We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore God

>We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore God.
This is God cuck argumentation in a nutshell. Note I said argumentation, since that's all God cucks have. Word games and not actual evidence or experiments for any of their claims. Pic related, typical God cuck that wishes he'd go to heaven where he won't be an ugly fat loser.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/_20yiBQAIlk
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Atheists in the 1960's believed the universe to be infinite age and held that notion of "creation" was a religious idea. Then of course the cosmic background radiation was discovered which strongly suggested a creation event and a non-infinite aged universe - essentially proving Genesis 1 - and BTFO every fedora. They quickly scrambled to embrace it and pretend they held that idea all along. Today, you can barely find an atheist that knows this fact about their own religion.

Fedoras BTFO!!!

Wow, it's almost as if science is capable of admitting when it's wrong about something!

Atheists are pathetic wastes of soul and flesh.

i am that i am

It's completely retarded to suggest that the Big Bang proves the creation story in Genesis. That's the thing with every argument Christian apologists trot out - they can only be applied to deism, not Christianity. You can't prove that the "supreme being" in your deductive arguments is the specific one that you worship. Just be honest with everyone and admit that you believe what you do without evidence.

>atheism = science
Hahahahahahahahahaha go blow yourself you retard
Science has never made a philosophical or religious claim, because by it's very nature it cannot. It only deals with humans and our limited ability at measuring our universe. It cannot and will never be able to address claims outside of our universe, such as one of a God or other realms of existence, because it is designed to use what we can perceive or deduce in order to come to conclusions about the nature of our universe.
Science discovered the big bang. Atheists adjusted their belief system to incorporate it, because their previous assertions were proven incorrect. Science did not say that Atheists were correct or that Theists were correct. It simply announced the discovery. Stop conflating your weak belief system with science, because the two are impossible to reconcile

>>We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore God.
That's not how riligi-cucks think.

Atheism is not a belief system, you mouthbreathing yank. It's the absence of one. You were the one who was conflating atheism with the scientific community. Your original post was pure, unadulterated bullshit from start to finish.

>formless void
>Let there be LIGHT
BTFO
Science, even when "perfected", could never explain the reality we live in.
youtu.be/_20yiBQAIlk

That's how science works you dumb shit.
Ideas aren't held because of muh god said so or because it said so in some shitty book. If we have better ideas that contradict old ideas, we change them. That's how you get closer the truth.

You don't think that similar parallels could be found in other religious faiths?

>being this mad about other people
Unironically kill yourself.

>Science, even when "perfected", could never explain the reality we live in.
Maybe it can or cannot, we don't know that. Even if it can't, the explanations it does provide are closer to the truth and more useful.

It's no coincidence that we got rockets and aeroplanes only after religion lost its grip on society.

>Atheism is not a belief system, you mouthbreathing yank. It's the absence of one.

Atheism is the lack of BELIEF in a god
Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge.

It says it right in the definition you mongoloid. You have a lack of BELIEF that is not in any way tied to knowledge.

It requires faith. But it's oh so much more. Modern Atheism, hedonistic nihilism, cultural marxism - it's all the same soul crushing worldview and ideology.

Of course they can, but he's an American Christ cuck and has been raised in this nonsense since his birth, he's incapable of viewing anything rationally. If he'd been born in Pakistan, he'd be fucking goats and praising Allah just as fervently.

Wrong again. Agnosticism is "I don't know if I believe in God or not". Atheism is "I don't believe in God based on lack of evidence".

"Hard" atheism ("I strongly believe that God doesn't exist based on faith") is very uncommon compared to soft atheism.

Are you that retard spamming Varg-Paganshit in every thread?
Why don't you go back to Jewtube?

No it isn't.
There is nothing that binds atheists beyond the lack of belief in a God(s).
You're almost an atheist yourself, just one more fairytale to go.

What the fuck are you talking about? You can be atheist and right-wing. If you don't believe in God, then that doesn't mean you have to support feminism, gay rights, etc.

You also seem to be suggesting that there are no secular philosophies other than nihilism, which is almost depressingly naive. Ever heard of stoicism?

>british
>atheist
imagine my shock

>I drew an unflattering drawing of the people I disagree with so they must be wrong

I said God cucks in my op. That includes the Christ cucks and the autists larping as Thor in the woods.

>American
>dumbass

Imagine my shock

>specific one that you worship

Most monotheistic Gods are very similar in nature. At the core they're all pretty much the same.

Essentially, God is an omnipotent being. The differences between the religions are differences in human culture and perspective as a means of helping the people live a better way of life for the culture it dominates.

Like Arabs and pork, there was a time when swine was dangerous to eat. Not anymore, but hence why they were told not to eat it. They knew it'd kill you.

The masses of normies don't know this, and are idiots and have to have a book and tenants and structure to guide their life. This applies across all religions. The non-normie religious folk generally understand the reasons behind it all, and still believe what they want, but aren't going to get upset when you say you're an atheist.

Outside the Abrahamic religions, no. The accounts of the OT are thought to be up to 6,000 years old and wouldve been unrecorded until writen language. The examples you may be thinking of (Zoroastrianism) were of the same oral history origin.

Stoicism isn't the best example my man, since it is hard to separate from deism.
Existentialism is the best example, though there is also Christian existentialism.

>>We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore God.
>This is God cuck argumentation in a nutshell. Note I said argumentation, since that's all God cucks have.

that's all we need :^)

Check the ID you fucking retard. I wasn't even the one you were talking to. Just goes to show how fucking retarded you are
Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. Regardless of your justification, be it lack of evidence or otherwise, it is still the BELIEF that no God exists. Therefore Atheism is a belief system. Shroud it in definitions or linguistic sleight of hand all you like, but ultimately the core concept shines through and your crappy belief system is shown for what it is: Another religion just like all the others

So you're saying you're just playing pick and mix. Wow, very scientific and surely a great way to establish truth regarding objective reality!

The only way to truly know is to die. So you should just kys and then report back to us. GO! GO! GO!

>there's no god
A plethora of individual, including some scientist like Rick Strassman have had spiritual experiences, in his scientific publications, Strassman shamelessly mentions his experiences.

>Provides no counter argument as to why this notion is flawed

You don't prove anything with argumentation. Especially when that argumentation is entirely comprised of pure reasoning. You can replace god with 4th dimension reptillians in the average god cuck argument and it would still be completely logically consistent.

I'm highly sceptical of the claim that the Abrahamic religions are the only ones which made claims so ambiguous

And do you also think that one similarity is enough to handwave away the legends in the Bible which contradict scientific evidence (like the global flood)?

>wow, its almost as if

This is not only goybook fedora talk, but insufferable even to most on goybook.

I was going to say fuck off back there but youve probably been exiled.

Okay, that's nice, but that does absolutely nothing to prove the existence of God.

There is no pick and mix, there just is.

I acknowledge that we exist, and I acknowledge that there is a greater power out there.

Me personally I grew up Christian so I will follow that faith. But I don't think that if you don't believe Jesus is the messiah that you'll go to hell.

My point being, there is a single omnipotent thing beyond human comprehension that started life as we know it and is what we would call God. Not some dude with a beard playing the sims with our lives. God reaches out to the entire universe(s).

The parts with certain rules to live by are ultimately for the betterment of mankind, so people have order and structure. Whether or not you want to believe them is up to the individual.

Why do you assume we owe it to you to get a career and then work for free proving god to you?

You're filling our current gaps in knowledge with God. God cucks have been doing this (to a lesser and lesser extent every year) over the last few centuries as science fills the gaps. I'm sorry that you're a retard and couldn't make this inference yourself from my original post.

So? Even if you're not the same person, you were still defending his argument. Mentioning this is completely irrelevant.

And claiming that atheism is a belief system is like claiming that off is a TV channel. Atheism does not state the non-existence of God as an assertion (that's antitheism, or "hard atheism") - the non-existence of God is a conclusion reached based on lack of evidence. I will agree that asserting that God doesn't exist is as groundless as claiming that he does, but that's not the actual definition of atheism.

Okay, so you admit you have absolutely no scientific basis for your beliefs and do everything due to your want to believe, your upbringing, and your larger social envoronemmt. I think you're an idiot for doing that, but I have no qualms with you.

>gaps
We don't have gaps, we have an unfillable abyss, best we have is four shitty theories that don't fit together, retard.

Anybody saying that gods are there to fill the gaps of science should be skinned alive and forced to study actual science.

Hardly. The deist idea of a monotheistic God and creator is self-evident. My faith is certainly to Christ though for good reason given that the Bible exists and it's testimoney and truth is palpable. That and given my own unexplainable salvation and the witnessing of literally 2 Billion humans is a testament to the veracity of the Christian gospel.

You can't prove God (it's impossible, it's akin to proving fairies), but if you could, you'd be the most famous person in human history and essentially immortalised.

Never been on Facebook.

Are you going to make an actual point or what?

inb4 some christcuck copies and pastes the drivel of St. Anselm or Thomas Aquinas

Yes. I don't have to have a scientific basis for it. It's faith.

Depends on the field you're talking about. And that is precisely what God cucks do when they say "no explanation for the big bang, therefore, my specific God from my specific religion did it!".

Thank you for the honesty.

>He thinks that all matter was spontaneously created in the form of an immensely dense particle that then exploded into an entire universe
>Thinks God has nothing to do with this
>Doesn't realize that even without all matter in the universe, the universe is still a 3 dimensional space that had to be created at some point and we'll never know how
And you think Godcucks are dumb.

Why god though? Why can't it be lizard people with God like powers from the 78th dimension? There is literally no qualitative difference in the explanation I just pulled out of my arse and you saying God did it. Both are basically infallible and outside the realm of science... meaning they're useless explanations.

You as an atheist are the ally of the feminist, the faggots, the cuck, and the muslim in your united fight to destroy Christianity. You say you dislike them but they are your brothers in arms against Western Christendom. You may disagree, but if Christianity "falls" so to does the west. Church and state, body and soul, inseparable. Yet you unapologeticly aide the enemy in their primay objective.

As an atheist, let's assume you're wrong, what now?

I agree with you, I'm not a religious person and don't think a specific God is real. All I'm saying is that there had to be a creator figure at some point, as you can't create or destroy matter, only change it.

God is everything. The texts are just human interpretations of old minds.

God is the atoms that build us. Everyone and everything has one thing in common. Atoms. These atoms are shared and have never had a beginning nor an end.

Take human perspective out of the equation, and you don't need to have answers or anything because you don't comprehend the need for answers. You just are and always will be.

Life is life.

Scientists also hold that gender is a spectrum. And I say scientists very loosely.
To me, there is no real science anymore, it's just who can get the most funding.

great response
give this man an award.
if being an atheist is so good why did you get mad at me for pointing out they british stereotype?

>He doesn't think that this immensely dense particle is God
>Thinks God is a being
>Doesn't realize that even without all matter in the universe, we can only perceive 3 dimensions that may have no beginning nor end

This is a fair argument, really. Except for one thing. People seem to perceive God as some person or being. God is not that, God is something beyond human comprehension. The texts are just human explanation.

>This is God cuck argumentation in a nutshell.

Of course that's not the argument. It's not even a good strawman. You phrase it like it's an argument from ignorance (which would be a fallacy). But that's not how the cosmological argument runs in nay of its variations over the centuries.

Rather, it's a deductive argument--pure logic. If you simultaneously hold the premises that the universe is not infinitely old and that all effects have a prior cause, then you *must* believe that the universe began by some priori cause. Aquinas (following Aristotle) called this the First Cause. This prior cause can't be part of the universe itself, otherwise you just get an infinite regress (there needs to be a cause prior to *that* cause). If you think the universe is without beginning or end, fine, you don't need a first cause. If you think that effects can just occur spontaneously without prior causes, fine, but then you have a view that is contrary to physics--and anti-scientific view of a random universe that could not be reliably studied and would be a capricious and random place at the level of matter. It also is no solution to claim that the idea of God as a first cause of the universe is as prone to infinite regress as a physical cause: God is not a part of the physical system of the universe, and God can be infinite even though the universe is not. So, indeed, some first cause that is non-physical and (at least) older than the universe, if not infinite, is the only possible conclusion if you think the universe is finite. Again, that's just deductive logic--no empirical observations are required, no "evidence", it's not a probabilistic argument, it's not a scientific argument.

Make an inane post, get an inane reply. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

He's probably some teenager that takes shit personally.

He can't even type properly. Gives us religious folks a bad name. Good job 9v2Ue1X0. Good job.

>God exists if I invent my own definition of the word that's completely different from the commonly accepted definition

Pantheism is literally semantics

Both of you are acting like giant faggots.
Stop bickering like a divorced couple.

>people dont care that i'm atheist
You should be careful who you come out of the closet to. I have a good jew-dar at detecting unbelievers like you. If I ever had a choice between and atheist and a believer of any religion i'd not hesitate. You will find it will hold you back in life when you wear your figurative fedora in public.

That's a nice metaphor, but it's useless and does nothing.

My biggest reason to not believe in anything is the fact that so many religions exist, that it would be absurd to just pick one for no particular reason.

Only in America. Here you're more likely to get funny looks if you say you're a Christian than an atheist. I know literally no one who goes to Church who's under about 60.

But keep on believing that the whole world is your backwards flyover state if you want to

Give me proof there is no God and that you know for a fact what happened before, during and right after "big bang".

Else, take your fedora and fuck off

>Lazyness

Everything is semantics. Everything we know and understand is only through human communication and language. I'm not saying my beliefs are 100% right either. No one's is and no one can 100% prove that what they believe is correct.

The only reason why I say that, even for science with actual physical facts in front of you, is that the only thing you can truly know exists are the thoughts in your head. For all you know, you could be a brain in a jar being fed information.

>flood
modern geology to the rescue
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

If someone is making a claim that something exists, then the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does.

If I told you that I own a gold mansion and you immediately called bullshit, would it be up to you to prove that I didn't have one? Of course not. I would be the one who would have to prove I owned one.

I'm not an unbeliever. I just have a different perspective than you do. That's all.

It's not a metaphor, it's just something that can have a scientific basis, or an attempt at one, but I'm too lazy to do so. There may be one somewhere out there. All I can do is explain it.

Laziness does not explain away my concern. I've read the bible, and grew up going to church. But I've also read the Quran, and I love reading about history.

There is absolutely no reason to pick one religion over the other, because none of them have any concrete proof.

Typical pond scum response.

The "God of the Gaps" is an invention by atheists that shows how historically-uninformed they are. No Christian has ever worshipped a "God of the Gaps"--the God of the Bible is not a God of the Gaps. It's laughable that you think "over the last few centuries...science fills the gaps" of our knowledge. Science--the method--is good for acquiring scientific knowledge, just like a coffee-maker is good for acquiring coffee. But you are the sort of one-dimensional idiot who thinks that science can "fill the gaps" in our non-scientific knowledge, because you mistake all knowledge for scientific knowledge. You're trying to use your coffee maker not just for coffee, but to cook your breakfast and wash the dishes afterwards, too. The "gaps" you see everywhere, where other, more intellectually sophisticated people put God, are not gaps in scientific knowledge because they are not the domain of science.

The Bible describes the flood as encompassing the whole world. If the Black Sea flood really was the flood in the Old Testament, then the Bible is suspiciously keen on using hyperbole. You know, what with it supposedly being infallible and all.

You're reaching. And if you go purely on Biblical chronology (as James Ussher did) then the Earth can't be older than 4004 BC, before the Black Sea flood happened.

Young Earth Creationists may get laughed at, but they're the ones who are actually following their holy book as they're supposed to. Are you?

*chokes on McDonald's*

>filling gaps
That's precisely what science does with the fragmented fossil record that cant prove speciation, abiogenesis and how working proteins could never randomly occur, cosmology and how nothing suggests a Genesis event has ever occurred outside our own yet fedoras have an absolute obsession with alien life despite zero evidence ever.

Science of the Gaps

>If someone is making a claim
If someone has a belief, you don't get to convince him out of this belief by claiming evidence to him and then having the nerve to discard his personal experiences.

on this note...

Our backwards flyover states have a substantially higher GDP than your inbred UK.

You are no longer relevant anymore, you're a nation of immigrants now.

how did i not type that properly you fucking retard?

i guess adults can only tell when someone writes properly.

>no capitalization
>disregarding punctuation
>Pointing out they british stereotype

Ah, so I guess I'd be in the wrong if I tried to tell a schizophrenic person that it's all in their head when they're having a psychotic episode. Can't be discounting his personal experiences, can we?

Personal faith and experiences account for nothing in the real world.

Are you seriously going to argue that religious explanations have not been replaced or pushed back by science? Since the big bang became the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe, God cucks have latched onto it and now claim God caused it. The God of the gaps isn't an invention of atheists, it's an observation of the behaviour of God cucks over the last century.

>putting that much fucking effort into posting on Sup Forums

holy shit i knew people on here had autism but this is something else.

you should probably kill yourself.

You sound almost proud of your homelands impending destruction. Weird, like youre a kike or something.

Of course user, nevermind that you saw your wife sexually interacting with Tyrone, it was all in your head and your son is mulatto because race is a social construct.

Says the nation that's only 63% white

A country that's home to fucking Baltimore and Detroit has zero right to lecture others about being taken over by brown people

Outside of London and Birmingham it's actually not that bad here

You're repeating garbage spewed by that faggot that owns the Christian museum with dinosaurs, you do realise that, yes?
Every misunderstanding you've just mentioned you could clear up with an article or a lecture, but you're too invested into your delusion to do it.

That'd be a fair point if the big bang was 100% fact.

But again, you weren't there to see it. The data comes only from a telescope and speculation. By believing in the big bang theory you're simply believing that something happened because someone else told you. Have you ever personally, physically seen the evidence?

If not, you're no worse than faith.

God asks that we observe the truths behind our creation dumb dumb.

How do you know that all of your memories happened exactly as you remember them? How do you even know that your dreams didn't really happen?

Personal experiences are coloured by cognitive biases. Of course a religious person will interpret an unusual occurrence as being a religious experience; they've already been conditioned to do so.

The time of Noah is pre-written language, these stories as recorded have shown true in many ways that no other religion has. Though you fail to recognize the flood as a global event does change much Biblically.

>Being this mad
If you can't apply yourself for five seconds of proper grammar, how can I expect you to apply yourself to real life?

Outside of Baltimore and Detroit it's actually not that bad here.

Except, Baltimore and Detroit have no affect on myself or the majority of states. Just the state they reside in.

>Note I said argumentation, since that's all God cucks have. >Word games and not actual evidence or experiments for any of their claims.
I've never seen the word "argumentation" used in this way, and I think it's inaccurate.