Atheists blown the fuck out?

Honest question
How can someone that has read ANY philosophy, especially Descartes, Hume, Kant and the likes deny the fact that God exists? Do you honestly belive yourself to be smarter than the most respected philosphers of all fucking time?
>m-muh Nietzsche
Brainlets without university degrees need not apply.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kPRviHmjh8Q
youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E
youtu.be/NR5ODNDtGTA
youtu.be/rSt-zUh0ifg?list=PLmiAycMDMUDMgzylEi17gYeamq8s1ncrq&t=909
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I dunno - I laugh at Zeus the same as Jesus

I don't care about god or religion.
i'm not denying or believing.
i just don't care.

I believe in God, but not the Christian version of God.

Why do Christcucks always assume that believing in God must equal believing everything in the Bible or in a personal savior?

I'd like to point out that Isaac Newton believed alchemy is real.
I don't think I am smarter than Isaac Newton, I just think Isaac Newton was wrong about said thing.

There were many Christian philosophers and scientists throughout the years, and their philosophy is interesting and useful.
That doesn't mean we should just agree with them on everything.

Descartes said that because EVERY triangle has three sides, the universe works by laws, and that there must be a creator.

But it's equally as likely that the universe has laws just because it does.

It's the jump from natural laws to there must be a god that gets me.

And assuming there is a god, it's surely nothing human, and it surely doesn't speak exclusively to a select few people on earth.

So yeah, there might be some kind of force of "order" or "law", but this in no way, shape, or form implies the existence of a creator. All it implies is that nature likes to try and be organized, or at least that humans can find organization in nature. That's the extent of what you can logically conclude through Descartes' arguments.

A wise man would not argue that something can come from nothing. The believe in god is the most reasonable thing. Christians got it right though.

Deutschlandischer, sehen Sie:

Living in a country where you can go to the rape cages for having a literal flower off a plant, it's pretty hard to believe there is a god. If there is a god it's not very just.

thats a fat kitty

Depends on your definition of god. Is god just another universe? Is god a force? Is god consciousness? Is god the skydaddy in the christian bible?

These definitions matter. If you're saying God is the thing they write about in the bible you have a lot of work cut out for you. You not only have to prove said God exists, you have to prove jesus was indeed his son. You have to prove all the miracles and stories in the bible actually happened. You gotta prove that snakes can talk and women are made from ribs etc.
Us atheists find all of that pretty hard to swallow without evidence.

every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and other faggot who thinks they know anything about God because of some text written by primitive people to control even more primitive people is a moron

P.S. I believe in God

Isn't there a study out there that showed atheists had a much higher chance of being autistic? And it was most likely the physical/mental defect that causes them to struggle with relationships that was causing them to struggle with forming a relationship and faith in god?

This.

...

(((God))), (((Yahweh))), and (((Allah))) are all jewish spooks, believing in any one of these is literally letting the jews control your mind and thoughts

youtube.com/watch?v=kPRviHmjh8Q

>skydaddy

If this is the sum total of you reading the Bible you are a brainlet. Start over.

but i knew when i was 8. no one told me, i just thought all the adults were pretending

Sorry, read the entire bible over and over multiple times.
Skydaddy is a great description whether you like it or not. Jesus refers to him as our father plenty.
If god doesn't like that role, his followers sure did like assigning it to him.

That's a very standard answer amon people ho have NOT read the bible, save a handful of verses and still looking up a (((study))) page on said verses.

And I am fooling myself trying to convince you to read the Bible in earneast because you won't.

Perhaps you could read John 1 for starters?

>Us atheists find all of that pretty hard to swallow without evidence.


Any yet you BELIEVE that there is no god on no evidential foundation - you actually believe that something could come from nothing and resort to explanation like infinite regression and word definition to avoid the metaphysical and logical evidence to stay in your "religious" comfort zone.

You question reveal that you lack substantial knowledge to debate this matter at first hand.

To "believe" that something can come from nothing (no matter, no space, no time) and just popped accidently into existence is preposterous. Even the "mathematically" Model is hard to believe in since they claim that the universe could be flat (2D) and we live in some kind of Schödingers Cat state where we exist and not exist. It is preposterous.

The can find evidence of intelligent design everywhere just look at phi or other constants.

The problem you are facing is that the result of the insight that there is a God, an almighty creator not bound by time, space nor matter would mean that your life is not relative, nor the decisions you make will be. There is a divine law and order and morality, which are not relative.

You will be held accountable.

>but god came from nothing and thats fine

Did I EVER specify which god? No.

>
>A wise man would not argue that something can come from nothing.

Subatomic particles and antiparticles pop continually pop into existence and annihilate each other out of existence. It depends on what you consider nothing to be. The universe is full of unintuitive things.

>The believe in god is the most reasonable >thing. Christians got it right though.

Christians and other believers always always fall back onto this, because they have nothing substantial. "God exists because he just kinda has to, it just makes more sense". But that's looking at the universe in a humanistic way, relying on order and reason. Why does the universe have to make sense to a human mind? It doesn't.

>142134624
>but god came from nothing and thats fine
That's the kicker, isn't it? There the same arguments, but Christians add the redundant layer of complexity.

this
>this
this
>this
this
>this
this
>this
this
>this

posting images that make you think

1/?

2/?

I don't know, prove it

Dude you don't understand. I went to sunday school, church, had bible study in class every day all throughout my years as I grew up. The bible is not some new book to me.
On top of that, I read it all by myself as entertainment for years.
I don't know it as well as priests do, but I know most of it pretty well.

I'm not saying something came from nothing, I'm saying there's no evidence it came from the God in the bible.

3/?

4/?

You have to assess for yourself if you prefer to be the product of intelligent creation, therefore with a purpose in existence or the product of billion and billion of random "accidents" and totally meaningless and relative.

Darwin called his theory not "The Devils Gospel" for no reason.


Take care user :)=

7

8

...

youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E

user.

>How can someone that has read ANY philosophy, especially Descartes, Hume, Kant and the likes deny the fact that God exists?
At the time Descartes and Kant were writing, totalitarian theists were still putting atheists and blasphemers to death. So of course everybody is smart enough to say they were pious and devout and get published, rather than tell the truth and get tortured/burned/drowned to please all the loving, caring, bloodthirsty gods.

...

>every single action of god took place inside that circle
>posts universe that was created by god

w e w

>Subatomic particles and antiparticles pop continually pop into existence and annihilate each other out of existence.


If you cant trust in god you should at least trust in the laws of thermodynamics.

And please dont argue with Schrödiners Cat I agree though that there are things way beyond our realm of imagination and intuitivity. That does not make the metaphysical approach towards fundamental questions invalid.

>particles pop in and out of existence

I heard this quantum physicist on joe rogan chat about this the other day and he says this actually not true. It turns out to be even weirder.

IIRC it seems that what is actually real is the probability that the particle will be in a certain place. The cloud of probabilities is real. The particle being in a certain place happens when we observe. It never pops in and out of existence. (Yes I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around it)

Here's the video if you're curious about it user.
youtu.be/NR5ODNDtGTA

>Is unironically a believer
>Claim to have university degrees
kek

>read the Bible
That's how atheists are created.

The religions we have now are remnants of a science the first sentients had used to interface with what we call God which is really a race of beings to which this universe particularly is their technology a type of calculator. They probably exist in the same context ad absurdim and the origin source of the omnidimensional hyperspatial structure exists in a context I don't think we can physically understand man or demiurge

Because if God exists then he is loving.
The story of jesus is largely left to faith. But it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense for it to be anything else.
He wasn't muhammad or Joseph Smith tier profit seeking prophet. He wasn't insane. So what was he?

The inner doctrines of modern and ancient spiritualisms and religions reflect the same story of a type of fall occurring. We fucked up the machine. We think were alive but compared to before the fall (from full interface with the superstructure ) its actually the realm of the dead. We can end up in worse realms well probably convince ourselves were alive at the pinnacle of energy there too

If I were a paedophile, I would also accuse God of being a paedophile.

>I'd like to point out that Isaac Newton believed alchemy is real.
I like to point out that before Lavoisier (who lived almost two centuries later), there was no difference between chemistry and alchemy.

youtu.be/rSt-zUh0ifg?list=PLmiAycMDMUDMgzylEi17gYeamq8s1ncrq&t=909