This kills the religtard

This kills the religtard

Attached: 1465324889928.png (960x960, 670K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/image/VEyNgcrBTQmnTB8Drv0tIw/type/op/
youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo
youtube.com/watch?v=EymKZBG0-bc
youtube.com/watch?v=_Ty-z_3M1Z0
youtube.com/watch?v=w-1PHBDV644
youtube.com/watch?v=V2FToyZil3I
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it kind of does tho

>There have been nearly 3000 Gods
nah just one, nice try though, enjoy hell

There unironically is no argument against this but the religious have often been trained from birth to turn off their big boy brains whenever God comes up and sperg out with hat memes and 'muh atheists' irrelevant deflections

Ricky Gervais is the less funny, fatter version of Simon Pegg. Insist upon the original.

Attached: quote-the-problem-i-have-with-all-this-religion-stuff-is-that-i-can-t-relate-to-it-i-think-karl-pilk (850x400, 78K)

>There have been nearly 3000 Gods
>yeah but mine's real lol checkmate athiests
great shitpost

Attached: 1514565947100.jpg (251x242, 15K)

>I posted it again
archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/image/VEyNgcrBTQmnTB8Drv0tIw/type/op/

Attached: Screenshot_20180321-122800.png (720x1280, 223K)

There have been more than 30000 ideologies so far but only yours is true. The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.

There have been 1000s of religions

There is only 1 god

so this is the power.......of theist discourse.............................woah

You're literally parroting some celebrity's opinion like mindless drones.

It only kills the 'religtard' that cares such as:
>the majority of Muslims
>certain sects of Catholicism
>atheists
>climate change proponents

ideologies are abstract social constructs to begin with dummy, what a strange line of reasoning

>some limey TV cocksucker's opinion

wait, brb, gonna give up the religion that my forebears have practiced for 1500 years

Attached: 1521650124918.jpg (680x709, 58K)

you misunderstand, saying there's 3000 gods doesn't make it so

Attached: stop.jpg (500x441, 22K)

Imagine some retard looking at a maths equation and telling the mathematician in a mocking tone

"Oh look at that, you think you can put the right answer in there, no there are hundreds of millions of possible answers and they are all equal... but not yours... yours is the right one".

Ricky Gervais has basically become a real life, walking, talking, breathing smuggie. It would be funnier if it wasn't sad.

>ricky gervais was the first person to make this argument
underage b&

Attached: facepsalm.jpg (461x481, 140K)

>give up the religion that my forebears have practiced for 1500 years
What about all the ones before? They were wrong and yours is right?

Except that mathematics is purely logical as humans understand it, there is no logical basis for theism

"There have been tons of theories of the weak nuclear force so far but only your 'Weinberg-Salam Model" is actually true. The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real."
-Retard.

I used the word true not real

>more than 1 person said a thing
>I give up, we can't possibly determine which is correct

Really galvanized my ball juice

again, since ideologies are arbitrary social constructs there is no objective true ideology and I can't imagine many would claim otherwise

agnosticism is the only rational stance to take. you can respect what some religion's preach as a moral code, but it seems a bit odd to think that any mortal being could understand with such certainty that there is an afterlife and your conscience lives on throughout.

there is still a mystery behind higher levels of existence and the origin of life to explore.

what is logical about math

Pretty sure this is a Christopher Hitchens quote.

that's the whole point of faith

is to believe in something

>there is no logical basis for theism
t. guy who hasn't actually done any formal logic
Aristotle would like to have a word with you.

Except that the current model of the weak nuclear force is built upon reproducible experimentation and religions are usually built upon a book someone wrote one time

>again, since ideologies are arbitrary social constructs there is no objective true ideology and I can't imagine many would claim otherwise
But what you just said is simply part of your ideology, which by your own admission is just an arbitrary social construct. By your own beliefs I ought to dismiss what you say.

Kind of strange that all of them around the world have similar culture and traditions. I guess all 3000 of these religions were just fuckin around and everything is a coincidence. Nobody was on to anything goys, don’t worry about it!

>scientist: there were 1000 theories trying to explain X phenomenon, I believe this one is the correct
>fagteist: oh mr. scientist, you are so enlightened and magnificent!

>cleric: there are 1000 religions, but i believe this one is correct
>fagteist: hahaha stupid primitive theist, how come 999 religions could be incorrect but yours is the true one? haha you make no sense lol all of them are false

religion gives culture and agencies then

so without this concept of religion human beings wouldn't have gotten very far

Like I said it's logical as humans understand it
No religions have evidence so yes, you can't determine which is correct if any
Theres no such thing as being an 'agnostic' in this context, you can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist or if you're feeling like a special snowflake an agnostic deist or something along those lines but 'agnostic' is invalid
Yes but choosing not to use logic is not a refutation of logic
Buzzname philosophers are for brainlets like sargon
but yes I've read much more than you

God takes many forms. Its shape and mythos is not just limited to one.

Attached: 1453942795891.png (279x229, 34K)

That statement is a hate crime in modern Britain. After a few more similar prosecutions to this one happen, the bar for what's deemed grossly offensive will drop like a stone. Ricky Gervais has said some dark shit in his time. I reckon he's probably feeling a bit scared.

because science is self correcting. multiple people can try to prove/disprove and the truth will prevail. Religion is constructed around arbitrary morals and fictional tales.

>Except that the current model of the weak nuclear force is built upon reproducible experimentation
False, it was built upon theoretical considerations and partial guesswork, and was *later* verified by experiment.

>and religions are usually built upon a book someone wrote one time
Some of the less thoughtful people in church take that position, just as the less thoughtful atheists believe in atheism because of a book written by some popular guy. But the more thoughtful Christians believe it is true because of some more substantial reasons, such as logical and physical arguments for God's existence, the historical and archaeological verification of various aspects, the reliability of scripture's advice, etc, etc.

Science doesnt explicitly disprove spirituality or the concept of God, you retarded fuck.

Attached: 1514672599590.png (488x463, 28K)

>because science is self correcting
The scientific method is based on empiricism.Which isn't science in general.Which is rationalism.

Attached: anti christian shilling.png (1806x1252, 125K)

God =\= Religion
Explaining God is like trying to explain the 5th demention.

Attached: IMG_1165.jpg (400x358, 46K)

ok, dismiss it then I don't know what your point is
except that the religions also have irreconcilable differences the most obvious being monotheistic vs polytheistic
Debunked this one already, evidence etc
Theres no reason to believe religion played any part in societal advancement, we were religious for a long long time before the age of enlightenment and the industrial revolution

/thread

No, they're all real.

Attached: 1518491081389.jpg (500x372, 22K)

never denied the concept of higher being. my point is that any religion can have no real proof or understanding of what that higher being actually is. they impose their own morality/tales to suit their needs.

>No religions have evidence
You say that, despite the heaps of evidence given over the centuries. You may feel that the evidence against God's existence outweighs the evidence for his existence, but to say there is none is pure intellectual dishonesty. Like all the people who said there "was no evidence O.J. did it".

>Aristotle
>Buzzname philosopher
Hard to believe you.

I btfo your retarded thread every single time and every single time your faggot ass does the same thing. Kys OP

>What about all the ones before? They were wrong and yours is right?

Does it matter? Was Brythonic a better language than English? Is burning your dead better than burying them? Is endogamous marriage better for society?

Even if all of these things are true (LOL they ain't) why are you so ready to spit on the graves of your ancestors and give up hundreds or thousands of years of cultural/religious/social practice on the advice of some faggot whose claim to fame is starring in shitty BBC sitcoms?

Ask yourself - (((who))) would benefit most from you becoming a rootless, cultureless drone with no ties to his blood or his past?

Attached: 52.jpg (598x464, 46K)

It's almost like God isn't real and people just made the concept up
nobody is atheists because of a book, the fact that you think someone is religious and then buys the God delusion WTF I'M ATHEIST NOW is hilarious
Paranormal forces cannot be disproven as they are paranormal but theres also no reason to believe in them, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

"knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires."

>3000 gods
So pineapple and annanas are 2 different things?
Does this jew not understand human history?

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you wish to craft your world view, simply on things that have been "scientifically verified" and published in science journals, go right ahead, but dont fucking pretend like those are the only things that are real.

>every religion had similar culture and traditions

Are you actually retarded?

>they impose their own morality/tales to suit their needs.
But this is again, simply your own tale you've heard & reiterated, because it suits your beliefs and desires. You have a serious problem with consistency on a number of fronts, making you a poor spokesman for atheism.

>this kills the leaf

(x,y,z,w,t)

Attached: duh.jpg (600x579, 28K)

Theist are as insufferable as Jehova's witnesses with the only difference that the later aren't smug and petulant about it.

Theres scores of evidence on things mainstream STEM academics regard as "paranormal", and its hard scientifically tested evidence, and no Im not going to link you to them, kill yourself you dense fuck.

Australia proving that sometimes spbp

Unironically this.

There have been thousands of religions, and none of them are real. However, science, also a religion, is totally real. Daily reminder that science-cultists are just as faith-based as the religious.
>this kills the "atheist"

nihilism is illogical because you essentially giving up your culture and ancestral practice while cutting off your line of descent
religion has always played a part in societal advancement even with the enlightenment and the industrial revolution

Just because Christianity is dying in some European countries dose not mean Islam will die as well or some other religion won't take over

Attached: biologically viable..jpg (1399x1013, 301K)

Not really. Every time you make a scientific measurements you change the object your are measuring. For example if you tried to measure electrical current you introduce a parallel circuit decreasing current you are trying to measure. Same with voltage by measuring voltage you reduce the voltage by introducing a parallel circuit. For current resistance in the multimeter is high but not open. For voltage resistance of the multimeter is low but not zero. Therefore you can never get a exact measurement of actual voltage or current.

Fucking african religions have legends of floods and giants

Learn history you retard
Literally every single religion is linked

>heaps of evidence
Alrighty, let's say you got me here. Cool, can I see this evidence?
relevant:
youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

I can prove my God is real. Do you want to know how I will do that?
youtube.com/watch?v=EymKZBG0-bc

atheshit roasted by Based Mel beyond any limit
youtube.com/watch?v=_Ty-z_3M1Z0

>nobody is atheists because of a book, the fact that you think someone is religious and then buys the God delusion WTF I'M ATHEIST NOW is hilarious
Except that I've met several who told me that was the reason; reading a book on atheism. There are also many atheists who hated going to church or hated their parents, and now emotionally hate God, and that is their driving factor. In fewer cases, they arrived at atheism for intellectual reasons. The same is true of Christianity, but you seem too blinded to see this, perhaps because you wish to console yourself with the idea that your beliefs are more rational and invincible. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

>Hey I believe in god

SCIENCE

>Theres an afterlife

SCIENCE

>We have souls

SCIENCE

This is generally how these threads play out. Three or four people autistically yelling the word science like its a kill word for spirituality when the two arent even in contradiction with eachother for the most part.

>nah just one
it must be the god of the evidenceless, baseless easily disproveable religion of 2000 years of history as opposed to the million years old the world is

Oh shit some religions have flood myths? I guess I'll ignore the differences in number of gods, types of gods, whether there's even gods at all, burial rites, marriage rules, afterlife beliefs, kinds of sacrifices, religiously approved foods, holy texts, status of priests, status on genders, and so on. I guess they're all the same!

this. you can be scientifically contributive and lead a healthy happy life independently of any religion, worldview or delusion.

Good post. Tired of under agers.

Their sense of humor and comedic style isn't even remotely fucking similar, there is absolutely no comparison. The only thing they have in common is that they're both British.

if he rejects things based on lack of evidence, when is he going to start talking about the holohoax?

i don't craft my world view solely around science journals, lmao. i said i was agnostic, my point is that perhaps there is a higher being or perhaps not. but having a religion tell you "god tells you to do this or that otherwise you go to hell" seems laughable to me. Imposing human morality on a thing you can't comprehend is ridiculous.

yes people have different perspectives. your point?

lmao grade A+ sarcasm

And how does it kill religious lads?

Are you atheist keks going to admit that there exists probability of primordial structure of matter to have become existing via act of God?

Every language has a different word for "apple". I guess that means apples don't exist.

A reminder for you all that whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.
youtube.com/watch?v=w-1PHBDV644

my God is better than your God, nanny nanny poo poo!

Yeah, you christ cuck religitard fuckers are definitely the smartest among us. *wank wank*

See Hypocrite

History always repeats itself. How many times has the Creator came and restarted the world? The Creator has many names through the times and so does the devil. Devil always is fire, electronic, lightning, and air waves ley lines. The meek always inherent the earth Mother nature. Father time, nothing new under the Sun/son.

>Alrighty, let's say you got me here. Cool, can I see this evidence?
There are a number of distinct lines, each of which is a discussion in itself. But here are some leads: The universe came into existence a finite time in the past, but if all causes originate in the universe, it shouldn't have happened. There have been no pathways conceived for a number of things in biochemistry, most notably the origin of life, because of the problem with the interdependence of DNA and proteins (DNA requires proteins to replicate and function, but proteins require DNA to code for them, e.g.). Tarski's Undefinability Theorem places limits on the universe's ability to contain it's own truth function. The true overall state of the universe in quantum physics (the modern framework of physics) is a homogeneous blob due to successive applications of Wigner's Friend, unless there is an external observer. Consciousness (not to be confused with intelligence, for which consciousness is unnecessary), cannot emerge from materials alone, and yet we are each of us aware of our own consciousness. A number of parameters in physics are such that if they were a little bit off, no meaningful structure could exist in the universe. By "coincidence" the era of humans coincides with Dark Energy overtaking gravity as the dominant force at play in the universe. Etc, etc.

Rome/Carthage, Hellenes/Egypt. You know what happened there after one conquered the other?
Even roman religion is just hellenic with different names. Ever heard of hittites and what they did?

Full fucking retard.

you are not addressing the underlying argument at all. self correction is not an argument because it's perpetual - nobody would discredit Newton for having been wrong about gravity for centuries.

varying scientists have used their set of logical and ampirical tools to come to varying conclusions
varying philosophers have different conclusions based on their observational and logical tools
various religions have claimed to know the origin of world. most of them are wrong. you can not, under any thread of logic, conclude this means ALL of them are wrong.

>hahahahhaha
>people have faith
>how silly of them innit?

british ‘comedy’

youtube.com/watch?v=V2FToyZil3I
the true kings of comedy should bring ricky gervais down a couple more pegs

Saying there's 1 God doesn't make it so either. The point is plenty of people throughout history have all claimed that their God or Gods are real. Their claims are just as valid or invalid as yours.

Except mathematical deduction follows rules which allow for correct answers to deduced.

The "God theory" makes very few concrete predictions about reality (and when it does it fails) Karl Popper's philosophy of science says its shit.

These are the only two ways you can pursue knowledge in an adult manner.

>lmao. i said i was agnostic
Can you see the illegitimacy of swapping between atheistic views sand agnostic views to dodge the consequences of either? It seems like your atheistic one moment ("lol, believing in God in 2018"), then agnostic when people point out the flaws in that, then back to atheistic again in order to go back on the offensive.

>your point?
My point is that you're inconsistent and therefore guaranteed to be wrong. (At least in part.)

no pathways concieved YET

All those religions are dead now, and Christianity triumphs

This kills the atheist

>Modern pop culture declares that atheism is a "scientific" worldview. But most of the key contributors to modern science were theists and often Christian.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

–Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?”

–Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

>Yours is real.

I am glad you understand, Ricky.

Yes, and at the time those religions weren't dead, and other religions were. Point being just because you happen to be alive during a time period of "x" religion, does not mean that it is true. It only means that it hasn't died *yet*, or it simply means that the methods that people used to diseminate the religion were more effective. It is not evidence of the truth of the religion itself.