Existential thoughts for atheists

>how can something come from nothing
>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes.
>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.
>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part. it's almost like someone/something designed us.
>statistically and scientifically speaking, our mere existence is literally impossible

i don't have enough faith to be an atheist

Attached: article-0-01AFBB8A0000044D-784_634x632.jpg (634x632, 197K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU&t
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>>how can something come from nothing

best guess is that the big bang was an equal reaction with antimatter and matter, so it is a zero sum If you could put it all back together there would be nothing left

>>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes.

how can you see when the lens of your eye does not see? how can you hear when your earlobe does not hear? - these are emergent phenomena out of parts - like a car is not just a wheel or a brake pad - they come out of the whole.

>>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.

no that is not logical. A thing is not replicated in all its qualities in every part.

>>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part. it's almost like someone/something designed us.

often it does not function well - is this bad design? the complexity of life is explicable by breaking it down into simple functions - put food in, chemical reactions occur, life goes on.
DNA gives us the tool by which such complexity reproduces and indeed becomes more complex without need for design

>>statistically and scientifically speaking, our mere existence is literally impossible

no it isn't. In either way of speaking. The proof being that we are here.

>i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
you donot seem to have enough imagination to be one.

falling back on a god to be the thing that makes it all happen shows a lack of imagination.

and learning

Attached: 1520033150487.png (592x593, 50K)

you are the kindest atheist i have ever met on the internet

FPBP

>you donot seem to have enough imagination to be one
>and learning

Attached: Wizard of Faglordia.gif (312x250, 1.9M)

t. 90 IQ

The whole point of existance, even considering the "big bang", is that there was an existance before time. One that human observation can not understand.

In the relevance of something being "eternal" it means that the perception of time is nearly eternal. Now in that understanding there is an idea that anything relative can happen within nearly infinite instances of spacetime. The multiverse theory helps substantiate such. So when time goes on for nearly all of existence then anything is feasible, mainly because there is so much information within spacetime.

This is what makes me believe in intelligent design

>how can something come from nothing
So how did come come into being? Did he just always exist? How did he create the universe from nothing?
>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes.
Emotions aren't a magical cosmic force. They are chemical reactions developed for survivability.
>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.
Once again emotions aren't a magical cosmic force and were developed for survivability.
>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part. it's almost like someone/something designed us.
Its called evolution bud.
>>statistically and scientifically speaking, our mere existence is literally impossible
Its statistically improbable. And in 13 billion years statistical improbabilities tend to emerge.
>i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
What? Its not faith its called being a man and not needing a magical daddy to hug you after you die.

God*

hey cutey
since abiogenesis has never been proven
where did life first begin in the universe
the alien seed theory needs abiogenesis for it to have life on it in the first place so dont try that cop out
thanks honey buns

God of the Gaps. As the gaps keep getting smaller so does your daddy.

“How come my poop was light brown today instead of the usual brown, huh? Checkmate atheists.”

Don’t know.
Chemicals, emotions are good for survival.
That isn’t logical at all.
Natural selection over millions of years. Why would God leave us with vestigial organs?
Cite these statistics because they are clearly false considering how many planets we can observe in the “life zone” around a star.
Please try harder bait-kun

Attached: 4963D43B-561D-436C-B679-9E0651E6A389.png (754x824, 367K)

This is a fun one. Not for specifically atheists but for naturalists of all sorts. Takes a bit of prep though:

>intentionality is the basis of purpose
>intention arising out of mechanistic actions would mean at least property dualism
>naturalism denies innate purpose in nature and also dualism as both supernatural

And so how do we have mental intent, beliefs, and can infer things?

>inferring is the basis of information so if inferring is an illusion then information and what we get from it (all the fields of study ever) are to
>if beliefs are illusion then you have refuted yourself
>our body can register signals to actions before we willfully accept it, but yet sometimes those signals trigger and we don't act willfully. What did we miss there?

Either purpose exists in nature or dualism exists.

Attached: 1504927066621.jpg (570x761, 51K)

I don’t think you yourself understand your copypasta.

>how can something come from nothing
by expanding quantum fluctuations rapidly enough to tear them into matter and antimatter pairs.
>how can humans feel emotion
easy. experiences trigger chemical production, the chemicals make different neurons trigger, which is interpreted as emotion by our conscious.
>since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotion
in what way is that logical?
>how do our bodies function so perfectly... ...someone/something designed us
*laughs in FOUR BILLION YEARS of evolution*
>statitically speaking, our mere existence is impossible
well that explains why every second star doesn't have an intelligent life-form on one of it's planets, doesn't it?
you are aware there are an estimated 300 brillion + planets? Statistically speaking, we have an extremely low probability but an extremely high number of trials. these two cancel out, to give a relatively moderate probability of there being life in the galaxy alone.

Attached: 01000010 01100001 01101001 01110100.jpg (700x700, 12K)

>since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotion
> in what way is that logical?

He is saying that since a Toyota Camry can go 150mph, the Japanese factory worker who built it should also be able run at 150mph. Makes sense?

>atheist thread
CIA niggers in alien thread
(Moved)

I don't believe the human body is perfect, why would god curse us with eating and breathing from the same hole? Should we eat too fast or careless then we will choke. And why do the most delicate part of our male body hang outside of us between our legs? Why not inside of us? A man could die from the common cold or develop cancer which corrupts his body. The body is an amazing marvel but it's no product of an omniscient, omnibenevolent being, if this were true why do bones break? why does skin tear? why does the mind degrade? Because evolution and life are bound by the rules of nature not by the rules of a god.

Why does the human penis have a mushroom head then? Our creator obviously favors creampie gangbangs.

>how can something come from nothing
It's not clear that it has to come from somewhere.
>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes.
That question makes no sense. How can a bike have wheels if humans don't have wheels?
>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.
What!?
>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part. it's almost like someone/something designed us.
First of all, we don't function like well oiled machines. I mean really, have you been a human for any extended period of time?
I have, we're fragile and weak and mortal. Second of all, we already know that evolution through selection adapts replicators to their enviroment.
>statistically and scientifically speaking, our mere existence is literally impossible
Prove it.

>since abiogenesis has never been proven
This can be done very easily
>Life exists
>At some point, life didn't exist because at some point, planets didn't exist
>Therefore, life came from non-living things at some point
>Therefore, abiogenesis is possible

I will point you to the experiment where they electrocuted a chamber full of methane, CO2, ammonia and water vapour and got hundreds of different simple organic chemicals. while still simple, this was after a week of reflux. imagine hundreds of millions of years of this, coupled with hundreds of millions of lightning strikes. it's statistically probable at that point, that it will eventually happen.

youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU&t

Our 'creator' values passing on of our genes, that's why the shape of the penis is designed to displace other men's semen so that ours might be the one to reach the egg.

Nobody can answer OP's first question. It's the fundamental question of everything.
How was universe created? What was there before the big bang? If there was something, same question applies. If there wasn't anything, then how was something created from nothing?
Checkmate atheists.

If everything needs a creator then what crates god?
Checkmate faithlet.

>i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
Fuck you and your strawmen. Atheists simply believe only that which can be proven. Can you prove the existence of God? Until you do, atheists proceed with an assumption that he does not exist.

The problem with atheists is they believe there is no god. Keyword being belief.
Since it cannot be proved that there is no God, merely that there is no evidence for God, would imply that in order to not believe in God, one would need to believe in a lack of gods or god.
The only true answer is 'I do not know'.
Since you can neither prove nor disprove such a thing, you would be remarkably stupid to take either point of view - they are exactly the same.
The argument that not believing in gods produces a state not composed of belief is incorrect, as again, there likewise is a burden of proof on you to claim that there is none, for you are making a claim for something, claiming a negation.
The only neutral state not composed of belief is that of 'I do not know'

Also, science is like math - it provides a framework for how things work. That is all. Saying science is a replacement for god is like saying math is the universe.
Math is a map of the universe from the human perspective, it is not an actual 'thing'

human body is not perfect at all.
many people die by choking on their food, you can get flu by being in the same room as the contagious person, cervix has no function, along with many other characteristics (don't know how it's called in english tho).
it's an admirable machine but it's not perfect.

If God exists, he's above logic and laws of the universe.
>muh science
Fuck off, atheist. Your science creates more questions than it answers.
How was universe created?

The problem with aunicornists is they believe there are no unicorns. Keyword being belief.
Since it cannot be proven* that there are no unicorns, merely that there is no evidence for unicorns, would imply that in order to not believe in unicorns, one would need to believe in a lack of unicorns.
The only true answer is 'I do not know'.
Since you can neither prove nor disprove such a thing, you would be remarkably stupid to take either point of view - they are exactly the same.
The argument that not believing in unicorns produces a state not composed of belief is incorrect, as again, there likewise is a burden of proof on you to claim that there are none, for you are making a claim for something, claiming a negation.
The only neutral state not composed of belief is that of 'I do not know'

>math is not an actual thing
wrong. 2+2 is 4 for every species in the existance, us or aliens.
they might have different mathematical language and might write it down like &^)@$ but deep down that's a fundamental law of the universe, just like rest of the math

the nothingness atheists perceive is just a reflection.

Attached: 927e5b91-208e-4917-8c78-c1cb11869614.jpg (501x714, 67K)

>be
>nothing

explain yourself schizo

If god is all powerful does this mean that he can create a being of equal or greater power than himself?
If yes then this is proof that gods can have creators, meaning the first god could have been created.
If no then god is not all powerful and the traditional perception of god is wrong.
Checkmate faithlet.

>how can something come from nothing
Why do you retards continue to insist "everything was in one state then changed" means "durr dere was nothin that exlpoded"?
>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes
Are you asking how neurological systems can exist if non-living things don't have neurological systems?
>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.
No, that's not logical, it's philosophical wankery.
>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part
Because if they didn't they wouldn't work. Some humans bodies don't work right, they're called cripples.
>i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
Meaning: "I have the emotional understanding of the world around me of a child, therefore magic".

Law. Not a thing..

i am atheist but i live for the higher ideals.
not all atheists are nihilists.
i would WANT to be rewarded for my good deeds, but i don't think i'll get any.
pretty sad way of thinking, but i think that's the most probable outcome.

based vietnam

My view still holds. You don't know. You would be stupid to claim either. Unless you can prove that they do not exist then you do not know.
How hard is it?

Well, no, everything needs a cause except for the first cause because he's special.

How did god came to be ?
You are all on the same level.

Regarding your first point, he means how did everything come into being in the first place. Why does anything exist at all?

>how can something come from nothing
Atheist don't know the answer of that question, but it does not preclude atheist from using science to investigate theories. We just don't believe in Magic.

>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes.
Chemical Reactions within the brain. Obviously, the Universe does carry those attributes since we carry them?

>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.

Trees are not created from pebbles. We are created from other people so.... Think about it.

>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part. it's almost like someone/something designed us.

Physiology is pretty well studied and there are plenty of schools where you can learn about the subject.

>statistically and scientifically speaking, our mere existence is literally impossible

Statistically, you can not say what the probability of a thing occurring is after it has already occurred. So, in reality the probability that we exist is 1, since we do exist.

Don't use the word cutie unless you know for 100% certainty your right babe.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

>If god is all powerful does this mean that he can create a being of equal or greater power than himself
this question reveals a clear dearth of intellectual capacity..

by definition God is ultimately supreme any who could create another that could supersede them is not ultimate.. continuing the equally vacant argument that if the absurd premise of the first part is impossible then God is not all powerful you are referred back to the first response that any who is at the outset supreme must always remain supreme and can never be superseded or they are not supreme.

stop blurring definitions..

So since you can't prove that giant invisible magical unicorns don't exist, I'm not an insane person for suggesting so with no evidence?

how does one profit from making inane, absurd and pointless arguments?

>let me use this paradox to disprove the existence of God
Absolute brainlet.
God being all powerful is a meme. It has nothing to do with him being the creator of universe. If I create an aquarium and fill it with fish, it doesn't mean I can do everything you can imagine. It's not even the point of discussion. Bottom line is, I created that tank, that's all that matters at this point.

Attached: 345345345345.png (601x508, 114K)

Gaytheism is a dying Religion

Attached: 1516130454862.jpg (1200x1390, 194K)

But like you said he operates on different rules, he’s god so why can’t he create a supreme being while also remaining supreme himself.
Sounds to me like you think he isn’t supreme at all then.
Thanks for clearing that up faithlet.

>good deeds
by what standard do you define "good"

if you reject for instance the Bible which gives God's commandments and clear character admonitions becaseu you refuse to accept the belief they are transmitted from the eternal, divine creator by what measure do you determine what constitutes "good" if we are not created in the image and likeness of God and accountable to him at the last judgement for our life how is one act Good and not another? define your standard.

Well, I can first convince the world that unicorns exist, since they can't prove otherwise, then sell them some expensive magnetic butt plugs, because unicorns rape people without them and infect them with AIDS.
Can you prove that this is incorrect?

You are a retard. And likewise for me to say that there is no such thing without evidence I would also be a retard. I would be make a claim of negation without evidence to back it up.
Here's the thing: if someone is retarded enough to spout ANYTHING without proof than you should already know it is not worth speaking to them.
You can point out that there is no evidence for such a claim, but you cannot deny such a thing without evidence, for likewise would you be a making a claim of negation

this could only be a matter of degrees.

God could only create a being who can be called supreme whose supremacy is confined to a realm limited to that outside of the original God or OG if you like.. Like Mormons made up religion believes Mitt Romney is going to be a supreme god in his own universe .. but there will still be the one God to rule them all.. one OG.. so asserting this is a paradox which disproves God is just a matter of a refusal to confine your terms to accepted definitions. The fact of the impossibility of OG creating a being superiour to himself is not proof of a limitation to OG's ability it is a function of his eternal nature not a fault of his will.

show me the people who are buying and wearing these magnetic butt plugs and then count them against the Christian martyrs who chose to be murdered rather than deny their faith in Jesus Christ.

Why don’t i ever hear from deists in this board? We observe all these complex phenomena and can make predictions of them and with them. We can come up with pretty good models for things like the origin of life, the birth of the universe, the age of the earth, and consciousness. No scientist is understating the complexity of these things. Who’s to say god didn’t set the conditions for these beautiful complexities?

Where did god come from?

BTFO on the first question.

My point is this: it is pointless to base your thinking on something that can't be proven.
However, if you are forced to, you choose an option based on how likely it is, not how badly you wish it were true.

I wish there was a god, but based on everything we know it's far more likely that there isn't one, so I won't refrain from doing something just because I fear divine punishment.

A lot of you are stuck on semantics. Can God do this? Can he do that? You're trying to use logic to prove/disprove something that's above logic as we know it.

Here's the thing that's absolutely 100% true and factual: We can never know whether ther is a God or not.

There is no paradox you can put him into to disprove him. There is no evidence he exists either. The point isn't to prove/disprove him. The point is whether you believe or not.
I'm saying you can't be 100% sure there is no God, otherwise you're an idiot. You can be 99.99% sure and that's fine. Your first clue is that there's at least 0.01% chance is that we still don't know a lot of things about our universe. Science can explain a bunch of things, but at the end, we're just fish in a tank. We can't possibly figure out what's outside the tank, let alone what's outside the room.

So if I make enough people buy butt plugs and die for a right to sell butt plugs, you will buy one too?

The only people you would be able to convince would be retards, as you would have no evidence to back up your claim.
This is enough to disregard your claim, making it null and void. But for someone to then claim that unicorns do not exist, with no evidence, then likewise should his point be disregarded.
Each are making a claim with no evidence, be it an affirmation or negation.
You cannot prove nor disprove the existence of unicorns without, obviously, proof - so in response to those without proof, all there is to do is disregard their claim. A lack of evidence does not make something impossible - it merely points to a lack of evidence.
So then you might say 'well the lack of evidence points to the impossibility of such a thing existing' - but on what basis can you make the claim that there is no evidence? Have you examined every facet of existence - do you know everything - to thus make a statement with such certainty?

It seems like theists are the real nihilists here. I can derive morality from all sorts of things (duty to myself and family, utilitarianism, what makes me happy in the long run, the response to my actions by society) while believers of a God directly active in the human world only derive their morality from authority, the fear of damnation, and hope of heaven.

I completely agree. So why do religious people listen to some people who call themselves priests and make up some wild theories about what happens when we die?
I don't claim to know everything, I just base my thoughts on what seems more likely.

Of course. But you cannot deny or affirm it no? Either way the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim?
You can simply point to a lack of evidence, and thus arrange your life accordingly?

Oh no!! I believe in the supernatural now!! You win OP!!

Again, I made no such statement. I just claim that, based on what I know, chance that there is no god is much higher than the chance that there is one, so I will disregard god in my decision making process until I get a reason to believe otherwise.

>You can simply point to a lack of evidence, and thus arrange your life accordingly?
Exactly.

Precisely this. Unfortunately atheists go out of their way to inform everyone that the burden of proof lies only on the one making the affirmation, and that negation is merely a lack of affirmation..

This guy gets it.

kys op fucking retard faggot

Yes you would be right in doing so.
As long as you neither deny nor affirm something that cannot be proved than all is well! :)

Hate it when gaytheist keep using that argument

Attached: 1518988247338.jpg (700x6826, 600K)

You what? I wrote the post out personally. This isn't copypasta. The issue is real.

Attached: 1520402742889m.jpg (640x414, 40K)

You should consider Buddhism. It a non-theistic tradition based off the way of the Vedas and Brahman. What is so wonderful about it is, with practice you will come to understand truly what is right and wrong, as a higher order will come to light the further you progress down the path.

Imagine the evolutionary pressure to select for the mutations leading to that shape. Human pre-history, or at least those of our animal ancestors, must have been a free-for-all.

yay, somebody who gets it.

The reality is that if God does exist, he has chosen not to reveal himself and obvlously has a plan and purpose for not showing up yet (which is exactly what the bible describe God is doing)

Now if fucking GOD of the universe wants most humanity to be completely oblivious to his existance, GOD has no issue whatesoever "tricking" everybody into believing he does not exist. He is GOD.

Thats exactly why nobody alive can KNOW if he exists, because if he does, he has not revelead himself.

The cry for proof that he exists makes me laugh. Like yea dude i'll prove to you the God of the universe he exists when he himself does not want to be proved real. lol.ss.

Pajeet pls

God of the Panther Hiding Behind the Bushes.

Ready to Pounce ...

Run Monkey Run !!!

Attached: Bravo.gif (420x315, 333K)

So many retard atheists muh science explains everything. No it fucking doesn't retards

Aryan my man. No pajeet.

Hello retard. How is it going?

>falling back on a god to be the thing that makes it all happen shows a lack of imagination
In other words, you've never heard the expression that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

Attached: AtheistUniverseOriginBtfo.jpg (1121x346, 110K)

God became perfect after creating life in the universe because the life was a mirror image of himself at that time. We are doomed.

Yes. And no god is simpler than with god.

Does your late-Antiquity goat herder’s manual explain everything?

> can’t time travel
> perfect

>forgot about sentience

He's still one step ahead.

Atheism is not a religion.
Atheism might be dying though, and the reason ironically is evolution though.

> Self replicating, unsheathed protein chain
> Perfect

>something from nothing
embrace the infinite pregnant void op, choose the middle way

"best guess is that the big bang was an equal reaction with antimatter and matter"

"reaction with antimatter and matter"

"matter"

That would be an actual bang.

What we call BB is really cosmic inflation.

>best guess is that the big bang was an equal reaction with antimatter and matter, so it is a zero sum If you could put it all back together there would be nothing left

That still requires the existence of matter, which is unaccounted for in this premise. You're allowed to ask for a given proposition to base your argument on, but calling this ex nihilo given "matter" rather than "God" does not improve your argument any.

>how can you see when the lens of your eye does not see? how can you hear when your earlobe does not hear? - these are emergent phenomena out of parts - like a car is not just a wheel or a brake pad - they come out of the whole.

Emergent properties are a thing, but this becomes tricky territory when we're dealing with non-mechanistic phenomena. The brain is not a computer, and consciousness as an emergent property of neurological events is at BEST a speculative connection. No dice.

Anything else you've posted is a mostly valid argument against a weak defense of God, and doesn't need addressing.

How does one define "God"?

How does one define good and evil?

Theoretically, an all powerful being that set everything in motion could exist outside of our visible dimension.

What about the cosmological argument?

>>how can something come from nothing
dunno
>>how can humans feel emotions like love, pain, happiness, etc. if whatever created us does not carry those attributes.
>>logically, since humans feel emotions, whatever we derive from should also feel emotions. a pebble cannot create a tree if nothing of the tree is of the pebble.
these are retarded
>>how do our bodies function so perfectly like a well-oiled machine. every little thing has a purpose and works in unison with every other part. it's almost like someone/something designed us.
literally middle school biology
>>statistically and scientifically speaking, our mere existence is literally impossible
nope
Embarrassing b8, 2/10 I responded

>calling out non medical students
>still learn
>still not atheistic friendly intelligent design

ok

t. based Swede who knows whats up.