Why???

Why???

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/5ODMUbe7J-I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

° ݏ͜

POST THiS THREAD ONE MORE DANG TiME AND i WiLL NOT HESiTATE TO TRACE YOUR iP ADDRESS AND HUNT YOU DOWN LiKE THE SHEEP YOU OUR

Atheism is simply belief in proven fact, and non-belief in non-proven statements. Atheists don't believe in God, as there is no tangible evidence of there being a God and they don't want to believe anything without proof.

...

Definition of atheism: not believing in any deity

There you go OP. you could google it in 2 seconds but i did it for you

Why can thesists define theism?

>(You)

This shit has been literally posted everyday for 3 years. When will you stop bitting the bait?

I nominate you for 2016 never-ending shitpost award

Should be

>specific trees were eaten by proto giraffes, only the higher ones could produce more offspring.
>giraffes with longer necks could eat more leaf, passing there genes
>repeat

Yes you are right. Banging two atom that did not exist together at total random made you. Total logic.

Maybe fedora fags do. Everyone else knows that giraffes born with longer necks were able to eat more than their shorter counterparts, making them stronger and more virile. The stronger giraffes had an edge on weaker ones durring mating and were able to pass on their genes more frequently than the short neck ones. Not "lyl they neck grew so dey babee neck grew"

Actually giraffes have long necks because they fight with them to assert dominance. Watch a nature video; it's interesting stuff.

Atheism is the belief in the abscense of a god of any sort.
Agnosticism is the understanding, that the existance of agod, cannot be proven nor denied.

Therefore atheists do belive in something (unproven denial).
Agnotsicists on the other hand do not belive.

Prefix a-, meaning anti, against, the opposite of.

Theism, the unfounded belief in some sort of deity, and/or deities, with no proof to substantiate it.

Pretty self-explanatory.

...

haha its okay guise i was just pretending to be retarded!!! haha am i an oldfag now? haha epic

These children continue to mix up agnosticism and atheism...

Do you even understand the concept of a non-sequitur? Because unintentionally or no, that's what you just belmed forth.

>Atheism is the belief in the abscense of a god of any sort.
False. Atheism is the lack of beliefs in any gods.

>Agnosticism is the understanding, that the existance of agod, cannot be proven nor denied.
False. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>Therefore atheists do belive in something (unproven denial).
False. Since you're extremely gullible and you fall for just about anything, the law of parsimony suggests that that you fell for this lie too.

>Agnotsicists on the other hand do not belive.
It's a shame you're not bright enough to be embarrassed by your sputtering nonsense.

Semantics semantics user

They're important distinctions. At least, among those who have any interest being correct.

>Atheism is the belief in the abscense of a god of any sort.
>False. Atheism is the lack of beliefs in any gods.

Take it back to /atheism

Why is it so hard for people to define the word Atheism? It's literally in the word. A lack of belief in a God.

I think it's extremely stupid for humans to state for definite that there is not a God. We, as humans know practically fuck all about our Universe so how could we even begin to try and say what created it? I can definitely have more sympathy with those who do believe in a God as, if there is an afterlife they would be guaranteed access to it. Atheism just doesn't make sense. Agnosticism and Theism are the only sensible ways of life.

Fuck sake, stop posting this shit

I always see this thread
0/10
thanks for contributing

Atheism: Lack of belief in gods or deities.
Done.

this is why nigga
youtu.be/5ODMUbe7J-I

kek @ the idea that theism is more sensible than atheism.

fuck u
youtu.be/5ODMUbe7J-I

It really is. How can you say for sure that there isn't a God? Agnosticism is clearly the most sensible choice here but, between atheism and theism it just seems safer to go with theism.

Another agnostic that doesn't know they're an atheist. Your doubt implies you do not worship a deity. Therefore you are an atheist.

You're a very dense person. I don't lack a belief in God. I think they're is a strong possibility of the existence of some sort of greater being but I can't say for certain.

CAN WE JUST MAKE A PACT TO NEVER RESPOND TO THESE, CUZ HE'S NOT GONNA GO AWAY IF WE KEEP RESPONDING

By denotation atheisn includes fallacy of ignorance.

> Agnostic by definition means to abstain judgment without evidence.
Anything being this becomes:
a. an over attribution error (psychological error)
Or
b. a statement of belief - I.e. faith.

Ironically, therefore, any truly rational atheist should define themselves as agnostic.

Pascal's Wager is for spineless cowards. It's not about what's "safer," it's about what's actually true. There's zero proof that any gods are real, so I'm not going to suck on some imaginary friend's nuts for the laughable chance at some afterlife. Even if the god of the buy-bull were proven to be a reality, I'd still say, 'fuck that guy.' No need for the bullshit in any given holy text.

This is the worst kind of shitpost.

...

It's completely arrogant to say that what you believe in is "actually true". I hate to break it to you but, we're just a couple of primates living on a watery rock, flying through our galaxy in a vast empty space. We're not even a grain of sand relative to the size of the observable universe. There is simply no way that you can say with absolute certainty that there is no God. It's foolish to claim that you can.

Ignoring the ignorance of evolutionary theory, can we please separate Atheism from evolution. Theists can (and should) believe in evolution. While neither atheism or theism can prove their assertions, evolution can!

Pascals wager is entirely irrelevant to whether diety exists.
>all these philosophy posts =truth by consensus.
irellephant

You have shit for reading comprehension. I never said anything close to what you're attributing to me. I'm claiming only that the idea of a god hasn't met any semblance of a burden of proof; I'd personally have no interest in him even if he were proven true.

So you can be an atheist and still believe there's a chance there could be a God?

You may want to point that out those who actually use it to justify belief, by saying theism is "safer" than the alternative. I simply stated my idea that it's inherently cowardly.

I think you need to work on your sentence structuring, friendo, because I'm pretty sure I got what you were trying to say. You stated "it's not about what's safer, it's about what's actually true." By "true" I'm assuming you mean that there is no God. You then went on to say that "there's zero proof that any Gods are real" which would also imply that you do indeed lack a belief in God and think that your belief is the ultimate truth.

Too many people are too entirely tied to their theistic beliefs to take any "power" away from their god, by acknowledging evolution by natural selection. Those that do accept it seem to always just fold it into their belief system - much like they do with the Big Bang - by saying that it happens because it's god's will.

You have enough trouble with what's actually written, so maybe you shouldn't try delving between the lines. What's "true" is that there's no proof for any deity. My lack of belief means nothing to anyone but myself; it plays no part in what's actually true for anyone.