>TFW too smart too be religious
>Be Me be raised in Progressive California
>Raised Catholic due to my Mexican Heritage
>go to church and do the sacraments
>High school comes and Atheism on YouTube explodes.
>Most High School friends not religious ask them why?
>link me to all the fallacies and the lack of proof
Become an Atheist.
>fast forward and see the cuckness of the lack of faith
>try and get back to the faith
>Can't believe in a skydaddy
When did you give up on religion
Other urls found in this thread:
>consign yourself to world of dust
>consign yourself to hope
Choose least niggery one
"Too smart" is something only dumbasses believe is a legit reason to do or not do something. I get personal preference but the too smart shit is just a mega gay thing to say
Nobody here is joining your hipster doofus cult religion.
Sage
Read Edward Feser. Study the perennial philosophy. Stop being a pleb pseudo intellectual
Actually you are now in the realm of chaos between Religion and Individualism, you understood that the stoopid masses need christianity for society to be stable but you took the pill and now you have to live with the big picture, it''s hard, but i believe worth it
>Fallacies and lack of proof
This means nothing you fedora tipping ledditfag. You cannot trace the origins of the first thing to ever be conceived, therefore a higher power must exist. Think instead of mindlessly sucking the next cock train like a faggot.
>t spic
>Fallacies and Lack of proof means nothing
That means everything you moron.
>atheism
>smart
All physical entities have a beginning and end
Since the universe is made of physical entities, it must have a beginning
Since it cannot create itself, something must have created it
That is god
To be atheist is literally to be ignorant of reason
Confirmed for having daddy issues
I never had it to begin with.
But user, you don't have to actually believe in religion in order to make it work for you, and use it to shape society into one you want to live in. That's what it's always been for, but it doesn't work unless most people don't know that.
No one gives a fuck about your pathetic life story. Fuck off.
>Since it cannot create itself, something must have created it
Ice crystals look complex. They cannot have created themselves. Therefore the logical explanation is not that they formed by natural process, but that an invisible super genius manually sculpted them into that shape.
Do you see the problem with this? The cause of everything we have so far discovered has always been natural processes, not invisible supernatural beings. Why should that pattern not extend back to the big bang?
There is nothing which logically requires the mechanism behind the big bang to be intelligent. That step in your reasoning is totally unsupported and contradicted by the pattern of natural causation so far observed.
literally in 3rd grade when i found out santa claus wasn't real
Welcome to the ouroboros, jew
>TFW too smart too be religious
>TOO BE RELIGIOUS
Come now
Also read some religious philosophers. Sky-daddy is a terrible over-simplification.
>Can't believe in a skydaddy
no one actually believe this you fucking faggot
im not even religious and i know that religious text is more sophisticated than >muh skywizard
>the Big Bang
This is not a theory of the creation of the universe, it is a copout
If the universe came from a densely packed piece of matter then what created that?
This cycle will and could possibly go on forever, god is not what started our universe
God is not a being, god is the source from which all being spring from
Even if their are "creators" in between the creation of our universe and THE universe it is irrelevant
The worship of god in the Christian sense is the worship of the wellspring of being itself
>>*became an agnostic. blind atheists are just as retarded as the blindly religious
Evangelical Atheist shill blue pill thread
>This is not a theory of the creation of the universe, it is a copout
No, inventing a magical invisible super being to explain it without any evidence is a copout
>If the universe came from a densely packed piece of matter then what created that?
Virtual particle pair separation events catalyzed by entropy, starting from an infinite undifferentiated expanse of higgs bosons.
Why was that there? Why does there need to be a reason? Why do you believe it had to start out with nothingness?
>God is not a being, god is the source from which all being spring from
Not if pantheism is true. If pantheism is true, all of this *is* God, and the process we're discussing are just how God's body works. Where universes are like God's cells, and the process of new universes coming into being is like mitosis.
>wellspring of bei is a copout: the post
As mentioned earlier, all physical entities, beings, have a beginning and end
God, since it is not a being, does not have these limitations, and is an eternal force
Someone who ascribes to "science" like yourself calls god "order" "reason" or "logic" but it is all the same
It is the universal order that allows things to exist, by even having this conversation you admit to its existence, you just want to have a semantic debate to feel less scared and you're missing the point of my metaphysical question:
Was there ever nothing? Yes or no?
>TFW too smart too be religious
stopped reading there
>As mentioned earlier, all physical entities, beings, have a beginning and end
Agreed
>God, since it is not a being, does not have these limitations, and is an eternal force
Prove it.
>Someone who ascribes to "science" like yourself calls god "order" "reason" or "logic" but it is all the same
No, words have meanings.
>It is the universal order that allows things to exist, by even having this conversation you admit to its existence, you just want to have a semantic debate to feel less scared and you're missing the point of my metaphysical question:
Was there ever nothing? Yes or no?
Cool armchair psychology. I see no reason to assume absolute nothingness ever existed. Can you show me a nothing?
What you're trying to avoid is that if God is the universe, then the universe can self-originate by your own logic, since you hold that God does not need a cause.
>worrying about religion and not the fact you are mexican
you got more serious shit to be concerned about, amigo
>California
>It was progressive a few centuries ago
You must be 18+ to post on this board kiddo.
No, god IS NOT the universe
God CREATED the universe
He created something because here was nothing
For example if there was nothing something had to create it, as something cannot just come from nothing(see alchemy) this implying a creator
this creator could have been created by another one, that's not the point
The point is at some point MATTER had to be created, out of nothing, literally impossible, therefore the work of Ambon-being we call god
If somehow there was always something then this something (since it can't create itself cause it would exist before it existed) it would mean this something changed itself from non-matter into temporal entropic matter, thus implying some sort of entelechy and thereby (you guessed it) creator
Then who created God. Theists can't answer the basics
"I don't know where the universe comes from therefore... God did it."
Weak.
God doesn't exist. I'm 100% sure of it. I'm an anti-theist, I oppose all religions because none of them are true.
Again, this may ultimately sound like a copout but one should keep in mind, this isn't a counter anyone's beliefs
"Atheism" isn't faith in universal order that I have described, it is literally non-belief, and as you said words have meaning...
What I am doing is saying that non belief is universal order is foolish, you implicitly agree by having a conversation (utilizing logos), and we only need to agree that that is why atheism ultimately amounts to: grade school skepticism
You haven't been paying attention to my posts.
God is a non-being (therefore no beginning and end and no creator)
>tfw my mom is spiritual but not religious and dad is a lapsed catholic
Who born athiest here?
>No, god IS NOT the universe
Says you.
>God CREATED the universe
As yet, you have offered no logically sound reason to assume the causal mechanism responsible for the big bang had to be intelligent.
>He created something because here was nothing
On what grounds do you assume that a state of true nothingness ever existed? Has true nothingness ever been shown to exist anywhere in nature? What precedent exists for it?
>For example if there was nothing something had to create it, as something cannot just come from nothing(see alchemy) this implying a creator
It would imply a cause, but the cause does not need to be intelligent. Nature is replete with unintelligent processes that cause astonishing complexity that a simpleton would assume had to be created by an intelligent being.
>this creator could have been created by another one, that's not the point
That leads to infinite regress though, one of the reasons why postulating a supernatural intelligent creator is self-defeating.
>The point is at some point MATTER had to be created, out of nothing, literally impossible, therefore the work of Ambon-being we call god
Only if true nothingness ever existed, which there is no good reason to assume. It's also not clear why whatever the cause is needs to be called God, except so that you can say "see? God exists" and feel vindicated.
>If somehow there was always something then this something (since it can't create itself cause it would exist before it existed) it would mean this something changed itself from non-matter into temporal entropic matter, thus implying some sort of entelechy and thereby (you guessed it) creator
Or a natural process, which has always turned out to be the cause of every example of seeming design we have ever found.
If you were ever actually Catholic, you would know that Catholics don't believe God is a skydaddy. Or a comic book superhero. Or a teapot in space.
>still thinking in terms of Big Bang
>"nothingness existing in nature" wow, fucking wow kid
>infinite regress/turtles all the way fucking down,
Jesus Christ, you've got a looooooong way to go
You need to do some research into metaphysics and understand the term "unmoved mover" before seriously pondering faith
Don't see it as a skydaddy, you'll never believe. See yourself and everything around you as a piece of a living universe. See it as if it's here because it wants to be here. You're aware of your awareness, as is it, because you are a part of it, and you have a piece of it's infinite essence inside of you. That's what makes you, "you". Now go back and look at the text from that perspective. It'll make a lot more sense.
>still thinking in terms of Big Bang
Yes, and?
>"nothingness existing in nature" wow, fucking wow kid
That's not a rebuttal.
>infinite regress/turtles all the way fucking down,
That is indeed a problem if you postulate an unexplained, uncaused supernatural creator because absolutely nothing prevents postulating another uncaused supernatural creator for that one, then another for that one and so on.
>Jesus Christ, you've got a looooooong way to go
This is just more condescending posturing, not a rebuttal.
>You need to do some research into metaphysics and understand the term "unmoved mover" before seriously pondering faith
I understand what those terms mean. Posturing as if you have a deeper knowledge than I do is still not a substitute for rebutting the reasoning I have so far presented you with.
>I don’t know why the universe exists... therefore there must be no God
Cool game user. What other logical fallacies you have?
>falling for brainwashing being propagated by pseudo intellectuals on jewtube
I can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist. It's actually really easy and doesn't require complete knowledge of the universe.
What's your definition of the Christian God?
when I realized I was gay I saw how much the church had done to shape my world view and so I rejected all of it and eventually found science as a way to understand the world
>too smart to be religious
no you are dumb enough to believe that something came from nothing. You are proud and foolish and you will burn in hell forever if you don't believe on Jesus Christ
You didn't reject religion because you're smart. You rejected religion because you're weak-minded enough to have mistakened the cynicism of atheists for intelligence. Intelligence isn't the reason you lack understanding of how belief in God is rational. You lack understanding because you're stupid. For example: no one believes in a sky daddy. Only stupid people define things they don't understand as silly or non-existent.
>falling for neopaganism
>So this is the power of TRUE intellectuals...
>implying religion is a science.
No atheist actually thinks that way, though. That is atheism as caricatured by a Christian. It would be like a Muslim saying that Christians are just people who are too lazy and married to sin to put up with the increased rules and requirements of following Islam.
>Mexican heritage
>"too smart"
Kek made me laugh
In b4 a bunch of 'cute' snarky answers that deliberately miss the point
Peoples Temple
>All physical entities have a beginning and end
WRONG
no known law of physics says this
>Since it cannot create itself, something must have created it
good thing you proved your assumption that matter cannot create itself first
I think it's much easier to believe that energy and 4 basic laws sprouted than an omniscient omnipresent being similiar in thoughts, intents and mannerisms to naked apes that evolved couple of billion years later
>mfw theists really are brainlets
The reason you're not feeling it, seems by this post at least, is that you are not humbled, one of the things Jesus hates the most is a prideful heart. Be brought down, live on the street for a few days and have faith that Christ will comfort you. Go out in a shirt and pants only for 3 days and trust in the Lord. Also the Catholic Church and every church is corrupted. No modern churches even read there Bible enough to know what a church is. A church is 2 or more believers coming together to rejoice in the Lord, and converse of prophecy, and the word of the Lord.
>If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
doesn't follow, using word objectively doesnt make it more robust when it's just plain wrong
>Things actually, objectively matter.
not correct
>Therefore, God exists.
follows, too bad first two are just not correct
Things "mattering" is a pure anthropocentric notion. Things mattering, just means its higher on the ladder of needs/wants of your ape mind. If god doesn't exist, things can still "matter", unless your definition of god is something granting you purpose.
>1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
>2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness.
Let's grant this
>3.There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
Proving negative, theist classic
>4.Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
No, rational thing is to say we don't know. Burden of proof is still on you to prove that conciousnes can only arise through some divine directive, whatever that is.
>3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
lmao, entire argument hinges on this, when its just an assumption
There are cannibals in africa who find it moral to eat their relatives after they die as show of affection. You find this immoral.
Reason why morals appear objective is because there's heavy overlap between social beings as to what is evolutionary advantageous.
In other words, killing is immoral because societies that killed each other are just dead.
Even there we have some edge cases like Mayans.
Raised in Europe. Basically a godless socialist superstate.
If you do not believe in God or a higher power in 2017, you're basically retarded and not worth my time
/thread
2/2
>Belief in some conception of God — that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due — is common to almost all people of every era.
This is a proof of convergence.
So your brainlet mind can understand it, the fact that every continent has pyramids doesn't mean there are ancient aliens.
Religion happens to be very beneficial from evolutionary perspective. As one biologist put it, it's pretty much the perfect software to make people reproduce and maintain a society.
>If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
>So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
okay this is first one that just isn't plain wrong so far
>Hence God exists.
leap of faith, you assume what entity with maximum properties looks like
just noticed how long this drivel is, let me point out where the arguments fail
>Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
not true
>Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
nope
>But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare their goodness, for each would define its own goodness. But some things are better than others.
we already each define what is good for us
even if we all shared that definition, you don't need a supreme being to explain that
>If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
cause and effect only pretains to matter/energy transforming to another forms, not cause of its existence
this is just terminal brainletism on steroids
fuck this
>needing an authority figure to tell you to be a responsible, productive person.
>mexican intellectuals
lmao