously human made up bullshit laying around but hide the real, concrete proof of his existence safely hidden from human eyes forever
He sounds like a stupid motherfucker

"a omnipotent being can by definition hide all traces of His existence" What a perfectly worthless statement.

>Why are you hiding your flag faggot?

We wouldn't live in a universe that is observably contingent if an omnipotent being choose to hide himself.

>He sounds like a stupid motherfucker

Your assessment of His behavior sounds like that of an ant who watches a human foot smash his anthill. How arrogant must you be to attempt to apply human logic to the motives of a supernatural being?

What convinced me that atheism doesn't hold water is that there's no reason for anything in a godless universe. We're all useless meatbags who spawned from the cosmic locker room floor.

Ironically, I came to this conclusion while reading H.P. Lovecraft. If atheists were true to their worldview, they would treat waes, tornadoes, and kids dying of cancer as merely natural selection on a greater scale.

Atheists cannot account for empathy. Why have it? Those who are weak and dying deserve it, because nature has rejected them. Alas, the atheist does not typically laugh in the face of tragedy victims, and therefore he is a hypocrite.

>What a perfectly worthless statement.

Not an argument

>We wouldn't live in a universe that is observably contingent if an omnipotent being choose to hide himself.

Are you now assuming an omnipotent being is limited to the observable plane?

Okay, I got one for you "smarty pants" atheists in the thread:

If atheist God is real, then how come mommy says Jesus loves me very very much? KEEPING IN MIND that mommy would never lie to me and that I am her special boy.

I will await your "rebuttal"

>Universe is meaningless
>Decide to give it meaning by being kind of others and using natural empathy that evolved in human brains to account for being social animals
>I'm a "hypocrite" for being nice to others and wanting to be treated the same way

>Can you seriously be delusional enough to be an atheist or is it simply spite?
It's hubris, user

Literally yes.

Please explain the hypocrisy. Accepting reality as it is and then working within a human moral framework is not hypocritical. Fire is fire, evolution is a fact. These don't infer morals at all.

Don't mind me, just here to enjoy the shitstorm.

>How arrogant must you be to attempt to apply human logic to the motives of a supernatural being?
That's precisely what most religions attempt.

>The Word of God was written by humans

Not even trying, dude.

How retarded must you be to believe all this bullshit?

Sometimes I want a sky daddy too, it gets rough sometimes, I feel very lonely and life just seems too pitiless. Everything seems to lack meaning and all my efforts and desires seem empty.

But then I realize I'm not retarded enough to fall for that meme.

>How retarded must you be to believe all this bullshit?

How retarded must you be to reflexively take the contrarian position without a shred of additional proof to support you?

You may have moral intentions, but yu have no reason for it or way to account for it. Morality has to come from above me to have any authority over me.

There is no reason you should care about other people. It's a dog-eat-dog world. It is not within your interests to empty yourself and go to of your way for others.

I've noticed a lot of atheists these days shy away from Nietzsche. Probably because he accepted the ugly truth of a godless world.

What did Carl Sagan say? Nature is all there is, all there was, and all there will be. I.e. if it's not made of or derived from atoms, it does not exist.

>Why are you hiding your flag faggot?
Why not, big boy

Make yourself at home, user.

Same here, leaf.

>pic related
Gnostic atheists are the problem.

Atheist are the opposite of what they claim. They are illogical.

Natural disasters are not natural selection, they are a form of genetic drift

weak bait
Catholics created the big bang theory and believe in evolution.

>not natural selection
One cow has stronger bones than the other. Both are thrown in a tornado. The strong-boned cow survives and reproduces, the weak one dies with no offspring. Next generation of cows have stronger bones. You could learn this in high school.

You're the one who's supposed to bring the proof since you're making the claim that God exists.

A Catholic priest contributed to the theory, but claiming that Catholics invented it is seriously reaching

Can't tell if this is bait but either way it's hilarious so I'm not even mad

>Talking about religion
>Believes evolution is at odds with Theism

The big band theory is at odds with Theism because it dictates that the laws of the universe (such as hydrogen and oxygen creating water) sprung into magical existence.

im gay

No everyone knows God exists
Atheism is a circular philosophy

>I have no reason for it
Why do I need a reason? This is the biggest crux of your argument. I was raised in a society where certain moral principles are stressed, and I agree with them. If these moral principles come from some 'higher power' or not is literally meaningless. If they come from society itself, or from biology, or from an actual higher power literally doesn't matter. It's the same result.

>There's no reason to care about other people. It is not within your interests to empty yourself and go out of your way for others
Society has embraced certain ideals about charity and kindness, but the point of this is also flawed. I don't 'empty myself out' for people, especially not people I don't know or care about. I'll open the door for a frail little old lady because it's obvious that it will be hard for her to do it, and it costs me basically nothing. I'm not going to empty out my bank account because she gives me a sob story about not saving enough for retirement or anything. I'll toss out a few dollars to a struggling musician because I like their music, but I won't take time off work to go clean up trash by a highway. Nothing about this makes me a hypocrite.

>Carl Sagan, nothing exists if not derived from atoms

You're right. Brains are made of atoms. The electrical-chemical signals they send exist in the real world. Ideas ARE real, and morality IS real. Who gave it is not relevant. Why it is here, or why humans are here literally does not matter.

horrible OP low tier

But you know God exists

It doesn't' matter, the point is what his image claims is atheism could also be said about catholics, and we obviously believe in god.

>something that has never manifested itself in any measurable form must exist

>You're the one who's supposed to bring the proof since you're making the claim that God exists.

I didn't make any claim that God exists. I just said that logically there's no more validity in claiming He doesn't exist than in claiming He does.

Science is never at odds with religion if you're catholic. Maybe if you believe some made up heretic religion it could be.

The bible was written by humans.

God does not exist. There is no evidence to imply the existence of God. All living things grew from tiny single cell organisms, which can be proven by genetics. None were created as in the bible. The bible is no true, there is no physical method for which God could exist in this universe or interact with it, there is no mechanism for which any of the magic feats or powers God is ascribed to have to be possible, and there are thousands of other religious cultures with their own divine stories equally claiming to be correct. Therefore God cannot exist.

>evolution is a fact
Actually it's a theory. You probably don't know the difference. You can't even call it a law because it can't be written as an equation. It's basically an anecdote. An interesting one to be sure, but definitely not an indisputable FACT.

And to save you time with your inevitable autistic straw-man reply. I did NOT say that I think creationism is a FACT either. I was simply pointing out that your statement is wrong.

Do people unironically believe that the Bible being the "word of god" was god literally whispering into Jews ears the exact words he wanted written? How would you account for the numerous errors in the text of the Bible easily explained away by human failings?

Most atheists don't contend that a deity or deities are 100% impossible, simply that there isn't sufficient evidence to support any of them.

There doesn't seem to be much reason particularly to live one's life as if any exist unless something more concrete is provided.

>it's logically impossible for a God to not exist?
please elaborate.

Eveloution is a scientific theory.
Learn the difference
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

If the christian (jewish) god exists, he's a faggot who deliberately created things like cancer and pedophiles

I'd rather burn in hell than kneel to a tyrant

>He sounds like a stupid motherfucker
Your hatred of seething God is not my problem. I do know that the best way to determine someone's true nature is to watch what he does right or wrong when he's just sure that nobody can see him. Good people do good even when there's nothing to be gained from it and everything to be gained by doing bad. Bad people do whatever they can get away with and tell themselves, "It doesn't matter because there is no ultimate meaning in the universe anyway."

Guess what: You're already fucked.

>If the christian (jewish) god exists, he's a faggot who deliberately created things like cancer and pedophiles
You base this assertion on what again?
>I'd rather burn in hell than kneel to a tyrant.
And you won't understand why your false definition of "tyrant" didn't protect you even as you lose your mind to the endless pain in that inferno.

Truth is necessary, in order to examine evidence,
Show me how you can know anything to be true without God

I have a degree in nature science.

Evolution is made of a multitude of facts. A theory is a framework which explains an broader concept. Speciation events are facts. Novel genetic change is factual (most recently and strongly shown by the work of R. Lenski.) There are multiple facts shown in which adaptations occurs in both animals and microbiotic organisms.

There is also "Cell theory" and "Theory of Gravity" which themselves contain various facts into a larger coherent concept.

Before you start lecturing others, you should make sure you understand what you are talking about.

>The bible was written by humans.

Were those humans guided by God?

>Most atheists don't contend that a deity or deities are 100% impossible, simply that there isn't sufficient evidence to support any of them.

Logically there are equal amounts of evidence for either conclusion. If you are leaning one way or the other you are allowing your biases and prejudices to overcome reason.

>There doesn't seem to be much reason particularly to live one's life as if any exist unless something more concrete is provided.

All religions include a moral and ethical code that is beneficial to society as a whole. How many people might resort to antisocial behavior if not for religious pressure? This is to say nothing of the cultural bonds formed by shared religion. Europe thrived for over a millennium based on these bonds, it's not a coincidence that the wheels are coming off at the same time belief in Christianity is at a low. You don't even have to accept or deny the veracity of the word of God to accept this simple fact.

>Eveloution is a scientific theory.
I never said it wasn't. I just said it isn't a FACT, which of course it isn't. For some reason, that statement infuriates God-haters.

...

>american education
protestantism was a mistake

Colossians 1:16 you stupid fuck

why don't you study the religion you're shilling?

They just need a little boost. Like contact with some spirits. - I wont belive it if i dont see it

What does being kind have to do with believing in an omnipotent being?

>Good people do good even when there's nothing to be gained from it and everything to be gained by doing bad
This is a great point that can be used to demonstrate that faithless morality is superior and more genuine than your own. I do good deeds despite not believing that there's a higher power constantly watching over me while you do good deeds to secure your place in paradise. The latter isn't genuinely motivated by the desire to do good, while the former is.

You just fucked yourself.

Well they were a completely different race from modern Jews
Modern Jews are the product of race mixing with cannanites

...

Life is equally meaningless if you believe in god. Your entire life was predetermined, or god isn't omniscient.

>I have a degree in nature science.
Appeal to authority fallacy. You know you have a weak counterargument, so you attempt to bolster it by claiming that I should bow to your authority. Even if I believed you, and I don't, your identity is irrelevant.
>Evolution is made of a multitude of facts.
So is creationism. The difference is in the way those facts are explained. Nobody has ever seen one species evolve into another. (There's a well-known list of supposed instances of evolution being observed, but if you go through it one item at a time, you will see that I'm correct. A flower's genome radically changing in one generation for example is NOT in accord with Neo-Darwinism. Is should take far longer than one generation.)
>A theory is a framework which explains an broader concept.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the theory is right. Creationism attempt to explain the broader concept of the existence of myriad lifeforms on earth. That doesn't mean it's a fact. Same for evolution. It is a MODEL. It may or may not be correct.
>There is also "Cell theory" and "Theory of Gravity" which themselves contain various facts into a larger coherent concept.
Right, and no physicist today, not a single one, accept Newton's theory of gravity as correct.

NOT ONE.

The math works, but the theory of instantaneous force at a distance is known to be wrong. So again we see a theory that is not a fact.

As I say, for some reason, pointing out (quite correctly) that evolution is a theory and not a fact causes God-haters to just go berserk. They can't handle being told that a theory is just a theory. They can't handle the truth.

And on the account of "errors"
The bible was written by men who were inspired by God and has there own opinions and cultural bias written into it

that's only calvanism you dense fuck

Atheists are weak-minded people who believe whatever they hear enough. They simply absorb groupthink, by and large

>>american education
>protestantism was a mistake
This is not an argument, only an insult. I assume you have no way to defeat my prior assertions. Next time just write, "I cannot refute what you say."

>Logically there are equal amounts of evidence for either conclusion. If you are leaning one way or the other you are allowing your biases and prejudices to overcome reason.

These are word games that I find tiresome. Your statement is 'true' in a sense if you reject that we can take our senses as axiomatic. The fact that we are using computers right now to communicate with one another... are we really going to do the song in dance in which "We can't assume that the physical world has primacy despite the fact that I am currently entirely reliant on its use to forward my point."

>All religions include a moral and ethical code that is beneficial to society as a whole. How many people might resort to antisocial behavior if not for religious pressure?

Well your premise fails here. An appeal to consequences is by definition fallacious. The outcome of belief itself has no equity in determining the truth value of the proposition.

So your god isn't all-knowing? Then what makes him god?

Let them have it. Atheists who condemn spirituality are usually gay, or had religion shoved down thier throats as kids.

So God knowing something happened means that the person didn't freely choose to make that decision

There's a logical argument for god. There's no logical argument for
>Satan
>god wanting worship, praise etc.
>creating mosqutios and niggers wasn't a mistake
>that constitutional psychopaths (they are moral retards who are incapable of guilt) are compatible with the Christianity

That would be a fair point if that didn't completely discredit the idea of "Word of God". It's just the perspective of early Christian men with human bias. Its like me saying this post was "inspired" by divine influence. It holds no water.

>I do good deeds despite not believing that there's a higher power constantly watching over me while you do good deeds to secure your place in paradise.
I think you missed the point. "Nobody's watching" is the excuse used by bad people to justify their evil. I don't do good because God is watching. I do good because my inner God makes it intolerable to me to do evil. That sensation is why I suspect God really does exist.

Atheists don't have that sensation. A person without it and claims to do good does it for admittedly absolutely no reason. It has no significance over evil, no actual way to be defined and distinguished from evil.

You tell me you do good despite believing that we are an accident, have no purpose, and that everything we do (good or bad) will be ultimately destroyed and forgotten.

Basically you're telling me that your definition of good and bad is entirely arbitrary and that you basically insane because you choose to do one or the other for absolutely no fucking reason at all.

No, for god to be all knowing, he must know the future, or he isn't all knowing. Thus you didn't choose anything, or he couldn't know it.

>Were those humans guided by God?
No. Not all of the bible is direct quotes from what you consider to be your deity, much of it is postulation about Gods will by other characters in the bible, in other words attempting to apply human logic to the motives of God.

Satan (freewill)
Psychopaths (fallen world)
Niggers(so that others may know how good they have it)

>The fact that we are using computers right now to communicate with one another... are we really going to do the song in dance in which "We can't assume that the physical world has primacy despite the fact that I am currently entirely reliant on its use to forward my point."

Again, your observable world is limited and assuming it has primacy is vanity. There was a time when the logical conclusion people drew from their observable worlds was that the Earth was flat and/or everything revolved around it.

>Well your premise fails here. An appeal to consequences is by definition fallacious. The outcome of belief itself has no equity in determining the truth value of the proposition.

No one said anything about truth value. The assertion was this:

>There doesn't seem to be much reason particularly to live one's life as if any exist unless something more concrete is provided.

Clearly there is a value to the existence of religion, and belief in it, regardless of whether or not it is true.

>Its like me saying this post was "inspired" by divine influence.
So basically you're trying to assert that you KNOW they weren't inspired by God just because YOU never have been?

I would assume by similar "reasoning" you hold that there's no such thing as a pilot if you yourself have never flown a plane.

What I've been struggling with is the Jesus between myself and God.
I believe in God and often feel his design in my own life, but when I think that I have to believe that Jesus died for me, I get a sort of cringe feeling.
I think Jesus was pretty bad ass with the whole deny me in front of your friends, and I'll deny you in front of my father kind of talk.
But to believe such specific things for no other reason than because it's required just doesn't resonate.

There's this prayer:
I'm a sinner
I know I deserve to go to hell
I believe you died for me
Save me and give me eternal life
I'm only trusting in you.

I get the first two completely, but the you died for me is this external expression, which feels different than an expression towards God.
As for the the rest, well it's talking about Jesus, which I just don't understand why he needs to be there between us and God.
Just to continue the list, I don't know what eternal life is and am not sure I welcome such a thing.
And finally, I certainly trust in divine power to guide and shape my life.

I feel like I almost understand, but I just don't get why Jesus is between me and God.
Can an user please help me understand?

So you would take the words at face value if any biblical author came up to you and said they were influenced by a divine power. All I'm saying is they hold about as much credit as I do for saying their works were influenced by god.

I mean I would say that artist can be devinely inspired in the sense they are inspired by perceiving beauty which is a gift from God


But the new testament is inspired in a different way

To any atheist on this board.

But he could know that if I was to be born, the I would freely choose to do something

That's a fair assessment

Quick answer, if its 2017 and you still get mad over religion on either side , you're a nigger

What shitstorm? These threads end the same. Atheists talk reason, and theists post fedora and checkmate atheshit maymays.

So in the Catholic tradition,
The New Testament is devinely inspired because the authors were in certain positions of authority were when speaking on doctrine is guided by the Holy Spirit

>No. Not all of the bible is direct quotes from what you consider to be your deity, much of it is postulation about Gods will by other characters in the bible, in other words attempting to apply human logic to the motives of God.

No one said anything about direct quotes. Influence over the composition of a text does not entirely consist of direct quotes.

>Appeal to authority fallacy.

The point was to elucidate. The fallacy only occurs if it is being used as evidence itself, which it was not, as points were presented afterward.

>So is creationism. The difference is in the way those facts are explained. Nobody has ever seen one species evolve into another.

Evolution generally occurs on large time scales. I actually specifically referred to Richard Lenski's experiments which showed in a laboratory environment novel genetic changes in E.coli bacteria, which is a major underpinning point to Evolutionary Theory.

>There's a well-known list of supposed instances of evolution being observed, but if you go through it one item at a time, you will see that I'm correct.

Then state your evidence.

>Yes, but that doesn't mean the theory is right.

You do not understand a scientific theory on a conceptual level. It has no real association with the colloquial term.

>It is a MODEL. It may or may not be correct.

Again, this is simply incorrect.

>Right, and no physicist today, not a single one, accept Newton's theory of gravity as correct.
NOT ONE.

You understand that modern advances have built upon the understanding from prior knowledge. For the modern understanding of gravity to replace Newtonian Mechanics it had to explain the physical results from Newton's understanding.

It is a feature of self-improvement, and Newton's work still holds generally when dealing with sub-light motion.

>The math works, but the theory of instantaneous force at a distance is known to be wrong. So again we see a theory that is not a fact.

However, the theory contains facts. Going back to evolution, we still have a novel mutation in E.Coli sitting in a lab in which allows E.Coli to consume a new food source. Not only that but 30,000 some generations of bacteria stored to show the direct path of changes. This is a fact, that is contained within Evolutionary Theory that must be explained to superseed it.

>I believe in God and often feel his design in my own life, but when I think that I have to believe that Jesus died for me, I get a sort of cringe feeling.
This is speculation, but I personally don't think Jesus was literally "punished for our sins." That is, I do not believe the bible actually intends that we pretend one man can take the punishment for another's transgressions.

Jesus came because we were off course. He came to put us back on the path. Now how to you make sure that your story will be told for generations rather than again being promptly forgotten? Well, dying and rising from the dead would certainly leave a lasting impression.

Did that really happen? I don't know. I DO know that the early Christians were persecuted from all sides, but spread their faith despite great risk because SOMETHING they had witnessed had such a profound effect on them that all the danger was worth the reward. I suspect they really did see a dead man come back to life.

So Jesus did not die as punishment for my sins. He came here and willingly died to put me back on course because I'm a fallible human. The mistakes of my people led directly to his death. In that sense, he died for (because of) my sins and the sins of those like me.

The New Testament is filled with Jesus trying to make it clear that goodness is in the purpose, not the technical details of the laws of God. The Pharisees had turned righteousness into a corrupt court of lawyers. Jesus came and said, for example, it doesn't actually matter if you're out picking wheat berries on sabbath day with dirty hands. That's not what makes you good or bad.

>So you would take the words at face value if any biblical author came up to you and said they were influenced by a divine power.
Of course not. God game me a brain so I would think. I will not, however, discount the possibility that God has spoken to someone just because he's never appeared before me.

>Atheists talk reason
Sure, sure they do. Sure.

what created god?

God is logical because it explains how everything got moving. No Satan is required for that. The only thing we can know about God is that he is capable of creating universes. There is no better basis believe that God dictated anything to anyone (particularly some Heebs) that there is to believe that he is doing so now.

Men with genetic-based incapacity for empathy or guilt run the world. They do not really have free will and don't comprehend what is meant by "sin". They profoundly affect those who do. They don't have souls or have lost them.

>everything came from nothing
>everything came because of magic
Can someone come up with a decent explanation?

So, personal question, has God ever appeared before you? I would assume you must have felt some sort of connection with this being if you pledged you unwavering loyalty to it.

Science and God are not different things. God created everything. We don't know exactly how. Science can only explain the physical world, you can't have every bit of knowledge with science alone.

>The point was to elucidate.
It served no purpose in the debate. We both know why you wrote it
>Evolution generally occurs on large time scales. I actually specifically referred to Richard Lenski's experiments which showed in a laboratory environment novel genetic changes in E.coli bacteria.
Right, but it didn't create a new species. Not even creationist deny what they call "microevolution." They know tall parents tend to have tall kids.
>Then state your evidence.
Amazing how fast you atheists drop that "burden of proof" shit when it works against you. I say there's nothing on the list that shows evolution of a new species. You say, "Show me absence of that in all items on the list." I'm pretty sure the burden falls upon YOU to show me a single instance of a new species evolving by Darwinian means in the lab.
>You do not understand a scientific theory on a conceptual level.
That's a fallacy. I'm using the dictionary definition of a scientific theory. It is NOT a fact.
>You understand that modern advances have built upon the understanding from prior knowledge.
You're evading. Newton's theory of gravity is incorrect. It is NOT a fact. No theory is a fact. A fact is a different thing from a theory.
>[Adaptation of E. coli] is a fact.
I didn't say it wasn't a fact. I said that the Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory. If you think the E. coli adaptation PROVES it, you truly do not understand the scientific method. No theory is ever PROVEN. They can only be disproved. They are NOT facts.