Religion vs Atheism

>tried to explain one Atheist why i believe in some sort of energy, god or entity

Couldnt logically do that, my reason was only based on
Empiricism

>What are good arguments against atheism Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg
youtube.com/watch?v=fcpjM8k8c80
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Cool, now make a circumcision thread and a manlet thread too so you can max out those replies

>mfw i will never be russ again and fuck that girl wasted out of her mind

learn how beliefs work
youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg

Who's this erection engineer?

empiricism is what you need. we atheists believe evidence nothing else

She's norwegian and with her clothing she is 50/50 chance of jailbait.

>new age garbage Leo gura
vlad, please

there is none

all is literally muh feelings and faith

...

If god isn't real how come there are nice things?

Basically you believe in magic, just admit it, people who have no understanding of physics use energy as though its fucking final fantasy

Read Thomas Aquinas

Is believing in god the most nigger thing Sup Forums does?

Your age of consent is like 15 or 16 though

magic is bending laws of physics
god is source of laws of physics

upgrade your definition of God to the totality of existence, being, and non-being. emphasize the subjective realization of non-duality by transcending the default perceptual systems of human primates. tough for an atheist to argue against this. see advaita vedanta, zen buddhism, solipsism, non-duality, spinoza, quantum psychology

the storybook anthropomorphic caricature of god is for women and children only. easy for atheists to ridicule.

>say the classical "prove that what I believe in is false"
>stupid atheist will go "muh burden of proof"
>ask that the atheist proves logically the burden of proof itself
>he can't and you win.
The burden of proof is a completely made up rule. Obviously if you accept such rule, you're already playing in the atheists field. If needed be you can ask that he proves logic itself, which is impossible too, since it's based on unprovable made up axioms.

>linking to new age woo woo anti-rationalist who believes in solipsism and determinism
>thinking he has philosophical arguments on his side

Only a Christian God could design a semon demon like that

n-n-not an a-a-argument

It's not possible to prove non-existence.

how is determinism not the case?
and if you are going to define free will as the ability to project consequences into the future, that won't fly because that's pretty much determined by the hardware of your brain and the information stored there
also non-duality =/= solipsism

it literally isn't

The best argument a theist ever gave me was that because of how unlikely it was for earth and life to form the way it did, it appears to have been formed with purpose.

The same argument can be made with the whole primordial ooze scenario:
>amino acids forming primitive DNA or RNA within a naturaly occurring primitive hollow membrane that somehow has a way to ingest things outside of it and use them to grow and reproduce.
seems very unlikely and therefore seems to have been made with purpose.\

didn't sway me. but i bet it would your typical dumbfuck athiest

But the christian god hates sex so much you could mean he was born with a deformed penis.

>the best argument a theist ever gave me
how the fuck is that an argument, that's just one's shitty intuition

I'm an atheist and I hate what other atheists have become. Maybe we need a strong Christian state because people need any fucking excuse to be degenerate.

only ahmed will fuck that girl !

germans hate sex so much they let their gf-s get fucked by turks

Actually I don't remember that he believes in solipsism but he believes in many goofy anti-logic stuff. I actually started a couple of threads on his determinism videos where he and his mindless stoner followers jumped in. You want arguments? I placed them there and you won't find anything coming from Leo Gura. I basically destroyed him.

Free will I define as the ability to compare objects, not project consequences.
Btw since you like posting not an argument man, Molyneux is a supporter of free will so lurk moar.

>The best argument
literally an age old, standard theistic argument rebutted a million times before.

Thanks.

There aren't any. Belief is literally based on how you feel, which is something that cannot really logically analyzed.

>empiricism is what you need.
what's the evidence for that

A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

>Molyneux is a supporter of free will
yeah and he defines it as the brain's ability to project actions into the future, and I already explained how is that still deterministic
imagine you have two people who believe in the Hindu concept of Brahman, one person defines it as God, the other doesn't
now you have two people believing in the same thing but one is atheist and the other is not
what you're doing now is just playing with words like that
I can tell you have no idea what his channel because of your disorted superficial understanding of it

this can apply to alot of stupid bullshit though
>spaghetti monster
>teapot orbiting jupiter
>anything imeasurable

if the burden of proof wasn't a thing all that stupid made up bullshit would have to be kept in consideration when its obviously just stupid made up bullshit.

like religion

>atheism
Science is the basis for Atheism (any other model is religious or irrational)
Science can only logically account for 15% of the known universe the other 85% is a mathematical equation balancing act with 25% being unaccounted for "Dark Matter" and the rest being "Dark Energy"

In other words there's no reason to accept the Atheist view as it is illogical to accept an unsubstantiated world view. But of course if you reject all things then you end up questioning reality itself and asking what is existence but a figment of ones mind.

>What are good arguments against atheism Sup Forums
Both Atheists and theists are basing their claims on unprovable beliefs.

It is clear that neither Theism nor Atheism is rational or that there is any chance that it could ever be.

From a purely logical standpoint there is a claim that can neither be proven wrong or be proven right. It would be foolish to blindly accept it as true(or false).

Nah. If it was so easy to break the Bible atheist scholars would have done it long ago.

But they haven't.

Her name is Sol Sandvik and she is a norwegian porn actress.

This.

Solipsism in itself is enough to stump the average atheist

Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.

Nope, age of consent is 16, and You're a russ at the age of 18/19

I'm about to fuck you up.

That is because a rational argument is not necessarily correct.

>Science can only logically account for 15% of the known universe the other 85% is a mathematical equation balancing act with 25% being unaccounted for "Dark Matter" and the rest being "Dark Energy"

But that's wrong. Just because you refuse to listen to them doesn't mean they haven't.

>what's the evidence for that
uhhh the modern world?

What a great argument against atheism.

>All these posts about atheism after the Satanic shit in Hilary's emails blew up
Oh look CTR got a pay rise.

name something that doesnt have a rational argument or one whose rational argument is "incorrect"

>yeah and he defines it as the brain's ability to project actions into the future
already a strawman

It's not wrong. They haven't, go ahead and find one such instance. I want legitimate sources, written by biblical scholars. I'll gladly wait because I already know it doesn't exist.

BTW not an argument. Also not surprising.

Biblical scholar is an oxymoron.

What? are you going to talk to me today about the Multiverse and all its inter-dimensions?

Yes, then read pic related and realize that Aquinas' 'proofs' were all garbage

This.

Well you can be perfectly rational in murdering someone because you want their cookie. Is that right? Well most people would say that is incorrect. But it is rational.

Nope. Empiricism relies on something being repeatable, therefore testable, and verifiable. Very few things can be proven empirically.

For example, "Empiricism is the only way of acquiring knowledge." cannot be proven by empirical measures. Hmm it's almost like atheists are underage banned.

Thanks for playing loser.

here's something to discuss:
Atheists acknowledge universe had a beginning and all mass came into existance in "a big bang" and the universe seemingly keeps expanding. Since we have Einstein's equation for the relation between energy and matter E=mc^2 we know that for all that matter we need INFINITE ENERGY. Atheists have to accept either god or infinite energy to maintain their position on beginning and expanding of the universe.

Now universe has been created, how did the laws of nature come to existance? Did they exist before all matter came into existance? Surely not since there would be no explanation for laws that govern nothing. Do atheist posit that the laws just came to be in their current form at the big bang? Or did the laws of nature also "evolve" over time? The further you go down this road the more you realize how ignorant and futile atheism is, good luck in search of god and christ.

Why are you making the same thread over and over again? Are you autistic?

1. watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=fcpjM8k8c80
2. be ashamed of your stupidity

>Is empiricism true?

Is a different question from
>all you need is empiricism?

It's almost like you don't care about what the other person in the discussion is saying but just want to push your misinformed agenda.

Empiricists (thoughtful ones, anyway) don't claim that empiricism is empirically true. That's where' you're getting tripped up. They claim that empiricism defines truth.

Great shit.

Philosophy isn't some end all be all way of obtaining knowledge. If all it requires to show someone to be in error is a different viewpoint everyone is wrong about everything.

religion has cultural significance people have had faith as long as they've had history, albeit stupid faith (animalia, greek, norse, egyptian, hindu, pretty much anything polytheistic)

the bible hasn't been broken because of culture and upbringing

oh and because the world is full of stupid people like you more concerned with what feels good than truth.

>Very few things can be proven empirically.

And yet you don't jump into an oncoming bus on the grounds of not having empirically verified it as real.

Anyway, I know what you tried to do here, and it is completely stupid. It's the old "Can you falsify falsification" nonsense. I can't tell you how dumb christtards sound whenever they pose this stupid question, but think about what you're asking

You're basically asking "Can I prove false the activity of proving things false". Basically, you're asking a self-defeating question. By asking "Can I falsify", you're already assuming the validity of falsification.

What you're asking is comparable to asking the question "Can I ask a question?". You're thinking that you're really clever by asking it, but actually, you end up looking like a fucking moron

The easy explanation is that if the laws would have been any different there would be no life in the universe.

Our own existence dictates that certain laws are exactly how they are else there would be no one to observe them.

Name one of them. Is this where I play along and call you a spook?

Empiricism is an epistemological stance. It relates to how the concept of truth is defined. That's what it is. It's the definition of truth.

>But it is rational.
now. You can get in jail for that, how that raqtional?

>Philosophy isn't some end all be all way of obtaining knowledge.

Then please, the next time you get really sick, try and pray it away. Never rely on that science stuff that is totally invalid, only rely on prayer.

Something tells me that you'll never do this. Your actions prove my point for me

Make me, believer

Empiricism doesnt define the truth. It can help no doubt, but our own perception will skew the conclusion that we make from the observation.

Just like the bee who tries to rape another bee sprayed which is sprayed with pheromones, what is perceived is not necessarily the truth.

What does "russ" mean? Is it Norwegian slang or something?

of course a biblical scholar would never try to "beat the bible" because that would be against his interests.
>prove to me that there's nothing wrong with eating meat
>i will only except proof from vegans

Philosophy isn't science and it has never produced any type of medicine for the body.

Only the mind.

As defined by empiricists.... no one else. Hmmm


That is not what I was asking. Anyway, I'll bite.

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, but that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

You may have a chance in this narrative everyone mistakes for the world and calls reality.
You need some work.

Solipsism is still a narrative.
Look. Everything you know is a story: action, sense, thought, objects, time, space.
You created them all. The brain is a sense organ that can sense itself, and then can sense itself sensing itself. There is no Platonic or Sophistic universe that you didn't create recursively as a story. The "World" or "GOD" or "THE IS" without a story is indistinguishable from a story of randomness; therefore it cannot be known.

But you fail if you think your story can be independent of its intent, or that it can be anything but "useful to be believed".


The first three Commandments say it all:

1. The world is; but you cannot know it (no god above me)
2. The narrative is not. (do not make or worship false idols)
3. Don't mistake the world for the narrative. (do not name God.)

The rest are just a bunch of narratives that make collective action - which is just a perspective change and rewriting the narrative object from "I" (solipsism) to "we" to take advantage of the different stories that can tell that are also useful to be believed.


...There may be hope for this board yet...

No. You're wrong about that.

Empiricism is a concept. It says that statements which make testable predictions about reality are either true or false. Of those, the statements that successfully predict the outcome of the test are true.

It's an inductive statement, so we're never 100% sure which statements are empirically true until after we've done the associated test. ...But it is very much a definition of truth.

its rational if you want the cookie to kill for it because that course of action would get you to your desired position(the cookie). but its also irrational for a community to allow that behavior because it hinders their ability to get to its desired position(productivity)

thank you, I recommend you to look up prof Edgar Andrews for some thoughts on "who made god"

if you truly feel you have explained anything I feel sad for you

The universe is not eternal (SURGE argument).
It had a beginning
Anything not eternal is bound by change and has a beginning, which is why God does not require one.

Even if the universe was born from another universe, or multiverse, it does nothing to the argument.

Don't move the goalposts. If the subject only wanted a cookie then it is a rational approach to obtaining a cookie.

However if I were to change the argument to getting a cookie subject to legal consequences then yes it would not be as rational to murder someone for a cookie.

>As defined by empiricists.... no one else. Hmmm
Obviously.... If somebody else used the definition, they would be an empiricist... by definition.

>Atheists acknowledge universe had a beginning and all mass came into existance in "a big bang"
NO

>the associated test
That's my whole point. Can you design a test that accounts for human idiocy and short sightedness? You can't our perceptions gear us towards survival and reproduction not for distilling truth.

There are none

The same way there is no argument to convince someone to not believe in a god

Neither side has any evidence that God exists or doesn't

There are none for some reason
>really activates my neocortex

So a self validation world view that only those who believe it can hold? Sounds a lot like something else you happen to hate it would seem....

14 days before graduation exams Scandinavian teens who are legal get drunk and fuck around for two weeks. If i didnt hate people i could have gotten easy pussy.

> autists on Sup Forums will do something that professional theologians who debated Hitchens was unable to

You can't prove something, that you have no evidence to support. The best you can do is to try muddy the waters to the point of meaninglessness, deconstructing basic concepts like reason, existence, knowledge and evidence. Watch Deepak Chopra for this kind of mental gymnastics. Didn't listen to him in ages, but about 5 years ago he did this though invoking quantum physics, since there's almost nobody who understands it even in scientific circles. So needless to say, it worked like a spell on average intelligence.

then how do you explain the universe if you believe neither creationism or big bang?
if you don't have an explanation for it then you are closer to being an agnostic rather than an atheist

>We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both).

Right, and linear causality of the kind you're using here is almost non-existent in our complex world. None of this Scholastics nonsense of A causes B flies when you consider the direction of causality, or account for an unknown third variable, which you're almost forced to in any scenario except the most simple ones. This is also the reason why Aquinas' philosophy is hopelessly outdated

>You can't our perceptions gear us towards survival and reproduction not for distilling truth.

If I can predict what my perceptions will be, I have stated the truth, according to empiricism.

It doesn't matter if my perceptions are evolved for x or y.

>Tried to explain why i have some vague concept of some entity that i have no empirical evidence for or against, which means i have no idea what empericism actually means

>Hitchens
The same man who said the Iraq war was a good thing

Clearly not that intelligent.

>So a self validation world view that only those who believe it can hold?

It's a category that's defined by the people who believe it...

"only people who believe x believe x and nobody else!"

I don't understand your objection.

It's the definition of a word. That's all.

Godel theorem say GOD exist
quantum physic says GOD exist
NDE says GOD exist
Chamanism say GOD exist
Neuroscience say GOD exist

now fuck off