How the fuck can someone believe in any god? People have created gods, not vice versa

How the fuck can someone believe in any god? People have created gods, not vice versa.

Other urls found in this thread:

dropbox.com/s/2iacqrzr31sz7c3/Sup
nydailynews.com/news/world/unicorns-walked-earth-29-000-years-article-1.2580887
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

God hates me cause I'm a fag!

well you see you stupid atheist its up to you to prove god doesnt exist so fuck off until you can prove it

what the fuck is the fourth one supposed to be

Too retarded not to be bait

Gnostic atheism is just as retarded as gnostic theism. They both claim to 'know', that god either doesn't or does exist. There's no way of knowing that, for either. A lot of "atheists" are really agnostic atheists. There's a big difference.

It's a cross with a star on it

atheism

They just fear death and the unknown so they create something to fill that void. No need to make fun of the simple minded op. Inb4 tips fedora. I'm not the one with an imaginary friend

If you think logically you can really say that you are god. And that, if you assume others are sentient and conscious like yourself, everything and everyone else is god as well.
Say you suddenly went blind. You would no longer perceive light from the sun, therefore you can only assume it exists. Even if you try to be a smart ass and say "Well hur dur I can get a sunburn from the UV radiation affecting my skin and if there was no sunlight all the plants would die.", then I can still tell you that you're only assuming based on learned knowledge that there is still light coming from the sun.
If you are not perceiving something in the present moment, which is all that exists, then you only assume that it still exists.
This philosophical inquiry is the exact basis of the famous question, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to experience it, did it happen?". And, with that type of thinking, you can easily prove that you are god based on some of the many definitions of the word.

Oh yeah, another thing. There has never been a point in time where everyone agreed on a single definition of the word "god". So, that is another argument in itself. If you feel that god is simply anything that is alive, then that's what it is. The idea of god is entirely subjective to personal experience. None of the interpretations of the word are wrong.

Another thing that I should mention...
If you simply choose to not define the word "god" along with suspending any belief that an absolute definition may exist, then that is perfectly fine as well. Again, it's all based on personal experience. Anything that is not existing in your present reality has no reason to exist at that moment.

How is he retarded?
Religions have always been here but atheism is relatively new
Since atheism is more recent you are the one that needs to prove that you are right

Atheism is just another belief system like any religion. They believe that it is in their benefit to not believe, therefore is still a belief. Belief is entirely based upon subjective experience. If you were color blind and I said "that color is blue" and you said "no, that color is red", it would be stupid to argue with you. The color that you're seeing is different from the one I'm seeing, arguing which is correct is just ignorant.
They are all correct.

Religions simply arise from the observation that 1) there are forces in nature that are far superior to us, and 2) the very intuitive notion that there must some kind of oneness in the universe. To that extend, no religion is right or wrong, it's just a necessary product of intelligence.

All the gibberish about god or nature being so obsessed with us is nonsense, that I agree.

So you need to prove to polytheists that you are right. Atheism came before it all. It's just a belief is no religion. Before religion was created there was none. Therefore it is you who have to prove religion correct

topkek. Atheism is definately not new, it's just more present due to the fact that anyone who doesn't believe in God isn't treated like some agitator.

And what do you mean by atheism? Gnostic or agnostic atheism? Though if you say atheists, whichever it may be, have to prove that they are right, then why don't theists need to prove it similarily? It has nothing to do with who was first. And like I said, atheism is not new. There are people who identified as atheists as far as thousands of years ago. It's probably even older but it's simply not recorded by history due to the religious totalitary history this planet has had.

The same way people believe in marriage. Marriage isn't a real thing, its a concept. Same thing for religion. People can believe in a religious concept.

But of course most people are idiots and don't anaylse these things like that. Thus, we get religious zealots.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>over 1000 religions
>every religion says their God is the only God
Do the math, religifags.

Don't forget about polytheist religions

Agnostic atheist = does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists

Gnostic atheist = believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Agnostic theist = believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

Gnostic theist = believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Keep these in mind when spouting such bullshit about atheism/theism.

who needs a god when you have the sun
praise the sun !

And religions with no gods

Arthur C. Clarke once suggested (somewhat in jest) that any technology sufficiently advanced was indistinguishable from magic. There are a great many things about the origins of the universe that we cannot, and may never be able to, explain. It's no great leap, then, to just bundle up the vast expanse of mysteries and unknowns, wrap them up in a big question mark, and say "whatever did that must be far above and beyond our comprehension."

Hence, God. Add to that, people like to anthropomorphize things; it's just human nature. Now you have a concept of a God that looks like us.

My guess is, whatever absolute truth may be out there, is likely so far beyond anything we could comprehend, that an old man in a robe is as good as any other symbol. I find it strange that the notion could bring so many such great discomfort.

>every religion says their God is the only God

I see you're no theology major.

Why would he be? Useless field.
Was that even meant to be an insult?

...

could you please insert an "s" after the word "God". "Gods" is more inclusive and succinct

...

The probability of god existence is so low that you can safely assume he doesn't. Just like you're not gnostic about orcs.

atheism is a belief, not a religion. there's a difference. read

Scientology.

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. Not all religions say their gods are the only ones. You're just a nigger.

To be pretentious enough to believe that, given the still undiscovered mysteries of the universe and our existance, is pretty much an austism-spectrum disease the same as gnostic theism.

Based on what? You claim probabilities as though this authoritative word should banish opposition, but I don't think that you can actually show evidence one way or the other. Can you?

salil a sawarim

Based on the lack of evidence of his existence. Without it, it's just another hypothesis that can't even be proven or disproven, so it's useless.

Here's a thought experiment: in the presence of thousands of ideologies, if there were actually "one true God" - and if he/she/it actually gave a shit about any of you - how would it make sure you got to the "right" belief system -- assuming that were important?

You would think that, if the stakes are really high (i.e. eternal damnation or whatnot) - and the concern is truly deep (i.e. a loving God) - that there would be a pretty unmistakable trail pointing you in the right direction, no?

So, the question is... Does such a trail exist? Are there unmistakable breadcrumbs? If not, does their absence suggest no God exists, or perhaps that one or more of these other priors may be in error?

allahu sssssssssssnekbar

>it's just another hypothesis that can't even be proven or disproven
That it is. But you claim to 'know', that god doesn't exist. You really think you're in a position where you can safely make such a conclusion? Like I said, pretentious. You're not any different to gnostic theists who claim to know that god exists.

So you are now asserting that an absence of evidence results in a positive proof.

I don't even need to evaluate your underlying premise to know that: you aren't very good at math, are you?

Useless thought experiment. You said it yourself.
>if he/she/it actually gave a shit about any of you
This is an unknowable thus even if there were no breadcrumbs to follow, it wouldn't suggest anything. A god doesn't even have to care about us or anything else for that matter. It's simply something that can be said to have created us, or life in general.

Christian theology is retarded so they get butthurt when they hear a rational argument against their dumb religion.

I've really got to agree with this. Abrahamic religions are generally pretty autistic. Just look what happened to Islam.

Scientific way of building a theory:

idea/intuition --> theory --> experimental proof/disproof (--> correction of the theory)

your argument: others have to proof I'm not wrong.

Well then, my claim is that there are free living tigers in the US. Now, please be so kind to search the whole US for said tigers.

Its in The Bible you Fucking Idiot

Ha Ha. Learn to Read. Its in The Bible that God Exists. Face Palm at Atheists Lol.

And I don't need to evaluate your premise to know you have no background in science. Every claim is false until proven. Because only positive knowledge is knowledge we can work with.

Thought experiments can be useless, it's OK, they have very little cost.

As to evidence of a caring God: the earth once was, and still has the potential to be, a literal paradise for humans. That might be just because adaptation over millions of years resulted in organisms well suited for the conditions present. Or it might be because a divine power loves us and wants us to be happy. And, those two ideas need not be mutually exclusive (i.e. one could be the tool used by the other).

On balance, wouldn't you at least concede that the incredible series of coincidences and perfect alignments that resulted in our environment, slightly favor a "caring God" scenario over other explanations?

You've a special case of retardation, don't you? At no point did I say others have to prove I'm not wrong. I'm saying anyone with the audacity to say they 'know' that god does/doesn't exist, are the ones that need to prove it. Isn't that logical?

Wow are You Dumb? It says He Exists right Here in The Bible but I guess You cant Read!

Thats Atheist Schools for You!

Doubles Means You are Correct! The guy is A Fucking Idiot who cant Read. The Bible Proves God.

...

Yes, I'm an agnostic theist myself. I do believe there is a governing force of some sort, but I don't put too much weight on my belief.

...

>the Quran
Fixed

Do I? I said it's so low you can safely assume he doesn't, not that he doesn't.
The absence of proofs given how many years religion exists and the amount of non-physical bullshit and contradictions in stories and "proofs", coupled with how everything that was previously called "god" could be scientifically explained, makes me think the probability is very low. That doesn't make the hypothesis useless. What does is an inability to be either proven or disproven. You can create thousands of ways the world could have been created that way or something, but as long as there is no way of it to be proven it shouldn't be considered true.

Please don't to ad personam.


Faggot.

The entire debate summed up in one image.

OK, I am clearly being trolled. Your post contains the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, straight up textbook retardation.
P.S. "There is no god" is your claim. And by your words, it is false until proven. Ergo...

- But that claim is every bit as wrong and retarded as the one you are making. I suspect you know this, and are masturbating furiously right now over the angst you imagine you have inspired.

>I said it's so low you can safely assume he doesn't, not that he doesn't.
I disagree. How can you say the possibility is that low? Isn't the fact that you're alive right now quite miraculous? That life itself exists?

No. Life is not miraculous.

Why is that? There's an unimaginable number of planets in the universe. What makes you think life couldn't accidentally start on at least one of them given optimal conditions?

Of course you did. Not explicitly, but your justification of god rests upon the idea that unsolved problems somehow allow a god to be a reasonable assumption.

All the bible's errors and modern science not giving any reason to assume a god should already hint to you that there not being a god is simply the more probable answer.

Thus, you'd need proof which you cannot gain from not knowing.

Whence came those optimal conditions?

Because its most probably that exist a superior being than nothing.

God created life... no one saw it or knows how he did it but it happened because some bronze age nomads had a story about it...
Weakest ass circular argument that ever was.

Ah, so you have now retreated from the "there is no God (whatever that might mean)" to a slightly safer "The God of the judeo-christian Bible is not accurately portrayed" position.

How very predictable and boring of you.

By accident? There's a large variety of planets in the Universe. Are you getting to the "why earth not somewhere else?"?

Whence came that large variety of planets in the universe?

You can't decry circular reasoning on one hand, and then turn right around and use it as the basis of your own argument on the other, you simpleton! :)

The words are english but strung together in a way that they can only convey a hard hard to interpret hazy idea.

This, though, only makes you the creator of your world, does it not? Is it not more correct top say that God is a part of that world?

>All the bible's errors and modern science not giving any reason to assume a god should already hint to you that there not being a god is simply the more probable answer.
This statement just shows your ignorance. The bible is just a part of 1 belief system on our small planet in a vast universe. Just because it is flawed doesn't mean a god cannot exist. Using such an argument is quite closeminded. And the fact that science discovers more and more precise and intricate mysteries all the time only strenghtens my belief (not knowledge), that there is a creator of some sort. Just because we can explain phenomena better than thousands of years ago hasn't gotten us even close to the real mysteries of being.

6304 dropbox.com/s/2iacqrzr31sz7c3/Sup Forums.zip?dl=1

True but "invisible sky fairy that breaks all the laws of the universe that we understand" is almost at the bottom of the list of how shit got started.

somebody ban this fucking idiot,,,

It didn't happen because there are stories about it, it happened because we are here and can experience it. If it wasn't God that gave the spark to life, what did? Stuff like matter simply existing is nothing compared to the fact that living beings exist. Something like that happening is quite miraculous.

With apologies to those who might burst into flames at the mere presence of any Bible quotes...

There's an interesting bit in Acts, where Paul is speaking to some heathens. He basically says, he walked around their city and found an altar dedicated to "The Unknown God" - which they worshiped, in ignorance. And he tells them, "this is the God I came here to tell you about!"

I find that story very interesting, and perhaps a useful metaphor for this entire debate.

True but "invisible sky fairy that breaks all the laws of the universe that we understand" is almost at the bottom of the list of how shit got started.

Who's to say that your world is not the only one that exists? We only assume that other people are similar to ourselves. We can only assume that they have perceptions just like us. For our own benefit we choose to empathize with others because being a part of a group is much more effective than being a lone wolf in most cases.

From the stupidly big amounts of matter that were thrown around the universe and then formed planets, because of gravitation. The diversity comes mostly from what the planet has been created from or got in collisions with asteroids and the distance from the star coupled with rotational speed. It's pretty well explained already user.

What would you say is at the top then? There are theories like parallel universes and stuff that people swallow up without any problems. I'm fine with that, but such a "multi-universe", or w/e it would be called, makes me believe even more that there is a governing force behind that all. It's too intricate to be random and without meaning.

Big amounts of matter from where? Gravitation from where? You haven't explained the origins of all this activity and matter and life and stuff going on, any more than you can explain bread is nutritious "because of the nutrients it contains".

well, prove to me that unicorns do not exist, stupid brainwashed idiot who follows a 2000 year old book full of fairytales

Where did the matter come from? Where did the big bang come from? What caused the big bang? What causes physics to function?

Hey, fellas. How's highschool?

Oh, dear.
nydailynews.com/news/world/unicorns-walked-earth-29-000-years-article-1.2580887

Super christanity

We don't know what was before the beginning of our universe if there even was one if that's what you're coming to. I doubt we can even consider any " before the beginning" since there was no concept of time back then and even very close to the t0 the uncertainty is so big that all the points in time blend into one mess and it can't be used to judge whether something happened before or after something. How does it change anything?

I don't mind people believe in something.
If it helps for themselves to give them hope in darker times and what not.
It only pisses me off when it start to get organised and become religions/cults and force other people to respect their ideology like it were facts despise they can't prove it beside showing a book that's been written by rich anuses trying to control people 2000 years ago.

I'm atheist and I like this post

To sum up this thread:
>Both atheists and theists are equally intelligent
>The definition of the word "God" is very important
>The transcendental principle, whatever you wish to call it, cannot be proved or arrived at through logic but only experienced.

So, if a lone wolf joins a pack, is he still his own God or will he adopt the one collectively projected by the pack?
Will it be both? Can he choose?

There's no before big bang. There was no concept of time then.

i honestly don't know what are the most boring fucking threads these days on Sup Forums; the stupid fucking religion threads, the stupid fucking cut vs. uncut threads, the nigger/cuck threads, or the trap threads.

guess i'm growing up and leaving you faggots behind

...

it's not a belief, it's the lack of one

well, i'm convinced! it isn't pink tho...:(

great thanks for asking

How is it harming you at all? Good Christians believe that your religion is a personal relationship between you and God. Some people feel compelled to share and help other people develop their own, but if they aren't interested they shouldn't be forcing it on you. If they do, tell them to go back and read the Bible.

Maybe you are right and it's just a way of controlling people, I acknowledge that possibility, but I don't believe it. In any case, it makes me, and many others, happier to believe it is real.

In short, mind your own business.

This is not necessarily the case. Even if space-time did not exist something else might have.