>mfw I finally realized that atheists are the real bad guys

Is there a way I can legally make life harder for the

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism
answersingenesis.org/
investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/disappeared/meet-the-missing/madalyn-murray-ohair/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair
m.youtube.com/watch?v=J63YkkympOU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They're all bad. Religious fucks, athiests. Agnostics are the only ones that make sense.

t. secret atheist jew

Day of the rope WILL come hahahaha

Agnostics are usually the worst degenerates, holding nothing sacred other than their own immediate desires. At least atheists believe something and live in accordance.

People who refuse to hold any kind of personal views or values are not to be trusted.

The necessity to have a position on something you have no clue about is what leads people to commit gross mistakes.

Vote Trump, and give 4 God fearing Justices to the SCOTUS.

for what?

religious beliefs =/= morale beliefs

if you require a religion to tell you how to behave and think you are the ultimate cuck

Do you not find that agnostics are more likely to be lacking in personal beliefs and lead chaotic, underachieving lives?

I don't think you properly read what I posted.
I'm not saying religion is important, hence why I said atheists are better than agnostics.

I'm saying that you should strive to have some kind of personal system of morals and values, and I find agnostics are more likely to lack this.

Not entirely about agnostics but read the work of Philip Tetlock. He shows that having positions informed by a set of very fixed principles usually leads people to make bad predictions. Those who make the best predictions try to form their opinions using conflicting viewpoints. That's what agnostics do. The need for closure might screw you, if you are not careful.
I'm saying this but I'm not even an agnostic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism
You meant this

I'll check him out. A quick google seems to suggest his book Superforcasting?

Piss off Kluun

Fuck you, I never did anything to anyone, you child

>it's another christcuck vs non-christcuck thread

Why do we have to have these?

I personally respect classic athiests that are quiet and not obnoxious as neo athiests

>imply its possible to "have a clue" regarding a omniscient supreme GOD

Being unable to demonstrate God should lead to the default assumption of absence. Faith never gives up the fight though.

No.
Atheists arent the really bad guys.
Religion is bad. It is poison. It keeps you from seeing reality, go read some Nietzche. You literally have colleges in the bible belt that teach students that the earth is 6000 years old and that the story portrayed in the Genisis is 100% accurate. You even created a backpedaling pseudo-science.
Just, explain this fucking shit.
answersingenesis.org/

There is absolutely no proof that any diety exists. Saying that it does off of a book written by sheep hoarders is INSANE. It's no less sane that someone who believes in Star Trek lore being real or Chtulhu and all the other Lovecraft cosmicals actually existing. Or that everyone you ever meet is an agent smith out for you.

It is, by all means, insane, I studied law for a long time and I know that most religions dont have a single leg to stand in, so the logical step is being an atheist, agnostics are just afraid of assuming the truth. Because they're usually people smart enough to understand my previous point but have lived such miserable life that they want a second shot, or something, it's wishfull thinking.

Its so flawed. I wont go through the bible and I did not come up with this but: If sin is a byproduct of freewill, and there is no sin in heaven, does that mean we are slaves in heaven?
Because that's what the bible claims.

It's ironic, because agnosticism is pretty much the only sensible answer. The people with the most sensible stance on religion lead the shittiest lives. Kinda weird.

Ignore the retarded titles, which are often not even chosen by the authors. Check his points.

>lack of evidence should lead to assumptions

This is why people don't respect atheists, senpai.

prove god is real

Not want to argue about religion here, but most religious people claim God exists by necessity, not by empirical evidence.

>Is there a way I can legally make life harder for them

Yeah, you could present evidence for your god

Oh wait there isn't any

What the shit, this looks like CTR trying to make a meme

>atheists thinking atheism is the default stance, and that opposing atheism means faith in gods

This is also why people don't respect atheism, senpai.

Atheist here, what you gonna do tough guy?

>Sweden pretending to be tough

Ugh

>atheists thinking atheism is the default stance
it is much more default than being a member of an organized religion

Shitty art, absense of humor; it all checks out

Friendly reminder: you're supposed to be skeptical of claims without evidence, but skepticism isn't the same as assuming falsehood: it's just refusal to make the equally large jump in logic that is required to assume truth.

Atheists never give up this fight though.

>atheists are the real bad guys
good goy

Christians here are like vegans or gays in real life
>I'm vegan btw
>I'm gay btw
>I'm Christian btw

Yes, yes, but the true default would be not making any assumptions on the matter. Correct? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and all that.

...

...

it's quite reasonable to assume something doesn't exist if you aren't provided with evidence that it exists and for something like a god, which is quite out of the ordinary you'd need some evidence to believe that

imo, a slightly less default position is believing in a god without being part of an organized religion, but the details there are for some reason not at all popular among religious people

depends on your mood what's default and what standards you wish to apply

but using a sort of everyday useful standard of evidence - you need it to believe in a god

anyway, you are probably agnostic which is a compromise with the situation i can understand, but i can't accept it

I just want to have a theological view that no one on Sup Forums will meme at me for.

What can I go for. Is it only ironic kek worship that is acceptable. I feel uncomfortable with that because kek might be the devil. Thoughts?

Stay out of this Luka

>things that never happen: the picture

Agnostics tend not to care one way or another, unless actually in a discussion about religion and someone is tipping their fedora too hard so as to have gone past the point their position can be sustained.

It's proper atheists and to a lesser extent the more fundamentalist religious that get militant about it.

there is no need, God will pwn them for all eternity
demon frog kek, confirm my shit

I laugh at everyone who pretends to know the answer to the God question.

Says an anonymous representative of the largest pedo chain in history.

atheists asking for proof and saying mean things is not being militant

I heard it was /x/ trolling this board into summoning a demon.

I ain't praising that shit.

...

>it's quite reasonable to assume something doesn't exist if you aren't provided with evidence that it exists

Except... it's more reasonable not to assume. Making assumptions is a silly thing to do, especially when it's not required of you. It's a great way to end up being totally wrong for the right reasons.

If a neanderthal had noticed the way a sickness spread through his tribe, and compared it to... let's say... the growth of moss on a tree or an ant colony... and if that same neanderthal had the idea that "hey, maybe diseases are caused by little bugs/a kind of moss that's so small we can't even see it"... everyone would be right not to believe him.

"There's no evidence of microorganisms that cause illnesses, Grogg. They don't exist." would be wrong, and stupid. "There's no evidence of Gods, user. They don't exist." is just as fucking stupid.

You look at a claim with 0 evidence, and you see people who have faith in that claim... and then instead of saying "maybe", you go and form an ideology based on the negative claim - God doesn't exist.

It's silly. Baffling. Making a negative claim without evidence is still making a claim without evidence. *sigh*

>lack of evidence should lead to assumptions
Yes, actually, it should.

There is a lack of evidence for a pink unicorn on Mars.
Considering how ridiculous the idea is, it's perfectly healthy to assume that it isn't there.

And "agnostic" isn't even a valid answer when it comes to belief. Nobody asked you what you know or what you can prove - the question was what do you BELIEVE

Heh, bullshit m8.

Atheists attack the church and related institutions at every opportunity they can in order to bring them down and openly hate on and disrespect the religious.

>I can't be wrong as long as I say everything is neither black or white but an undefined shade of gray

I hate faggots like you with passion

>If I make a statement then attribute it to an unflattering depiction of the person supposed to be saying it the statement becomes untrue

Atheist here.

I beleive in the nation state, doing right by your family first and foremost, then your community, and then your country.

Where has this meme come from that all atheists are beta nu male SJW types?

Sorry if someone not believing in comforting fairtales about life and death trouble you mate. Do you need them to be reassured about your purpose in life and what happens after death? Bless your cotton socks.

What's more, you don't need a fear of God to have a stable moral foundation, if you do you're probably a piece of shit and you should reflect on that first and foremost.

Hope this helps, God bothering autists of pol.

not an argument

Using analogies to make an argument is silly.

Life is complicated and two things are very very rarely similar enough, aka symmetrical to make a proper point.

You haven't been lied to a lot. I notice people who lie a lot use analogies instead of going straight to the issue at hand and directly make statements about it.

Your analogy is totally stupid. Microorganisms exists, I've seen them in the microscope and that's all I care about. Analogy and sophistry are for people who have weak minds.

>Considering how ridiculous the idea is, it's perfectly healthy to assume that it isn't there.

You're right. It IS perfectly healthy to make assumptions about things you have no evidence for. People do it all the time. It's how religion started.

>he question was what do you BELIEVE

And you shouldn't believe anything that you haven't proven to be true. And even then, maybe you still shouldn't believe it. Holding the world to unreasonable standards of evidence is probably the way to go. If you're going to be tricked by the evil genius you should at least know it's happening.

Absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence in many cases. As philosopher Irving Copi indicates:

>In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

This is why nobody takes agnostics seriously. They are utterly ignorant of philosophy, epistemology in particular.

It's not a meme, it's the average atheist.

Nihilism is a direct derivative of it - nihilism being in popular use known as #YOLO, live fast die young, everything is subjective maaaan, and related things.

AKA the creed of the nu-male.

Not believing in something is the default stance. What's your stance on the aliens living on the fourth moon of Jupiter? You don't believe in them because you've never heard of such a thing before and have no reason to believe that they exist. If nobody had mentioned the concept of gods to you before today, you'd probably have the same reaction to someone telling you about some omnipotent, willed being that transcends the limits of our universe. The only reason anyone believes these fairy tales is because they're all around us from a young age, and exposure dulls our minds to how ridiculous and groundless the concepts are.

People are very good at fooling each other, almost as good as they are at fooling themselves. Don't fool yourself, user. There is no god.

>begins post by announcing he's an athiest
>proceeds to post cringe
>picture is an older woman double fisting stella artois

>Your analogy is totally stupid. Microorganisms exists, I've seen them in the microscope

Which is why my totally stupid analogy revolved around neanderthals, who wouldn't have had the tools required to verify their belief. The ultimate point being that not having the tools to satisfactorily prove something is not the same as that thing being untrue.

>Heh
>m8
heh heh

They shouldn't disrespect religious people, that's wrong and disgusting.

But that's not being militant.

Not building bird houses is a fun hobby!
>theist's logic

Yes it is m9.

>imacentrist.jpg

>my cult has all the answers!!!
>anyone who disagrees is w-w-wrooooong!!!!
>waaaaaaaaah

KARMA can be a bitch:

"O'Hair is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963."

"On August 27, 1995, O'Hair, her son Jon, and granddaughter Robin suddenly disappeared"

investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/disappeared/meet-the-missing/madalyn-murray-ohair/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

Sweden was once thought to be the most atheistic western country in the world. Look at it now. Or just take a look at the west in general really. Godless nations destroy themselves. I've always thought the best evidence for God is the results living by his teachings produces.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=J63YkkympOU

Sure.
1. Start a business
2. Hire a mix of christians and atheists
3. Discuss important business shit after church on Sunday so when you get to the office on Monday you've already made all your plans without their input
4. Decide who gets promotions based on how much they contribute to important business decisions

It's basically "golfer privilege" just in a slightly different context

Not believing in something isn't the same as believing something is not. This is the trap that atheists fall into.

I could tell you I'm 25 years old right now. Would you believe me? Would you believe I was some other age? Or would you default to the position of "well, you might be"?

You could demand proof of my age and stubbornly refuse to believe I was 25 until I proved it to you, but that wouldn't change the answer.

Fagnostics are the easiest religion to trigger

An absence of a belief if God can take you down several different paths.

Nihilism is but one.

Not saying it isn't a problem, and won't become a bigger problem as the first world grows more secular, but it's a small trade off for freeing ourselves from the shackles and stupidity of organised religion.

I don't beleive morality comes from a belief in God, and that's the most important thing.

After that, you find your purpose in making the most of your mortal existence (the only one you have), and securing a positive future for your children - and their children.

So a touch of nationalism is an obvious conclusion.

That's funny, I laugh at everyone who thinks it's a question worth asking.

>admitting you don't know the answer to an unknown is bad

Retard or just underage?

The religious actively attack atheists, does that make them militant?

What was 'cringe' about what I wrote?

Can you articulate yourself or are you just another sperg that can only communicate in memes?

belief in*

>but it's a small trade off for freeing ourselves from the shackles and stupidity of organised religion.

What does this gain us? Because for where I'm standing it appears to be losing us dignity, decency and way of life and gaining us rampant faggotry in return.

Those ones, yes. For the most part though, the religious keep to themselves and just stand and take it when attacked, and have done for decades.

>The ultimate point being that not having the tools to satisfactorily prove something is not the same as that thing being untrue.

I agree, it's not the same thing, you are right. It's just not practical to carry around these considerations whenever you make a negative statement, and I just ignore them, for the most part, many people do.

You didn't need to use an analogy to make your point. Analogies are just words filling space. They should be used in middle school to explain simple concepts but for some reason everyone is so bent on using "clever" analogies.

I really dislike analogies though, it's such an easy slippery way to deceive people, yet nobody cares.

Here you are again using analogies. It's no good, even when your conclusion is correct by chance.

Analogies are simply no good.

...

>muh evidence!!
>muh science fiction equivalency

Ah, I remember middle school. Religion isn't about being a science textbook, it's a multi faceted foundation regarding something greater then ourselves that holds certain unalterable virtues and values as right or wrong. When you begin to negotiate with right and wrong, you get our degenerate society, or in more extreme cases shit like communism

Where do you start?

No more brainwashing from birth about talking to yourself while you kneel before bedtime to converse with an invisible deity in the sky that'll punish you with eternal damnation in hell once you die if you put a step wrong in life.

No more influence of organised religion over science and political policy.

No more special interest reglious groups pushing their moronic and restricting beliefs on other people.

I mean, the list is endless.

Sure, that might lead to a lot of people believing life is pointless and living a life of hedonistic degeneracy, but as long as society still thrives, is safe, and advances as a whole, it's a small trade off.

Analogies are handy at explaining simple things to stubbornly stupid people. They can be used to deceive, but they're also a key tool in any educator's toolbox.

You would not believe the number of times I've had to explain that to atheists. I've used a variation of that analogy a lot of the time. I only came up with that analogy because I've met atheists too stupid to understand that concept.

Analogies have a lot of worth. Unlike atheists.

>I must be a member of a religion gang to know right and wrong
>I must be a member of a gang to be spiritual

I wonder if you'd be spiritual without all those gangs running around and talking about it though... I really do.

>What does this gain us?

Medicine. Catholic church kept dissection an unimaginable sin for centuries, freezing medical knowledge at the level of the ancient Greeks until people started ignoring that shit and cutting up cadavers on the DL. Opposition to genetic engineering (one of the most promising paths for more generalized cures to human ills) mostly comes from morons who oppose 'playing god'.

Astronomy. Catholic church suppressed scholarship that contradicted the bible, such as figuring out what all that shit in the sky was really up to.

Science. Knowledge is not something to be revealed from god, it's something to be discovered by studying the world. This change of perception is the key difference between the European colonizing powers and the rest of the world at the time; prior to the 1500's most of the rest of the world (Africa and Asia, really) was at a similar technological level to Europe.

Religion seems to be good at stability, but stability is not resilience or reliability.

Nihilism lacks the euphoria of the yolo mentality. Nihilism is lethargic and depressing.

How does atheist automatically mean you hold values?

>Analogies are just words filling space.

You do realize that you used an analogy there, right?

It's not that you CAN'T do good things or have a sense of right and wrong senpai, but I think more on the meta/societal level. When you leave it all up to individual whims, there is way less virtue, charity, cooperation, any of the things we would consider as good. I'm sure you're a good person and have a decent sense of morality, but do you think the normie hordes can be trusted? How has trusting them been for the last 50 or so years? We can see what the effect has been.

And for you my friend I would simply say that if you added a faith on top of your innate goodness you would be even better. Having a foundation of faith improves your capacity to be virtuous, it gives you strength when you want to give up, and it helps give you a sense of purpose and direction. You can mock religion if you want, but I bet you know deep down that if you were a bit religious it would be to your benefit

This is the worst version of feels guy Ive ever seen

Pray

>No more brainwashing from birth about talking to yourself while you kneel before bedtime to converse with an invisible deity in the sky that'll punish you with eternal damnation in hell once you die if you put a step wrong in life.

Non issue. That's "mummy made me go to church ;'(" tier.

>No more influence of organised religion over science and political policy.

We have had separation of church and state for a long time, outside of that it's a function of democracy being the opinions of the public on how they would like the country run. This happening from an atheist perspective is no different from a religious one - just a different set of assumptions.

>No more special interest reglious groups pushing their moronic and restricting beliefs on other people.

You fucking wish. Most of those these days are devoutly atheist.

>I mean, the list is endless.
No, that's about the end of the standard list right there.

It is hard-wired in humans to think about these things.

Only animal to really understand that we exist and we will die etc. I think part of dealing with that is having the ability to have unhealthy thoughts about illusions and metaphysical ideas - not saying good or bad, just is.

One of the things that makes us different than animals.

So yes, the answer is yes.

The gang element of it is simply because people like being part of a gang.
No, I didn't, because analogies ARE words filling space.

I know many atheists who say in private that they are spiritual. They reject the dogmas but they do not deny their own spirituality. Some that I know personally even take a little of this and a little of that from a variety of religions with regards to ritual. I think many atheists are not actually disbelievers, just rebellious nature who want to believe in their own ways. I'm fine with this. Dogma is completely irrelevant. Unconditional love is what matters and I think most people get there on their own eventually. Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Wahaabi and Sunni even. We're all the same actually and since this is true it's impossible to really ever deny it, only try to ignore. I'm voting for world peace this year. Donald Trump doesn't want to start WWIII and neither do I.

>that'll punish you with eternal damnation in hell if you put a step wrong in life

You underestimate the nature of forgiveness in faith. The point is not to be totally fucked if you screw up, nor is it to be able to do as you please, "apologize", then continue degeneracy. The point is to have a genuine desire to do right, and if/when you screw up, to have legitimate remorse and desire to do better in the future. Why is a sense of self discipline so bad to you atheists? Oh wait I know, you hate the idea of something preventing from doing what you desire, no matter how superficial

True, probably more hedonism he's referring to, everyone has the capacity to be a self indulgent and self gratifying, that doesn't always come from a place of a lack of belief in a God.

Then again, hedonistic nihilists can be a thing.

Why do atheists hate Jesus so much? He died for your sins and he loves you very much. Do atheists hate being loved?

>Religion seems to be good at stability, but stability is not resilience or reliability.

It is both of those things, what you are getting at is that it is inflexible, and inflexible things break rather than bend.

So yes, it can restrict scientific advance by being slow to work around new realities of the world. Though honestly, that time to stop and think is itself valuable.