Atheist

Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies, mocking specifically Christians, and drowning themselves with all forms of distractions unrelated anything of community value.yet the elites they cherish fuck up the world at a large scale level while literally worshiping pagan gods and Satan. Really makes you think.

Other urls found in this thread:

christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/10/21/belief-in-god-as-properly-basic-an-explanation/
strawpoll.me/10761590
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Natural_sciences
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

Nah, I just want mongos to not annoy me and to purge mudslimes and kikes.

LOVE YOU MUMMY

YOU HAVE BEEN VISITED BY THE ISLAMIC TRUCK OF TOLERANCE

______________¶___
|religion of peace ||l “”|””\__,_
|______________|||__|__|__|]
(@)@)*********(@)(@)**(@)

POST THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD OR YOUR MOTHER WILL DIE TONIGHT

Someone got triggered by opinions.

Confirmation bias from someone living in a time full of collectivists.

Atheists don't attack the religious. We counter attack when the religious try to undermine secular government and force their bullshit, hypocritical morals on everyone

Atheism is the easiest religion to trigger by far.

ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

n-not all atheists?

Since you'll probably be here.
>God exists. He is the Father of us all and everything
Not an Axiom.

>He is the absolute. Absolute truth, absolute power, absolute knowledge, absolute love for His creation
Also not an Axiom, it would be a premise if the first thing had been an Axiom.

>Logic and science are the discovery of the Truth of God

Still not an Axiom.

They are to me

>select
>fedoras

...
.
.

Even in that sense it doesn't work because you're not using it as the foundation of an abstract mathematical problem, it's just your belief.

"Assume X = 4, what is X+2?" is the kind of thing you'd say in that case. "Assume God exists" and then create an abstract, theoretical argument from there. Not "God is true so God is true."

i'm atheist, extremely individualist and right wing, and cool with christians for the most part. islam needs to get its shit together and be more like modern christianity.

It's used in logic not only mathematics

And I'm using it to construct a logical model, they don't exist by themselves

>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies,
No they don't.

>mocking specifically Christians,
Then Christians prolly need to get out of everyone's face.


>and drowning themselves with all forms of distractions unrelated anything of community value.
No, that's retarded too.


>yet the elites they cherish
Atheists don't worship gods nor men.


>fuck up the world at a large scale level while literally worshiping pagan gods and Satan.
You think the 3 Abrahamic religions haven't been ass-ramming the world with tyranny of the mind for the past 3000 years?
btw, Satan comes from the your Bible. The Atheists don't believe in him.


>Really makes you think.
It would be great if you possibly could, but you've fallen for lies and your cognitive ability is severely damaged.

I'm not sure that's a logical model.

A logical model would be a business saying

Shit we need -----> Shit we need to do ----> Shit we get from doing that -----> What we do with the shit we get

>insults others as being collectivists
>by grouping random people together based on lack of faith

Thats pretty tumblr of you, collectivist.
There are atheists in all political groups, seeing how "atheism" isn't a political statement.
Next time you group individuals to judge them, make sure to group them by the thing you are judging.

YOU HAVE BEEN VISITED BY THE ISLAMIC TRUCK OF TOLERANCE

______________¶___
|religion of peace ||l “”|””\__,_
|______________|||__|__|__|]
(@)@)*********(@)(@)**(@)

POST THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD OR YOUR MOTHER WILL DIE TONIGHT

>btw Jesus was jesish
>christians are literal cucks
>get raped by a pedo priest
>get cucked by all the religions
>laughing stock of the world
>mostly fat amrican rednecks

It's a logical model because the other epistemological (knowledge-seeking) models that are currently used are self-refuting and as such cannot be logical

Relativism/ Naturalism/ Scientism/ Academic Scepticism

Are all self-refuting

The entirety of religion follows from assuming God exists, something you don't and can't know.
"Assume God exists..." should be the opening line to all holy books, tbqh.

Bro there is something wrong with your truck. Maybe if we give you enough (You)'s to stretch the post frame it will get fixed.

>Atheism is the easiest religion to trigger by far.

Religidiots provide a lot of hilarious entertainment, but they are so shamefully credulous, so insanely gullible and so profoundly retarded mentally that they are actually a threat to themselves and the rest of us.

>something you don't and can't know.

Something you may* not know, one way or another

Again pretty sure you're using that word wrong. A logical model is a created notion of the path an organization will take based purely on their base needs and the outcomes they want. We need X number of this, that, and we need to do these things to make what we want so we can do what we need with them.

Basically you're mixing terms and assuming that because someone can say "In a vacuum and without regard for the physical problems of production this is the path we should take" That it's then logic for you to start a premise for why God does exist with "God exists."

You cannot know personally whether God exists in the present day unless he reveals himself to you personally, and at large people can't know for sure he does unless he did so. Since he won't do that, you can't know.

>if you aren't a christcuck you're a collectivist

kekold

Basically, yeah. If you think about it in more mathematics terms then all Religious arguments and loops have to start with that kind of premise. There's never substantiation in the physical world, just really bad abstract arguments that usually start "God must exist" and end "So God must exist."

>Again pretty sure you're using that word wrong.

A logical epistemological model of reality

A model of knowledge that doesn't fundamentally self-refute

>You cannot know personally whether God exists in the present day unless he reveals himself to you personally, and at large people can't know for sure he does unless he did so. Since he won't do that, you can't know.

God may not reveal Himself to the world empirically or scientifically

A logic model is a thing. Don't call whatever you're trying to make that, because it's not a logic model.

It is a purely logic based model of future actions.
Yours doesn't self refute, but it's entirely circular. It has no axiomatic starting point as its initial premise is also part of the conclusion you want to reach. I may as well refute it by saying "God doesn't exist, so God doesn't exist."

It's logical in the sense that it purports to follow the rules of logic. Specifically that it may not self-refute

"God exists = true" for pragmatic reasons. Namely that that it would be illogical to presume otherwise

My epistemological model cannot justify God

God is needed to even have a (working) epistemological model

what are you guys talking about?
plantinga's reformed epistemology?

>Namely that that it would be illogical to presume otherwise
It's not. At best that's a non sequitur, the assumption of the existence of God has no basis to start with. You're circularly justifying him through an absence in your own knowledge. There's no basis for the assumption that knowledge requires God, you'd just prefer to think of it that way so you throw it in there.

Haven't heard of him. But thanks for the reference

>It's not.

It is, in practice. All other epistemologies are either self-refuting or equally as faith-based if they're atheistic

>At best that's a non sequitur, the assumption of the existence of God has no basis to start with.

It doesn't need to have a basis. It is my logical axiom God has to exist in order to things to make sense

That doesn't mean things actually do in reality make sense

>for* things to make sense

sounds in line with what i've gleaned from your conversation, but i wasn't in the earlier thread you guys were talking about so i'm missing a lot of context, here's a good summation of it:

christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/10/21/belief-in-god-as-properly-basic-an-explanation/

no bigotry pls
#notallatheists

Cheers friend

"Makes sense" is just more proof that you're letting your personal belief pollute your understanding. You want things to make sense, a God helps them to make sense, you want there to be a God, that's not good justification for the belief, just intellectual laziness. There's no basis for God, no evidence he does exist. If society started from zero mathematics would come back eventually, the scientific method would be rediscovered, and some form of religious practice might take hold, but no society would independently develop the same God.

It's also really easy to say that others are self refuting and yours isn't but so far you've not presented much of anything to actually argue it. You continue to state that things are flatly and not give reason or cause.

>"Makes sense" is just more proof that you're letting your personal belief pollute your understanding.

All beliefs are personal if nothing makes sense

Things must make sense in order for something not to be a purely personal belief

>If society started from zero mathematics would come back eventually, the scientific method would be rediscovered,

You can have no way of knowing that

>and some form of religious practice might take hold, but no society would independently develop the same God.

Neither would you be able to know this

There are very few variations of monotheism in today's world as it is

>It's also really easy to say that others are self refuting and yours isn't but so far you've not presented much of anything to actually argue it. You continue to state that things are flatly and not give reason or cause.

Which one of these do you want me to start with?

All Abrahamic religions are cancer. Christians are modernized Jews for the West, Muslims are modernized Jews for the East. All of them are Jews.

How come there isn't a new religion in the making?

>Muslims are modernized Jews for the East

What's modern about Muslims?

Daily reminder that humans are a species of tribal ape and any ideology that denies that is objectively wrong and may be inherently manipulative.

>I'm right until I'm proven wrong

Then again you're saying things and not using the terms properly.

The laws of reality can locally to Earth have a consistency that allows us to understand things well enough for there to be truth that goes beyond personal belief. Your insistence that isn't the case has no basis.

>You can have no way of knowing that
I kind of can. Given enough time people will recognize the benefits of agriculture and begin constructing larger settlements and groups. When that happens you require mathematics in its most basic forms to be able to develop. Isolated groups the world over did so.
>Neither would you know this
>There are very few variations of monotheism in today's world as it is

That's a product of the cultural dominance of monotheistic religions globally, not an indication of any natural propensity to them. You can't say that without recognizing why it happened; England, France and Spain owned most of the planet. Of course the religion they shared spread.

Regardless even a monotheistic society does not necessarily conflate with our understanding of "God" in the modern sense.

Scientism, as long as you're not going to say that because scientism accepts that our understanding at one point might be wrong means that they're always going to be wrong.

>"God Exists."

"God exists" must be right for things to make objective sense

Humans are a species of ape, are primates and mammals. Any denial of this reality is objectively false. If you don't understand why or how this is true, you should look at the evidence yourself. I doubt you would be able to understand it, but it might be possible if you really try.

>I'm right until proven wrong

I'm not even sure what you mean by "Makes sense" anymore, and the suggestion that the presence of God creates objective truth discounts that there are numerous religions with contradicting views and beliefs for existence. They can't all be right even if they say that their God says they are.

Either God doesn't exist, or his existence is so far detached from any of our understandings of him that worship or belief in him is pointless. Every cult, religion, or brand of faith generally is a human creation. Not the work of the divine.

Atheists should me murdered desu

UGH! The argument isnt whether god exists or not. with our current knowledge base we cant know this to be true or false.
So he is assuming true, and entertaining that possibility [this is what theistic religions are]

You say, "no I do not accept this assumptionand will be very stubborn until you agree with my equally unfounded assumptions"

70% of Athiests voted Democract in last election.

This is a fact, and no amount of
>muh Sky daddy
Can refute it.

And?

>The laws of reality

State them

>I kind of can. Given enough time people will recognize the benefits of agriculture and begin constructing larger settlements and groups. When that happens you require mathematics in its most basic forms to be able to develop. Isolated groups the world over did so.

Religion - which up until this point, in the West - has never been absent from a society's development

>That's a product of the cultural dominance of monotheistic religions globally, not an indication of any natural propensity to them.

It is an indication for the natural propensity for them. As they have developed naturally

>You can't say that without recognizing why it happened; England, France and Spain owned most of the planet. Of course the religion they shared spread.

England, France and Spain do not lie outside of Nature

>Regardless even a monotheistic society does not necessarily conflate with our understanding of "God" in the modern sense.

"Modern" does mean anything for your argument

>Scientism, as long as you're not going to say that because scientism accepts that our understanding at one point might be wrong means that they're always going to be wrong.

Scientism purports that science is the only authority in truth

>We don't know whether a thing is true
>So any outrageous assertion is equally as valid as assuming that it's not true

Most atheists are really just secular pseudo-protestants, they stop at a vague rejection of metaphysics as a whole and don't even bother questioning where their supposed "enlightened" moral values come from.

This is just my impression on atheists as a whole, I know atheism by itself doesn't carry these elements but the trend among popular atheism seems to be that.

>Any denial of this is objectively false.

Why?

>outrageous
subjective, emotional.

at least im not fat

Outrageous to you is common-sensical to me

Your shock means nothing

>Atheists should be murdered

This is why religion, superstition and other irrational thinking is the only real threat to the world.

Save the World. Reject ALL the Bronze Age Middle East goat fucker fairy tales.

Because it's reality. You can't base an argument on denial of the water cycle and expect to be right either.

yes, but you are missing the point. We arent trying to prove or diprove God. Such a task has been proven to be fruitless time and time again. Re read my post.

And OPs threads premise is correct.

Whether we like it or not, most human beings are emotionally driven creatures, rationalizing beliefs then actually examining them.

The "God VS No God" argument will go on forever with no certain* conclusion.... But what ever modern phenomenon is altering people's perspective, it's not a sustainable positive force and is aligned with Secularism.

>70% of Atheists voted Democrat in last election.

Just because someone rejected the idea of Mitt "Rmoney" or Sarah Palin being president doesn't mean they aren't brilliant for thinking so.

>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies
>implying it's something bad

Collectivism is literally a cancer

Atheists who claim moral superiority because they don't believe in God and then lecture and insult those who do are complete cancer.

>I'm not even sure what you mean by "Makes sense" anymore,

It means to have logical sense. Specifically to not self-refute

>and the suggestion that the presence of God creates objective truth discounts that there are numerous religions with contradicting views and beliefs for existence.
>They can't all be right even if they say that their God says they are.

You need the Classical Theistic definition of the Abrahamic God for things to make sense

Or in general an Absolute and interventionist source of power and authority

>Either God doesn't exist, or his existence is so far detached from any of our understandings of him that worship or belief in him is pointless.

Define pointless. We could not know if we could know Him or not

>Every cult, religion, or brand of faith generally is a human creation. Not the work of the divine.

That is your belief

>State them
No, because that's a very long and arduous thing to do and you're definitely not a person who's worth doing it for. The best I'd do is say that we know the rate at which things fall to earth mathematically, and that's something that is objective. No matter the race religion or whatever of who drops an object, the force that acts on that object will be the same as long as they are in the same place as another person. Their belief has no effect on the world.

>It is an indication for the natural propensity for them. As they have developed naturally
Propensity to monotheism. Plenty of cultures developed polytheism and other forms of spirituality that are far disconnected from monotheistic ideals.

>England, France and Spain do not lie outside of Nature
Are you saying that their religious belief caused them to do it then? That a monotheistic culture will inherently and always beat polytheism, rather than understanding that a technological swing to global travel and military weapons that couldn't be beaten regardless of numbers let one continent have a massive advantage?

>Scientism purports that science is the only authority in truth
The applicability of the scientific method to everything isn't the same as accepting an absolute authority. Science is just testing things until you find out how they work. There's no authority involved, it's just test, observe, record, retest.

>democratic party policy's is superior to any neo-con leader

Lol, No.

>Most atheists are really just secular pseudo-protestants,

Retarded statements like this are why people look down on religionists as having no cerebral function.

Not religious zealot myself, but Atheists has to realize how hypocritical they are by saying they are above religion, while in truth they, too, are religious.

The deities they follow most of tge time go by the names of "scientific man", "humane man" and so on. Those are figures of not fully fleshed outreligion, so the morals are left ambigious to us, hence why we distrust Atheist not knowing what they are up to.

Also, they fail to realize many religions can go alongside science and only reform themselves over time, like political beliefs.

>Because it's reality. For example: the water cycle

Why is this reality?

>That is your belief
Your understanding of the Abrahamic God was taught to you, by a human, who was likely referencing a document written by a human and then translated, reprinted, edited, canonized by other humans over thousands of years.

It's my belief that your book and the other books of faith have not survived those thousands of years unchanged, let alone if they were even transcribed correctly in the first place.

Unless you, personally, have a connection to God that provided you with the objective list of what parts of Scripture are correct you have no way to verify any of it, and even then that only works for you.

strawpoll.me/10761590

Dumbest people:

1.Aboriginals
2.African Blacks

Power g4p

3.Pure Native Americans
4.Mulattoes

Power gap

5.South American

6.North Africans
7.Middle-eastern
8.Indian
9.South Asians

Power gap

10.East Asians
11.Eur0peans

strawpoll.me/10761590

not an argument
I'm not even religious so that's even a strawman on top of that.

>The best I'd do is say that we know the rate at which things fall to earth mathematically,
>and that's something that is objective.

How is that objective?

>No matter the race religion or whatever of who drops an object, the force that acts on that object will be the same as long as they are in the same place as another person.

No matter how many people come to believe something, it does not make it true

>Propensity to monotheism. Plenty of cultures developed polytheism and other forms of spirituality that are far disconnected from monotheistic ideals.

Both are natural

>Are you saying that their religious belief caused them to do it then? That a monotheistic culture will inherently and always beat polytheism, rather than understanding that a technological swing to global travel and military weapons that couldn't be beaten regardless of numbers let one continent have a massive advantage?

Their differing religion has been inherently connected to their culture and natural development

>The applicability of the scientific method to everything isn't the same as accepting an absolute authority. Science is just testing things until you find out how they work. There's no authority involved, it's just test, observe, record, retest.

Could something other than science discover truth?

The coup is over, you guys are idiots

>It's my belief that your book and the other books of faith have not survived those thousands of years unchanged, let alone if they were even transcribed correctly in the first place.

Your belief has been inoculated just as much as mine has. From sources external to yourself

>Your understanding of the Abrahamic God was taught to you, by a human, who was likely referencing a document written by a human and then translated, reprinted, edited, canonized by other humans over thousands of years.

So has science been taught to you. And it has gone through a lot more editations than my religious and dogmatic beliefs

>Unless you, personally, have a connection to God that provided you with the objective list of what parts of Scripture are correct you have no way to verify any of it, and even then that only works for you.

I may do. I may not. The Christian Scripture says that I should pray to God in order more properly understand His message

>How is that objective?

I knew you were that guy, and I'm not responding to any of these sorts of things. Especially when you responded to people who ask you questions with "Google it".

>No matter how many people come to believe something, it does not make it true
Not a response to the point that I was making. How you think it is I don't even begin to understand. In fact the entirety of my point was that their belief was irrelevant to the workings of the world.

>Both are natural
Good claim, no basis though. That we did early on doesn't mean it's natural to do so, cultures can and have developed without religion, but religion is a convenient way to explain things we don't understand so it's very popular among societies that don't understand a lot of things.

>Could something other than science discover truth?

Science doesn't discover anything. A scientist using it does. It's a methodology, and yes, someone using some other methodology could discover the truth. Science is just considered the best way to do so with what we have.

>Your belief has been inoculated just as much as mine has. From sources external to yourself

Substantiated by happenings in the modern day and historical evidence. Even now religious beliefs change, adapt, people cherry pick what they like. Something they wouldn't be able to do if they actually accepted the bible as the authoritative, immutable word of God. The way you're dancing around the point is pretty conclusive by itself.

Is it or is it not true that the Bible is the objective, accurate and immutable word of God, or has it been translated for political purposes, edited, and been outright ignored for convenience?

>So has science been taught to you. And it has gone through a lot more editations than my religious and dogmatic beliefs

Which is why it's not the objective truth, only a methodology for testing what is the truth. Our tools get better, we find out more. More importantly I can test a lot of those things if I really wanted to, I can see how long it takes a ball to drop out my window if I wanted to know whether the scientific consensus of 9.8 m/s/s is actually the correct acceleration of gravity on Earth.

You, in contrast, are solely operating on the faith that the people who wrote the book actually wrote the truth, even though many of them wrote it hundreds of years after the fact. You are then operating on faith that nobody in the history of those texts has made any alteration or change.

>Atheists has to realize how hypocritical they are by saying they are above religion, while in truth they, too, are religious.

Religion is manufactured. There is no "above " or "below" it. It is fabrication and mythology. It's created by an whim and dismissed as easily.

Religious people and other mentally stunted individuals embarrass themselves when they set out to mislabel non-belief as some tangential form of belief.

idk what the fuck you are talking about. I'm an athiest and want freedum and liberty for all. christians are cucks adopting africans and sheeit.

So you or someone you look up to can decide what is natural and what is not? Single out some phenomena and say it's not natural, external to nature... that's idiotic. Every single thing that has happened up until now, is occuring, and will happen in the future is natural, part of nature. Saying otherwise is even more so going in a direction where human is some special creature placed upon this world.

>Not a response to the point that I was making. How you think it is I don't even begin to understand. In fact the entirety of my point was that their belief was irrelevant to the workings of the world.

It is completely to your point, and what you conclusions you may draw from it. You were trying to point that, no matter the religion, other people would claim the same thing

I reminded you to be careful not to think that the number of people claiming something would mean anything about the truthfulness of claims

>Good claim, no basis though. That we did early on doesn't mean it's natural to do so, cultures can and have developed without religion,

Name one

>but religion is a convenient way to explain things we don't understand so it's very popular among societies that don't understand a lot of things.

Science cannot understand the world more than any religion would

>someone using some other methodology could discover the truth.

Do you think there exists such a methodology?

who /secular spiritualist/ here?

My statement can perfectly agree with your first paragraph. But you are a hypocrit not to realize that by simply labeling someone as stupid you fall into a belief of some made up by someone qualities that determine what is stupid and what is smart. Those are mere abstractions of your mind, just like God is. Not real. Only thing that verifies them is your subjective belief in them.

>It is completely to your point, and what you conclusions you may draw from it. You were trying to point that, no matter the religion, other people would claim the same thing
>I reminded you to be careful not to think that the number of people claiming something would mean anything about the truthfulness of claims

I didn't say they would claim anything. I said the ball would drop at the same rate no matter what they believed.
A person can believe in YHWH and drop the ball. He might think God pulled the ball to the ground, he might even lie and say the ball floated for a while before dropping, doesn't change that the ball dropped and accelerated at 9.8/m/s/s. You can swap out any belief, race, whatever. As long as they drop the ball, it goes down at that rate.

>Science cannot understand the world more than any religion would

Piraha.

>Do you think there exists such a methodology?

Someone might by coincidence observe an event and make a correct conclusion about its happening out of hand without the scientific method, but it's hard to imagine a consistent methodology someone would apply that doesn't involve testing, observing, and hypothesizing about the results.

Piraha was a response to "Name one".

>DUDE EMPIRICISM LMAO

>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies
Like?

Christcucks literally kiss the feet of negroids and raise their children

Fuck christcucks

>mocking specifically christianity

and Islam. Or atleast I do.

I'm a die hard atheist and I hate other "atheists" who seems to have no problem ragging on Christian ity, but are too afraid to criticize islam.

>Substantiated by happenings in the modern day and historical evidence.

>modern day

Doesn't matter

>historical evidence.

Scientific understanding is not linear

>Christians wouldn't cherry pick if they actually accepted the bible as the authoritative, immutable word of God.

I completely agree with you

>Is it or is it not true that the Bible is the objective, accurate and immutable word of God, or has it been translated for political purposes, edited, and been outright ignored for convenience?

No matter how many times it has been translated, the Word of God has remained clear in my faith. (Orthodox Christian)

>Which is why it's not the objective truth,
>only a methodology for testing what is the truth.

How do you know the scientific method discovers objective truth?

>Our tools get better
>we find out more.

Scientific understanding is not cumulative or linear

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Natural_sciences

>More importantly I can test a lot of those things if I really wanted to, I can see how long it takes a ball to drop out my window if I wanted to know whether the scientific consensus of 9.8 m/s/s is actually the correct acceleration of gravity on Earth.

Would you testing something make that something objectively true?

Or does it only make it believably/ convincingly true?

>You are then operating on faith that nobody in the history of those texts has made any alteration or change.

I am operating on the faith that those changes would have been Apostolic

>1 Post by this ID

*yawn*

What's wrong with honoring pagan gods and killing YHWH?

>Doesn't matter
So does actually. If it's changing now it's likely to have been changing in the past, and the records we have show that Christiainity hasn't exactly been consistent.

Unless that whole "Indulgences" thing was just a phase God totally went through and had nothing to do with corrupt church officials making money.

>How do you know the scientific method discovers objective truth?
Half the time it sounds like you're arguing against some fictional Dogma of science that claims to be immutable rather than a methodology for testing things. I don't know if it discovers objective truth, but it's the best methodology a human has for doing so.


>Would you testing something make that something objectively true?
>Or does it only make it believably/ convincingly true?

It's true enough to my senses, which while admittedly flawed are the only thing I have to interpret the world anyway. There's not much point in discussing anything ever if we aren't able to accept that there are some things about the world that are probably actually happening.
But no, you're right, it's not "objectively" true since I had to see it with eyeballs that interpret light slightly slower than it actually happened, so I shall now discard all logical observation of gravity and instead believe in Steve, the invisible partially intangible giant octopus who pulls objects down to Earth while he tries to escape the Earth's core.


If you're Orthadox Christian then at some point over several hundred years (Well after the death of Jesus by the way) a bunch of people got together and decided what that actually meant. They, not God, decided what was worth sticking into their religion.

>I didn't say they would claim anything. I said the ball would drop at the same rate no matter what they believed.

That is a claim. Any statement affirmed to be true - or false - is a claim

A claim can also been seen as fact. But it remains a claim whether or not it is seen as substantiated

>A person can believe in YHWH and drop the ball. He might think God pulled the ball to the ground, he might even lie and say the ball floated for a while before dropping, doesn't change that the ball dropped and accelerated at 9.8/m/s/s. You can swap out any belief, race, whatever. As long as they drop the ball, it goes down at that rate.

It doesn't matter who believes in what, nor which people, nor how many people do.

That cannot substantiate a claim

>Piraha.

I'll look into it. It says on the wikipage: Animism (a spiritual belief)

>Someone might by coincidence observe an event and make a correct conclusion about its happening out of hand without the scientific method, but it's hard to imagine a consistent methodology someone would apply that doesn't involve testing, observing, and hypothesizing about the results.

Bearing in mind all the evidence that you think you have now, would you say Science is the only way to arrive at objective truth?

>But you are a hypocrite not to realize that by simply labeling someone as stupid you fall into a belief of some made up by someone qualities that determine what is stupid and what is smart.

Well, smart people don't kill others to please their gods. Atheists don't believe in any gods, therefore, in order to justify killing anyone, they would need a good reason. A good reason.

I understand the difference between faith/belief/fantasy and logic/reason/knowledge.

Religious people are always trying to blur the lines between fact and fiction as a means of conflating their beliefs as equal to rational thought. It doesn't work like that.

Smart people know this. Idiots don't. That's why we laugh at you.

or maybe atheists just dont believe in god.