Eeally makes u think

eeally makes u think

Other urls found in this thread:

icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/certain_event.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Atheism is the easiest religion to troll.

still makes more sense than any religion

i mean maybe there's some supernatural entity behind all of it, but the idea that some knowable deity is guiding everything yet keeps itself completely hidden to all but a few people is the most preposterous thing ever

How so?

It makes me think how weird it is that people strawman this hard when making images to post on this board. Both sides do it so much it's insane. That image isn't even close to what atheism is.

I honestly can't tell who gets trolled worse in the end: religious people or atheists.

Both are insufferable when they are rigid.

The image is pretty accurate.

Time starts when the universe begins. There isn't a "before" time exists. That's nonsensical. It's like looking at the corner of a circle: the words go together in a way that appears to be meaningful, but it turns out that the statement is gibberish.

The scientific consensus is that it's likely that there was a large super hot ball of quark-gluon plasma that for unknown reasons exploded and expanded gradually cooling to form all of the matter and energy we have in the universe today. No one claims to know what happened before that or claims this is the only possible model for the beginning of the universe.

That is nothing like what is represented in that image.

>Don't believe in god
>This means you have a rigid dogmatic belief in my meme image

Are theists even trying?

i think more ridiculous is this wars for religion . the most funny shit ever . best joke of the millenia

Yea

Euniv = 0

First law of thermodynamics. Are you saying you dont believe in the laws of thermo?

You forgot the ball was spinning. Which means we wouldn't have planets and moons which spin in the opposite direction. You also forgot that if the expansion was off by a few milliseconds the universe wouldn't be here.

Also, we aren't talking about the Big Bang. We are talking about Atheism.

the earth is a flat plain.

>ball
>exploded
No no no, stop.
>spinning ball
No, just stop.

Read a book.

My favourite is:
>mock people for believing in God because there's no scientific evidence
>unironically believe in aliens when there is no scientific evidence

Yes, according to the BBT the ball of all matter we see in the universe was spinning.

I'm tired of people touting science as the only methodology for finding truth in life.

I don't want batshit sandpeople telling me what's true based on an ancient book either, but it's still quite frustrating.

Please stop. Spacetime is not a three-dimensional object. Read a book.

That image describes what the creator believes that atheists believe happened at the big bang. We are talking about the big bang. I'm not going to type out every single inch of every big bang theory ever. I'm keeping it simple.

We are talking about matter you tard. You read a book.

That isn't what atheism is.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.

It has no doctrine whatsoever.

Theism = belief in a god.

A-theism = lack of belief in a god.

>knowable deity

we don't even know if it has a mind or conscience or whatever. it's not an animal, right?. but what I feel is that atheism is not the answer and I can't take atheism seriously for far more reasons than just what is in OP's pic.

we can't grasp God rationally. he transcends logic and rationality, which is great because God is also about eternity and has many attributes that are the peak of our own imagineable ideals or perhaps even far more than that.

The big bang theory does not feature an exploding, spinning ball of matter.

Who even does that?

It does. Please stop. Read a book.

>we can't grasp God rationally. he transcends logic and rationality, which is great because God is also about eternity and has many attributes that are the peak of our own imagineable ideals or perhaps even far more than that.

So what use does he have in our lives then?

Spacetime itself expanded, there was no explosion. Quark-gluon plasma is not a ball, it doesn't "spin".

Alien life is a statistical certainty. Supernatural things, by definition, do not exist.

According to literally no one but you.

>american education

Thanks for setting the record straight, Will.

Believing that there are aliens somewhere doesn't mean that aliens affect us. Similar to a god. If it's off somewhere not affecting us, then great. You start taking about what God or the aliens told you and I'll have some very probing questions for you. And if you tell me that someone 1000s of years ago talked to god or an alien, you have even more to explain.

>statistical certainty

Oh boy I've heard this said multiple times. Can't wait to see you fail to explain what you mean by this.

According to current scientific consensus in the community of cosmologists.

>certainty

Possibility, sure.. But certain?

Unless we're riding off the assumption that the universe is infinite, that simply isn't true.

There wasn't quark gluon plasma until after the expansion. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Now shut up.

>after the expansion
The expansion is still happening. Do you mean the epoch of inflation? That would still be incorrect.

We're proof that life exists under the right conditions.

There are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe. It's statistically probably that at least one other planet out there achieved the same life friendly conditions.

This is before considered the idea that life may exist under entirely different conditions, like the lifeforms we have living in volcanic vents in the Mariana Trench.

Abiogenesis can occur under conditions that exist on billions of planets.Therefore, given enough time, it will. Fourteen billion years is enough time, as evidenced by you and me. There are approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe.

>There wasn't quark gluon plasma until after the expansion.

Right, and he never said that, so I think you two are in agreement over that.

That still doesn't constitute as a statistical certainty.

>probable

There's the key word. FTFY, by the way.

He did say that.

The initial expansion of the Universe. You are the one who is wrong.

All you've said is that "it's possible there exists life elsewhere." That's not evidence that there IS life elsewhere.

>Abiogensis can occur under conditions that exist
Any proof of this? Any observable example where this happens?

Also, why should 14b years be enough for some other lifeform to form?

And still not a single sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.

There is no before the expansion, it started at t = 0. So yes, obviously there was no QGP until after the expansion i.e. time started.

>billions of billions of galaxies
>each with hundreds of billions of stars
>many, if not most having a system of planets
>yet Earth is the only planet in the universe capable of cultivating and supporting intelligent life
It's not so much a "certainty", but the odds are so high you might as well consider it so.

>Wants to argue about what is statistically certain
I am comfortable with calling a 99.99999999999999% chance a statistical certainty. I do not care if you are not.

>Any proof of this? Any observable example where this happens?
Is this supposed to be a stupid question?

Because yes: there is proof that it can and does happen. Source: your mirror.

>And still not a single sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.
There are all kinds of problems with that statement, but the biggest is that nowhere was anyone talking about observable signs of human-appreciable intelligence in alien life.

First of all you don't have beliefs. You just repeat whatever it is that's being told to you. Second of all, if there is a god then he hates you - you specifically, because you have no balls to handdle the bantz and ridicule yourself and your faith in front of your deity. Third, you're going to hell anyway because you are an evil person, always was, always will be - no ammount of prayer and charity will change that. Fourth of all, your obedience is futile.

...

>that ID TBh senpai

>religion makes less sense
Explain

>I am comfortable with calling a 99.99999999999999% chance a statistical certainty. I do not care if you are not.

If you call that a statistical certainty, then you are conveniently ignoring the actual definition for your purposes. It's intentionally misleading and intellectually dishonest. Do the world a favour and kill yourself.

The odds are unknown though and to extrapolate so wildly is absurdly unscientific. It's the sort of shit sociologists do. Next you'll be saying the Drake equation is valid.

At this point, all evidence directly and objectively asserts that life exists solely on Earth. Saying anything to the contrary is pure supposition and guesswork with zero evidence-based assertions.

Yes probable.

We don't have anything to suggest the probable existence of supernatural entities, despite extensive research into it. It's an entirely different comparison.

If we one day encountered another intelligent species who had their own versions of the bible, I'd also consider the likelihood of Christianity being true probable.

That's not how certainty works.

>proof = your mirror
Ok, now prove that humans spawned from nothing and not an intelligent creator. Oh look where we are.

Strawmen are woven into the fabric of Sup Forums

I'm not arguing for Christianity, I'm just saying that to argue that aliens definitely exist is objectively incorrect.

how many atheists dedicate their lives to aliens? very few

Which means the matter which was condensed was not made of QGP. Which means what you were saying earlier, was wrong. It was condensed heavily to a infinitesimal point and had to be spinning.

There should be plenty of other life forms just as intelligent as us with the number you have given. With the numbers you have given there should also be many planets that harbor SOME form of life, yet all of the planets we have found capable of sustaining life have had none.

>Ok, now prove that humans spawned from nothing and not an intelligent creator.

The positive claim is that we DID spawn from an intelligent creator. As such, the burden of proof lies on you to do so.

Oh look: you confused two words and didn't understand the difference between them.

Too bad you're a fucking retard, but that happens to be your fault--not mine.

>spawned from nothing
We didn't. We evolved from primates. You, in particular, were spawned by your parents.

>there's no theories as to what caused the big bang

americans

>There should be plenty of other life forms just as intelligent as us with the number you have given.
You are welcome to make that assumption. I have no idea why you are trying to convince me that I, also, make that assumption. I do not.

Sub definition two, faggot.

An abiogensis has still never been observed. So your earlier point is moot.

I'm not arguing about creators. I'm shutting down arguments that "Aliens must exist 100% sure" or even some bogus "99.9% sure" because of completely moronic reasons. One of them involved belief that abiogensis is possible, which is already a stretch.

>theories
dude science lmao

Are you still trying to argue that, by "statistical certainty," I was referring to a documented fact?

Because, if you are? You're an idiot.

Incorrect.

Besides, if you had passed year six, you'd know for something to be certain, the probability is one, or one hundred percent.

...

Show me an instance where abiogensis was observed: i.e. a closed environment where life suddenly formed where there was previously no life.

Incorrect.

I again refer you to a mirror.

What documented fact? You're making shit up as you go along. You can't redefine mathematical terms as you like.

An event that is certain is one that happens all the time, no matter what. not one that could happen " 99.99999999999999%" of the time.

Thread reminder:
>American education

And again, I ask you to prove that humans/their ancestors were born from nonliving objects.

You should. Just as statistically certain as there being other life.

You didn't even read his post. You are retarded.

Why? Because you say so? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. Go back to middle school.

Why don't I refer you to a high-school tier dictionary for children struggling to get a 70% so that you can shut the fuck up.

icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/certain_event.html

Theism : thinking there's a human-like mind behind all of this.
>And they mock your disbelief

>expecting something that probably took billions of years to happen by chance on a planet occurring in small enclosed environment during observation
but yeah, there is no real way to prove it

Of course, I wanted to make the point that abiogensis was not something to be taken as a common fact.

>human-like mind
Not all theism is anthropotheism.

...

white europeans are doing nothing to stop the muslim invasion, how will a mostly mexican USA deal with muslims?

What if there is a God and tells you that he's atheist?

Really makes you think

They won't. Immigrant populations and minorities tend to vote left.

your pic is missing theamazingatheist, seth macfarland and ricky gervisa

and babies too, 100% of babies are atheist

When the democrat party is mostly mexican, it's views will change pretty drastically though.

this. unbaptized babies literally go to hell if they die

true, the number one cause of going to hell isn't murder, it's sudden infant death syndrome. hell is full of babies.

Do we know that? Sadiq Khan is a Muslim and yet he's Labour. He even supports gay marriage.

#NotAllTheism