To all Theistfags in here

To all Theistfags in here.

Daily reminder that your God will NEVER be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.

You claim he exists since you believe with all of your soul that he does, so you have the burden of proof.

Until there is proof of a God existing aside from unregistered 'witnesses', ancient and contradictary quotes and baseless "miracles" you will be considered a fool by anyone in the real world.

Please consider ,the fact that is God knows your future you have virtually no free will and that God is no more than a serial murderer that IF it existed it doesn't deserve our attention nor praise.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

why can't theists define god?

>t. fedora
prove there is no god

>Mexico in charge of educated societies

ask theologians to define god, they will all define him using negations "non-material" ," time-less", "space-less", "unquantifiable". It is the literal definition of nothingness

just because you cant grasp the concept of a god doesnt mean he doesnt exist.

>Mexican Intellectuals

Ask scientists what set the laws of physics

>pic related, you

The burden of proof is on you.

When something is presented without proof, it can be dismissed withouth any sort of argumentation.

Prove to me that there isn't a starbucks on the dark side of the moon

When OP is baiting.

iirc, they were created nanoseconds after the big bang

>In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony science, but because I am enlightened by my faith to the one true Lord of the Universes, Lord Yahweh, protector of Yisrael and the twelve tribes

can you prove there is no starbucks?. i want to so see you atheists weasel yourself out of this one.

How retarded you guys are.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

atheists claimed first that there is no god, so the burden of proof is on you.

see

>Mexican intellectuals
Yeah, you tell me god isn't real while you try to act like something that actually doesn't exist. You're pretty damn funny but you should get back to growing avocados or cooking meth.

Do you have proof that religion started by someone saying there is no God?

Do you see how stupid that sounds, Hans?

Go gas jews or something, you nazi murderer.

No, you retard. Religious were the ones that claimed that there is a god. Prove it. Since you can't prove there is no god, i can simply dismiss god existence as stories

I was kind of on the fence about God, but after seeing Mexican Intellectuals come out in favor of Atheism I've finally been able to make up my mind.

Praise the Lord.

...

i have more then enough proof that there is a god, its called the bible and is 2000 fucking years old you should read it sometimes.

I'm not here to argue, I'm just pointing something out. So a statement.

Why is it that I see this same Mexcrement atheist guy?

do you have proof the God doesn't exist? No? I didn't think so.

You're just as bad as those you criticize

its ok my fellow atheist you can stop pretending now you got enough (you)s

>i have more then enough proof that there is a god, its called the bible

And then you complain that people laugh in your face.

>HERE IS THE PROOF, IT'S WRITTEN IN THIS DESERT FABLE BOOK THAT SUFFERED NUMEROUS BAD TRANSLATIONS, SEE!!!?
>how do you know that what is written in the book is correct?
>BECAUSE THE SAME BOOK SAYS SO!!! YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!

>pic related

...

...

except I'm not claiming that God exists either because, as you point out, there is no proof. However you cannot ignore the fact that you can neither disprove the existence of such.

What makes you think that you know for certain that a God doesn't exist? Why can't you accept that we will ultimately never know if it exists or doesn't?

There's no proof one way or the other, so there's no discussion to really have. The only possible point is an attempt to bring people to to either of the equally unproven sides. The divine isn't going to come to this thread and provide overwhelming proof of itself and no one here is going to just suddenly come up with proof of there being no god.
The only idiots are the ones arguing about it.
This is all fucking retarded.

We monitor the moon quite a bit. If there was a starbucks on the dark side of the moon, then it would eventually appear on the light side due to rotation, meaning we could easily observe it.

>scientifically based society
Lol good one mootxico

Not even really religious but there is absolutely evidence of God, but it sounds like you're confusing evidence with "empirical evidence" or "proof" which would be much harder to produce.

Just as an example: before we had empirical evidence for the existence of atoms, people realized that if you assumed chemicals were composed of discrete units, chemical reactions suddenly made a lot more sense - this was a useful belief, even if it couldn't be proven at the time. Many people dismissed the idea initially, but we now know it to be true, and the early evidence of atomic reality came in the form of the belief's utility. "This idea helps us make sense of the world, we might be on to something" = evidence. Same can apply generally to the idea of a God or ultimate meaning/purpose/being in that it is a useful and motivating idea that helps us make sense of the world. This is evidence of truth. Not proof, but to say there's no evidence for God is 100% false.

>be accepted in an educated
Education only existed because it's modeled after christian theological academia.

>scientifically based society
>well we don't have all the answers but we definitely know god doesn't exist
if science was like that we'd still be believing in miasma

If only...

>Daily reminder that your God will NEVER be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.
Who cares? No one can prove anything with 100% certainty, especially things that exist outside of our realm of existence. Let people believe what they want

> However you cannot ignore the fact that you can neither disprove the existence of such.

But i don'thave to. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Prove to me that you don't have a third arm coming out of your neck.
>But i can't see another arm
It's invisible and you can't feel it. Prove to me that you don't have a third invisible arm coming out of your neck.

>What makes you think that you know for certain that a God doesn't exist?

Until he is proven, i dismiss his existense. If he is proven, then i will be his best follower

>Muh agnosticism
>Muh middle ground fallacy

>There's no proof one way or the other,

There is no one way or other way. What is presentd without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Prove to me that our universe isn't inside a chopped off american foreskin

You guys are dense.

The starbucks is beneath the surface. Prove to me that there isn't dwarfs inside a television. When you try to open it, they teleport out of the TV.

> but there is absolutely evidence of God

Such as?

>ctrl+f build
>ctrl+f wall
>0 replies
You know what to do.
Build that fucking wall paco.

The burden of proof is on atheists to prove there is no god. Do this before we can move on to evidence of God.

You present me a godless world without proof. I didn't need to be taught religion to have spiritual experiences.
So, again, pointless conversation and you are the dumbass who can't see that. You've just got a stick up your ass about religious people and wanna berate them.
Other people experience reality differently. Go cry in a corner.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

To all the people who've ever claimed to love someone. The concept of 'love' will never be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.

You see, scientifically based societies don't believe in something until they can tear it apart, dissect it, and reduce it to it's fundamental particles.

We simply don't believe in larger constructs that lose meaning when you tear apart the complexity that yields them.

Also consciousness isn't real. It's just a webwork of neurons firing, and there's really no 'person', but a series of impulses that yield the illusion of sentience.

Oh and basically nothing exists but atoms, since what relation does any particle have to any other particle, aside from the arbitrary fact of it's (percieved) inclusion in the same system as another particle?

Nothing exists if it can't be dissected and catalogued and fit into scientist's brains. Even the Euphoria I'm feeling in this moment is just a spray of neurotransmitters being absorbed by my neurons.

t. athiest

>Until he is proven, i dismiss his existense. If he is proven, then i will be his best follower

>Implying that god would reveal him self to a lowly worm like you

>Until he is proven, i dismiss his existense.
But you're doing more than that. You seem to be advocating that you know for certain that God doesn't exist

>Daily reminder that your God will NEVER be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.

We don't care.

>created
It's hilarious because you can't help yourself.

Man, I remember being 18. How's your first philosophy class treating you?

Anything you say will not make me angry or frustrated. That goes for all fedoras.

I have found God to reside in myself, and I found this by myself. The Kingdom of the Lord is within us.

I have no problem what you do in school. I will always believe in God.

>doesn't understand satire.

I'm sure you remember being 18 just like it was yesterday.

>You present me a godless world without proof
wat?

> I didn't need to be taught religion to have spiritual experiences.

Good for you, i guess...

>The concept of 'love' will never be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.

Completely wrong. It can be explained in a biological way. If the explanation is good or not, i don't know.


k m8

We can never be certain that something doesn't exist. Atheism is not saying that we are ompletely sure that there isn't a deity. That is christian strawman. Atheist simply don't believe in a god.

>see, you made a spelling mistake and you didn't choose your terms carefully in 4chins, therefore i win and you are a christian like us, see?!!

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
I lost faith in the validity of "razors" when I encountered the concept of "Newton's flaming laser sword" and realized that they were in actuality just justifications for intellectual laziness peddled by socially awkward dorks to avoid spilling their spaghetti in debates.

And i don't have any problem that you guys are chritians. Stupid people need their moral compass explained for them. It's ok by me. But don't expect me to take you seriously when discussing anything

This. Niggers confusing a heuristic like Occam's razor with some kind of universal law.

I just gave an example - if a belief is useful and makes sense of the world, that's evidence (not proof) of it's truth. Believing in an ultimate/infinite source of being/purpose/meaning allows us make sense of the world by putting our existence in the context of an ultimate existence - even if we can't begin to understand the nature of such a being, believing in its existence allows us to make sense of the world by putting ourselves in the context of something bigger. It also makes us feel less alone, and more secure in our lives, and although you could say these are just psychological tricks, the fact that they're EFFECTIVE is evidence that there's some truth to them because: Utility of a belief is evidence (EVIDENCE NOT PROOF) of its truth.

Also evidence from simplicity: an infinite system is actually simpler than a finite one. The complexity of an algorithm that generates an infinite set of integers is generally simpler than one that generates a finite set of integers for example. So Occam's razors suggests we should default to the assumption of being a part of/ creation of some infinite being/system until we have enough evidence to suggest reality is a finite or closed system.

You didn't make a spelling make, you just had an amusing freudian slip.
Everything needs a reason, including the fact that everything needs a reason, and science will never have an explanation for that because science is just another bit of code in the program incapable of understanding outside of the context it was created for.

>Daily reminder that your God will NEVER be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.

Maybe if more people in your country were good, faithful Christians you wouldn't have such a problem with drugs and murder. If that's where "enlightenment" leads then you can keep it.

>It's not true because i don't like it

Your fee feez don't matter

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>I just gave an example - if a belief is useful and makes sense of the world, that's evidence (not proof) of it's truth.

lol. I like it, therefore it's truth. Impecable logic. How can atheists recover from this blow?

>Also evidence from simplicity: an infinite system is actually simpler than a finite one. The complexity of an algorithm that generates an infinite set of integers is generally simpler than one that generates a finite set of integers for example. So Occam's razors suggests we should default to the assumption of being a part of/ creation of some infinite being/system until we have enough evidence to suggest reality is a finite or closed system.


That amount of mental gymnastics you do...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

>Everything needs a reason

Debatable

>and science will never have an explanation for that because

because not everything needs a reason. What is the reason for life to appear?

My country was one of the most religious in Europe, and it had a major problem with drug comsuption.

Also pointing out that Mexico drug problems is due to "lack of religious commitment" is stupid, because Mexico is a very religious country.

>It can be explained in a biological way.
Completely wrong. No it can't.

Only the physiological corollary events can be described. The actual experience cannot be 'explained'.

We're talking about phenomenon many orders of magnitude more complex than anything we can 'explain' scientifically.

Don't wall yourself off from God, m8

>Debatable
Could you name some other feature of the universe that violates causality?

>The actual experience cannot be 'explained'.

What part cannot be explained?

So you were talking about cause and effect or reasons for things to happen?

But nice moving the goalposts. Can you prove that god exists or not? I don't want to engage in a philosophical debate, because i don't have knowledge in area.

>I like it, therefore it's truth
Not so my autistic friend - again, if a belief offers utility and simplifies our understanding of the world (as in the case of early evidence for atoms ) then this is evidence of truth.
>therefore it's truth
Just because there is evidence for something doesn't make it true, I hope you understand the difference between evidence and proof.

>no argument
>posts link to Wikipedia

If the only reason you find peace is by lying to yourselves and others, believing in things with absolutely no proof and ignoring reality if it doesn't suit your narrow minded views, then that's hardly an endorsement of being "good, faithful Christians". If that's where "faith" leads, then you can keep it. To yourself.

>Can you prove that god exists or not?

Why dont christfag just make threads and ignore the reddit fedora tippers and muslims

>Make Sup Forums great again

I don't push my faith on others. That's why I mentioned the "by myself" part. If you met me in real life you would just think I was a good person, you wouldn't know about my faith and I would never bring it up.

Cause and effect and the reason things happen are the exact same thing. There was no moving of goal posts.

I cannot prove objectively that God exists and I feel no great need to do so. I have simply made the conscious choice to believe in God. You also have the free-will to accept or deny God.

>why don't christfags just make hugbox echochamber threads and ignore atheists and their facts and logical reasoning

They do. Just like reddit hugbox echochambers.

So you would rather be philosophically dissected by science and be reduced to less than an animal?
All because you have a problem with "lying to yourself"?

...

>So you would rather be philosophically dissected by science and be reduced to less than an animal?
Philosophy is not a science. Also, how can one be reduced to 'less than an animal', when it's obvious we are animals. No matter how you try to reason it, we are animals. This is a fact. Lying to yourself doesn't change that.

> if a belief offers utility and simplifies our understanding of the world (as in the case of early evidence for atoms ) then this is evidence of truth.

What kind of fucked up logic is this? So you think moral is relative?

If i believe that i am a women, and since this belief offers utility and simplifies our (at least it simplifies mine) understanding of the world, then i am a women? Ok, i guess.

Again, just because you want something to be truth, it doesn't make it.

>>no argument
>>posts link to Wikipedia

>Can't debate
>HURR DURR WIKIPEDIA IS SO STUPID xD
Do you want me to copy paste argument from ignorance to here?

>Muh echochamber!!!!!!!!!!!
>Why are thry trying to debate me!!
>I can't defend my beliefs from a rational standpoint!!!! Quickly, silence them!!!!!!!!

ok, sure. keep on being a good person.

>I cannot prove objectively that God exists

Discussion over.

Christians are special snowflakes chosen people. They want to feel good about themselve

ignore atheists and their facts and logical reasoning

haha every thread is the same
>Can you prove that god exists or not?

teapot pink, elephant flying pasta, occams vibrator

getting tiresome

>ignore atheists and their facts and logical reasoning
HAHAHAHAHHA. I don't know if the dutch is strawmaning the christians, or if he is just stupid

If I believe God truly exists, then I don't really need to prove anything to anyone. Who are you that I need to have your acceptance of God's existence?

It's you who should prove He doesn't exist so you can alleviate your guilt and justify your life of degeneracy.

Well can you? No you can't. You never could. Yet you still continue to believe despite admitting you have no grounds to. That kind of attitude is tiresome to everyone else but you lot.

>Daily reminder that your God will NEVER be accepted in an educated, scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.

do you really think the primeordial blueprint of reality just came out of nowhere for no reason and without a creator? Or that the boundaries within the very nature of our physical laws that we know and use came about just because, weren't set distinctively and have no origin either? do you really think nothing metaphysical was responsible for the very first lifeform that came into existence ever?

atheism is a complete dead-end only idiots end up with and pretend they are comfortable with it, OP. sadly, it's not that simple. there can't be a creation without a creator.

and even if most of our religion have an anthropomorphic image of god, even though we don't know if it even is something like a sentient being, even if we know that this would be close-minded, it's just our way of communicating cosmic spiritual and divine love towards what god is and to be closer to what it is or could be.

It's funny how the same atheists who are redpilled enough to know the truth about the lies behind global warming/climate change, the jewish control of everything, the holohoax, the truth behind 9/11, will defend and say hitler did nothing wrong, the manipulation of the media and culture, the leftist indoctrination running rampant all throughout western society, and the white genocide in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism have no problem with any of these things... don't think that the same agenda isn't being pushed for the only real religion out there, i.e. Christianity.

If you're an atheist who believes in half of what I just listed but gets triggered at the name of Jesus you're being fooled the same way the lefties brainwash the public en masse. Christianity as a whole is set against virtually all forms of degeneracy and is fully opposed to the Jewish menace who have hijacked and screwed over real teachings of the bible into a pro-israel pro-zionist political movement fueled by the jewish agenda.

If you're a anti-leftist atheist or agnostic we have more in common than you think. And unlike the Islamists who want to cut your head off behind the disguise of taqiyya all I want to do is invite you to a bible study next weekened. Can we just agree to disagree and move on?

and atheist cant proof that god does not exist so why circle jerk every fucking thread , do you have autism?

>I won't be accepted by a community that worships a mechanical engineer's views on biology and a lying astrophysicist who has blantantly fabricated credentials to earn some sort of notoriety besides being the "black science man"

Oh no, how will I ever survive Juan

P.S. you're still building the wall

Philosophy is not a science but science is a philosophy.

> Also, how can one be reduced to 'less than an animal', when it's obvious we are animals. No matter how you try to reason it, we are animals. This is a fact. Lying to yourself doesn't change that.

I am aware that I am an animal. "Animal" is simply an arbitrary distinction between various related chemical reactions that occur in the universe. "Animal" is a useful concept to humans but meaningless to science.

That is why I say that science inevitably reduces you to less than an animal because from the perspective of science we are not people, we are not even animals, we are chemical/physical reactions.

Which then raises the question of why should some chemical reactions be more valued than others? Why is it wrong to prematurely end some chemical reactions but not others?

Then we inevitably find out that it is actually you that is lying to yourself when you try to come up with justifications for holding onto your morality while simultaneously claiming to think scientifically.

Any atheist who thinks atheists can claim to be moral hasn't pursued his atheistic reasoning to it's logical conclusion.

>redpilled enough
>truth about the lies behind global warming/climate change
>the jewish control of everything,
> the holohoax

Sup Forums is so sad sometimes...

And nice strawman that the rest of your post is

Funny, since it's the cuckstains that circle-jerk on this board and get upset when atheists come in to point out how ignorant they are.

>lefty/pol/
That comment wasn't meant for you.

as a atheist i always got triggered by jesus its some hardcore programming , everything with jesus sounds pathetic and stupid

From our perspective morality will always be relative to some extent because we can never fully understand the ultimate truth, if it exists.

Believing whether you're a woman or not is a weird example because obviously that's an extremely specific case and not really about "truth" like scientific theories/existence of God etc. If you try to be a women but look like an ogre in a dress then you're somewhat delusional, but if you already look really feminine and make it work for you then maybe it's not bad thing (I personally think the latter applies to the minority of cases).

And instead of posting links or copy-pasting you could try actually forming your own arguments.

I'm not even trying to convince you there's a god, not totally sold on it myself, but it's idiotic to say no evidence for God when you clearly mean there's not proof for God - big difference.

Burden of proof is on you to prove he does exist.

You belief everything came from nothing christfags belief magic sky man did it

both are faith both are ignorant

This is the tired old 'morality needs to come from a moral lawgiver' argument. This line of thinking has been blown out of the water many times over history. Just because thinking scientifically is a tested method of solving problems and advancing our species does not mean that it has to lead to mass euthanasia, sterilizations, etc. Continuing to hold this flawed conclusion is indeed lying to yourself. I can easily turn it around and say that perhaps you lot really do need to be put down as a danger to the rest of us if the only thing holding you back from doing everything horrible you can think of is a false belief.

I always find it funny that it's the religious who always go on and on about atheism and it's 'logical conclusion' like they're qualified to know what that is in the first place, rather than just being a strawman for everything they don't like.

>scientifically based society without evidence of it's existence.
Positivism has been obsolete for 40 years. Too bad fedoras will conveniently ignore this.

>so you have the burden of proof.
Have fun reading and trying to prove wrong stuff like the Quinque Viae.

see autism

"Burden of proof" is rhetorical device not a law of nature. The fact that I cannot prove that there is a tiger in the bushes does not mean that there is no tiger in the bushes.

African Americans are one of the most religious races in America. They are also the ones with the biggest problems of drugs and murder.

>Saying atheists believe they 'came from nothing'
>Calling them ignorant
10/10 irony

>that's an extremely specific case

And personal belief in god is not?

>And instead of posting links or copy-pasting you could try actually forming your own arguments.

I don't use copy pastas. And i think linking to wiki articles about specific things that are very well explained is not wrong. It's very dishonest to dismiss things because you don't like the source.

But nice evade.

>but it's idiotic to say no evidence for God when you clearly mean there's not proof for God

Prove me that god exists

Christfags only arguments are memes. =^)

Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true. There would be no need for courts and no need for science. Since whatever came out of our mouths could automatically be seen as true.

If you say there's a tiger in the bushes, but there's no evidence of a tiger in the bushes then it should be dismissed. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

>The fact that I cannot prove that there is a tiger in the bushes does not mean that there is no tiger in the bushes.
The point of the device is to show that it's pointless to go about believing it's true despite having no evidence. If you spend all your time worry that there might be a tiger in the bushes because you have no evidence there isn't one, you'll never get anything done, as well as look like a fucking fool. There's a difference between being out in the Savannah where tigers actually live, in a tigers habitat, where tiger sightings have been common recently and being wary of one appearing, and being in America where they don't live, nowhere near a zoo, in your home and being afraid that one might appear in your backyard bushes. Don't be an idiot.