What did she mean by this?

What did she mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zU-ur7PL9Vk
youtube.com/watch?v=QA1gPVXBQRg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

"I'm worried about what my imaginary friend might do to me."

they made a sequel?

I hate the title. It implies people argued that God existed, and died.
Faulty starting point argument, as always.

>>referring to someone's religious belief as an 'imaginary friend'

*tips fedora*

Why are you even on a Christian board?

Is it just gaytheist attention seeking?

There's a third one incoming:
God's Not D3ad - The Atheism Strikes Back

she's hiding her witchcraft powers

>Christian board
>pedos

Is questioning the same as attacking?

Everyone who isn't born into the religion of my parents I adopted without questioning will be tortured eternally. God is good.

If i dont believe, there is nothing to hope for since our lives and decisions are of no consequence in a universe without meaning.

If i do believe, my life and decisions are of consequence and the universe and our lives have meaning.

If religious people live a lie by believing in God, then atheists live a lie i they think their lives can have any meaning without him.

To care what an atheist thinks is redundant.

>wanting life to have meaning

I'm so glad that I got over this.

To them it is because they've been raised their entire lives to never question what their priest/imam/rabbi/etc. Anyone who questions is "attempting to undermine their faith".

"id rather be seen as a cunt by actual living people than not be seen as a cunt by imaginary friend"

>Implying

>If I do believe, my life and decisions are of consequence and the universe and our lives have meaning.

That's called being self-centered and arrogant. Humans are one species on one planet in a vast universe. What we do means fuck all in the cosmic scale.

Something something priests diddling children.

have christfags here evolved beyond deflecting arguments with the fedora strawman yet? gotta say, i'd be ashamed to be a christian with the puerile behavior that goes on here

>World rejects you
>Push the reset button

Why is this plotline even in the Bible?

what did he mean by this?

>if i make up a wizard and believe in it my life has meaning
How does that make sense?

>S-stop touching this sore spot

LMAO atheists are the worst, followed by evolucucks

lad, believing in santa claus still makes your life meaningless.

Christians make shitty movies 2 electric crossaloo

Lmao Christtards am I right fellow atheists?
Quick. Post that certain undeniable proof that Go doesn't exist because otherwise it is completely valid to hold their opinion.

I repeat: Post certain proof that God doesn't exist.

>movies that dumb redditors will never understand

>swn sit you on her lap and read the bible to you
its not fair bros ( ._.)

Yes. This I know. The hyperbole of taking a defensive stance.
I myself am agnostic in that I truly do not know either way and I accept that being uncertain, about the uncertainty of existence is a healthy understanding.

What bothers me is let's say God exists outside of time as we know it, and this God would want us to question existence, and that by holding onto Christian teachings so strictly we'd be disregarding true purpose. In a sense we'd be disobeying our own need to understand existence, and disobeying God.

>our lives and decisions are of no consequence

you don't understand what consequence means, do you? why must one exist infinitely for life to have meaning? unless by 'meaning' you're referring to a 'pre-intended purpose', in which case, i don't understand the appeal to that at all.

First post proof that pink dragons don't exist.

so you can't prove that god doesn't exist

so you can't prove that sentient dildocopters exist

> The universe is causal
> Matter is contigent
> Lol Christfags, The Universe exists just cause

Atheists do believe in one miracle.

I BELIEVE!

*don't exist

Jesus was God's human form, who did die. That wouldn't mean God died, but only the human form of Jesus who remains dead.

The life you live is empirical proof God doesn't exist. Consider God does not cover just any supreme being. God is a specific name for a specific being specifically described in a specific Bible.

Based upon specific and empirical observations from the specific Bible about that specific God, he *should* be clearly and obviously interacting and interfering in Human events to this day as he had in the ancient past. There is no explanation for why we see no obvious miracles or signs of God. No tornadoes of fire or seas parting or burning bushes or series of plagues in a specific order, or water turning to blood, or men walking on water, healing the blind with a touch, turning water to wine, etc. Why? The specific God in the specific Bible has a specific way of doing things and suddenly in modern times he stopped with no explanation. It's odd, it's convenient and it's silly. If there was a "god" a supreme being who created all, his name isn't "God" and he never was a burning bush who helped a Human part a sea. He never gave his will in the form of 10 commandments, he never sent himself in the form of his son as a Human to save us. We made all of that up. A supreme being by existing would simply be unknowable and incomprehensible. We can't even decide if one exists collectively is how incomprehensible it is. We can accept the Sun rises and sets every day and we all have to eat, sleep and defecate constantly. But the seemingly most spiritually and emotionally important thing, we cannot agree on even existing, or how many, or in what form, or what they want for us, if at all? This is all the proof you need.

atheism is not the claim "god doesn't exist" and therefore carries no burden of proof. i don't have to disprove god, that's not what atheism is. atheism literally translates to a- (lack of) theism (a belief in the existence of a god or gods.) you might be tempted to think that a lack of belief in a god and the claim that no gods exist are the same thing, but they aren't. the claim that no gods exist carries a burden of proof, while the lack of belief in a god is merely one's lack of being convinced by the claim that there IS a god. the only implicit claim in atheism is that the existence of a god is not obvious.

youtube.com/watch?v=zU-ur7PL9Vk

Atheistfag BTFO

I'm an atheist who thinks that, as a whole, most religions have a net negative effect on a modern society. However, I do sometimes think I would behave in a more selfless and constructive way if I believed in the concept that I will be held to account for all I had done and said in life after I die.

In past generations when religion was ubiquitous and taken with the utmost seriousness, I think people were more prone to attempt being good at 'heart', whereas now people seem to be more prone to just give the appearance of being good.

What miracle? Just because nobody knows why the big bang happened doesn't mean there isn't a causal reason.

>causality cannot cause itself

Child's play.

i believe in a god, but for me god is just the sum total of "everything" and he cares as much about you and me as someone cares about one of those blond/invisible hairs on their ass.

prove the christian version of god exists.
prove that he cares about you.

can someone please prove unicorns exist because i want one

Since we have laws, religion has become redundant.

Also, as long as we need laws, mankind isn't civilized.

in an infinite amount of time and space, everything can and will exist at some point.. however you are extremely unlikely to ever see a unicorn as your existence is not infinite.

yea but what if there's no spoon

You can't prove that I'm not right.

Boom motherfucker.

nothing requires an atheist to "believe" the universe came from anything. no atheist actually claims that the universe exists "just cause." we don't have to make a claim in ANY direction, as atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

religion is a pile of shit.
i wish people would just realize the simple truth of cause and effect.
if you put more good out in the world, you have a better chance of getting it in return.
if the majority of people operated that way, the world would obviously be a much nicer place.

d-delete this

>lack of belief

i.e. not knowledge

I am agnostic, and believe that your statements are too broad, too absolute.
How people present themselves to others can be very different at each acquaintance within segmented localized interactions. Some people can be more or less genuine depending on their confrontation with other individuals.
I really don't like such absolute absolutes in a broad sense because it can be argued either way.
In history what has happened is Christians with power became corrupt, just others who weren't Christians, so I honestly cannot accept such an absolute. Greed, and power can corrupt most who anyone who seeks the needs of themselves first, or more so than everyone else.

But
>I would behave in a more selfless and constructive
> if I believed in the concept that I will be held to account
Thats not selfless, thats coldly calculating and sociopathic though. People would just be tools and good deeds would just be currency to pay off the judge.
Isn't that the definition of amoral?.

That's not sentient!

Agnostics are too retarded to realize that agnosticism is the default position.

>I don't know.

Nobody does fucktard. That why they call it faith. Either you have it or you don't. If you have it you're a faggot. If you don't you're a real human being.

Agnostic means you think that gods existance is ultimately knowable, its not "inbetween" theist and non-theist.
You can be an agnostic theist, or agnostic non-theist, depending on whether you think that a god exists or not.
Do you positively affirm that a god exists? If so, you're a theist. If not, you're a non-theist, or a-theist.

*is ultimately unknowable

not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but the definition of atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. knowledge is addressed by gnosticism /agnosticism, while BELIEF is addressed by theism/atheism.

knowledge is a subset of belief- you can't KNOW something without also BELIEVING that it's true. so long as our definition of 'belief' is the same. (my definition of belief means "to merely be convinced.) knowledge is basically an expression of a belief that you hold really really strongly.

Right, but to stay with my point, we don't have laws compelling people to be charitable and compassionate, which is what many religions encourage.

Also:
>as long as we need laws, mankind isn't civilized.

I disagree. I think that a species like ours is all the more civilised when a law-abiding 'civilisation' isn't a naturally occurring aspect of our make-up.
Is it less civilised for a society to believe in the rule of law through education and upbringing (ie., some degree of effort), as opposed to being born with the instinct that an unwritten set of rules are the ultimate power in a society?

My stance is I do not know either way therefore I cannot affirm God's existence as certain, or uncertain.
Time, is the bubble we're trapped in seeing only what it has allowed us, so based on our limited view I cannot be certain of beyond our vantage point.

So, my identity of agnostic is - Don't know either way.

youtube.com/watch?v=QA1gPVXBQRg

Is someone "sociopathic" for not not wanting to break the law solely because there is a punishment for it?

>Is it less civilised for a society to believe in the rule of law through education and upbringing (ie., some degree of effort), as opposed to being born with the instinct that an unwritten set of rules are the ultimate power in a society?

This question worries me. If the answer isn't clear to you, you should think about it a little more.

Let me put it this way. If we lived in peace without a law protecting people we'd be a better species than if we couldn't live in peace without a law forcing us to.

>if you put more good out in the world, you have a better chance of getting it in return.

But do you feel that is enough? There are so many scenarios where there can be no possible "return" for a good deed, in which case we rely on people to do it selflessly, which I feel is pretty uncommon in a non-religious society like mine. I certainly don't find myself going out of my way very often to do something good if there is no return.

If God doesn't exist who resurrected Christ?

Photos, or it didn't happen.

Religious faggots who think like this truly are some of the most pathetic cunts who have ever existed.

>I'd rather stand by a totalitarian figure I've never seen, only believe in, out of sheer fear, than with the rest of humanity
Absolute cuckoldry.

>

Butthurt atheists.

>believing that something can resurrect outside of fiction

wew lad

>the rest of humanity

lol you are dumb as shit if you think there are more atheists than religious people on the planet.

No one. It's just an element added to the story to be able to sell it better. Are people more likely to convert to a religion where the central figure was crucified for his preachings and that was the end of it or one that rose from the dead afterwards? The mystical stuff in the Bible is just there to make for interesting storytelling and to wow the crowds.

You should look it up. J-E-S-U-S.
Might change your life.

>people risked their lives and worse for a story they made up "to vow the crowds"
Jesus even for a redditor you're dumb

The dude who landscapes my yard? What can he do to change my life?

You know, other than make my lawn look spectacular.

How people can read any of these ridiculous religious texts and think 'This is the word of a supreme being with infinite power' is just remarkable.

These are fairy tales created to explain shit people didn't understand about our world and for power.

But let's ponder for just one second that there is a GOD, and he is the christian variety, which means that if you do not believe in him you will not go to heaven.

How does that make any sense ? If you are born in a country where they worship another GOD/GODS, you're fucked, because you will be indoctrinated to believe in that/those GOD/GODS.

Now I don't write off the idea of a supreme being (although I find it insanely unlikely), creator of all in the universe etc, but it sure as hell is not anything reflected in any of our insane religious texts of which there are thousands upon thousands with endless conflicts even within the same religion.

They are again nothing but fairy tales, which due to tradition and indoctrination, people still believe today (however atleast in the western world we are finally leaving them behind).

Hell, as crazy as scientology is with the fucking aliens from Xenu or what it was, it's more likely than any of our existing established religions, which in turn really means nothing.

>If i dont believe, there is nothing to hope for since our lives and decisions are of no consequence in a universe without meaning.

You're assuming meaning based on what? Your emotional needs? Will the moon stop orbiting the Earth because you're in a bad mood? You, your emotions, exactly how does that affect the Universe?

>If i do believe, my life and decisions are of consequence and the universe and our lives have meaning.

Not true. Again, what does the Universe have to do with your emotions?

>If religious people live a lie by believing in God, then atheists live a lie i they think their lives can have any meaning without him.

I agree.

>To care what an atheist thinks is redundant.

Possibly, but to question the specific harmful traditions living with others in this world of specific religions is productive. When we depend on different means to survive (technology) questioning traditions that contradict survival, is essential.

...that phrase can be taken out of context pretty easy. What your my God "tells" you to kill indiscriminately anyone who doesn't agree with you?

lil tiny baby brains, buddy. you got 'em. but I don't judge or blame you for it.

Your understanding of the world is literally on a primary school level. Is this what the US education system does to people?

I read about Jesus. I didn't believe a word that's in that book though. Twas also a boring read, considering all the genocide, that's a feat.

Literally not an argument.

God's Not Dead 3: Not Dead Yet
God' Not De4d: Islam Rising
God's Not Dead: The Movie

You don't get converts to your religion by telling boring stories. You tell stories with fantastical ideas that stick in their heads.

>Butthurt christfags can't live without delusions.

I used to hate religious people. Now I just pity them.

sounds like you've been listening to blake giunta. no, people dying for their beliefs isn't confirmation or even close to confirmation for the existence of a god, it just means they were really really convinced it was true. the way stories are "made up" isn't a simple process, some significant figure might make some information up- which is then proliferated through a social hierarchy until a story has developed and is accepted. people find this stuff convincing, we need no further evidence for that- people who are TRULY convinced of an afterlife have all the incentive in the world to spread the word.

>Jesus
>Genocide
Arguing with an atheist is like playing chess with a pidgeon I swear.

Would you enter a serious discussion with a chimp who was eating his own shit?

>forgetting GND: Origins

I feel sorry for how willfully ignorant of the history of the apostles you have to be to hold such a worldview.

>Sup Forums doesn't believe in God now
When did everything go so wrong

Except we have literal eyewitnesses who gave their life for the confession that Christ was resurrected. People who actually faced eternal hell for apostasy in their mind so your ad hom backfires

You read the bible? You know God, father of Jesus, flooded the whole world? That's pretty much genocide in my book.

He also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. That's genocide.

I don't know why people worship this psychopath. If he's real, he's just a massive cunt.

What "history of the Apostles"? Nothing attributed to the Apostles comes from the time period in which they lived. They were written decades if not centuries later by others which makes their authenticity questionable.

>Except we have literal eyewitnesses

Erm, no. I don't think you understand what an eyewitness is. A description of an eyewitness is not an eyewitness. It's just a description of an eyewitness. And since that whole book is full of lies it wouldn't be a big surprise that the descriptions of eyewitnesses are complete bullshit.

Whose "eyewitness" testimony was committed to paper centuries after the fact by individuals with an agenda.

She literally says she'd rather stand with God than the rest of the world. Christcucks think they're benevolent like they're petulant child god but they only act good on the promise that they'll go to heaven, they're cowards.

what ad hom? where did i attack you in place of an argument?


> People who actually faced eternal hell for apostasy in their mind

are you suggesting people can't be convinced of new information over their old beliefs?

we have tens of thousands of "literal eyewitnesses" who testify right now, in the modern world, that sathya sai baba performed miracles. so what? having historical documents confirming that people were CONVINCED of it the resurrection happening tells you nothing about whether the event ACTUALLY took place or not.

*tips reddit*

time for you to go, friendo!