Atheism

I'm an atheist.

Debate me.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/v9RBx
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No one cares

Go away

not an argument

no

If there is no god, why is my penis 8'' long?

...

how many times a day do you worship the State?

You're excused. You can't debate people because it's considered intolerant.
Genetics.

If you believe in the laws of the universe then there must have been something that designed those laws.

Zero. I am not of a statist persuasion.

No. There could be infinitely many universes, all with different laws which are the result of chance, and this one happens to sustain life.

...

>could be

We live in the Matrix. Prove me wrong.

>I'm an atheist. Debate me.
First prove that gaining knowledge produces any tangible benefit without arguing from a moralistic or existential perspective.

so im with u on the whole god watching and judging you bullshit. if your god is real then tell me what the color blue looks like to you right? you are your own god i get that. but i do believe in a creator. i believe that beyond the shell of our imagination there is something that has created all of the rules our universe obeys. i dont think god is the right word because it gives this creator a shape, but i think that religion personifies this rulemaker as god to help people understand. my question to you is that if there is no creator to the rules (physics, math) then where do they come from? its easy to say that they just are. but to think therefore i am right?

*i think therefore i am right?

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Your choice of hat sucks.

And you need to eat less and get more exercise.

That's impossible to disprove
There is utilitarian benefit in acquiring knowledge. At least there is for me.
I am agnostic on the exact origins of the universe. The big bang is a possibility in my opinion.

archive.is/v9RBx

What does atheism means for you ? Do you think that God doesn't exist, or do you think that there cannot be any god ?

If there is no god, how can this Universe exist ?

There is literally no utilitarian benefit in speculating on metaphysical properties, idiot.

So you reject modern science. Got it.

also why are athiests so arrogant when you pride yourself on knowing nothing just like the rest of us?

That is not at all what I said. I don't assume anything from authority. Because I have never taken the time to extensively study the big bang theory, I cannot form a conclusive opinion on it.
I don't think it's possible
There are multiple theories on that.

That's not an objective fact but an opinion. If you don't want to, then don't.
I don't think I am

(((theories)))

Whatdidhemeanbythis.jpg

Explain what possible utilitarian benefit can come from wondering whether God exists.

...

>modern science.
>hurr here's a model of universe
>oh and 98% of existence is dark matter
>yeah matter can be normal and dark 50/50 statistically
>no well 50% is not enough gotta be 98%
>can't see or detect it in any way
>just need it to be there for our universal theories to make sense

...

>utilitarianism
>the belief that utility should be maximized
>utility is completely fucking subjective for each person
Like I said. If you don't like it you don't have to. I obviously started this thread because I like it and thus it raises my happiness.

Modern science points to God, Boris.

Explain the science behind consciousness.

Pro tip - you cant

Atheists are faggots
Christians are faggots
anybody who identifies as anything is a faggot
How much of a boring bastard do you have to be to let you ideals be summed up by a word?

I am not a neurologist nor a psychologist. I wouldn't know.

actually we are coming pretty close. i think they say in the next 10 years we will develop robots with conciousness

You said yourself that there is "utilitarian benefit in acquiring knowledge." Either describe a utilitarian benefit in acquiring knowledge or call yourself a liar.

i am a transgendered labrador that sexually identifies as a dog bowl. how dare you tell me that my labels dont validate me.

Can you prove that it is not possible that a god exists ? If yes, tell me

do you like to help other people? and if yes then why?

You're projecting. I don't believe there is a God and that, by definition, makes me an atheist. You don't know shit about my ideals.
Yes, fuckhead. I like acquiring knowledge so there is a utilitarian benefit. That's proof. Utilitarianism is a subjective belief system.
If you don't like getting smarter that's up to you.

shit i lied its estimated to be in 2045 when we reach singularity

Not him but learning the nature of God could benefit the world by showing that the pedophile Muhammad has nothing to do with God then maybe goat fuckers would stop bombing people around the world.

Which color it's better for a fedora?

Sometimes. Because it makes me feel useful and that makes me feel good.

Yeah, I don't believe in God but this point is the only thing holding me back from being 100% atheist

>prove that religion makes the world better
>is acting like a raging elitist douchenozzle
Point proven.

I asked for a tangible benefit. Not an emotional one. Nobody cares about your feefees. I also asked you to avoid arguing from a moralistic or existential perspective. Are you incapable?

>I'm an atheist.
Kek you poor fellow.

>multiple theories
None of them work without God. Sorry amigo.
If you read enough into things, you're not rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but for emotional ones.

t. Someone speaking from experience, who eventually had no choice but to accept and is now infinitely happier.

so you do it really for you, not for the others

Pls answer OP

Do you know whether or not your sensory experience corresponds to real objects?

I don't debate catholics so I won't debate a scientist militant atheist who is equally ignorant

>im an atheist, provide evidence for my criteria that automatically dismisses evidence

Like I said several times, the benefit is your own enjoyment. If that is not good enough for you, you don't have to stay
That's right.
I believe under Occam's razor it is the proper conclusion. An actual proof of something this complex is impossible.
I think that's the most plausible explanation
>scientist militant
You're projecting. I'm neither of those.

What about making that baseless assertion makes it more plausible?

In the end it's still just a straight-up faith statement right?

If God doesn't exist, then why does he exist?

Checkmate atheists

Playstation is better than Nintendo. Prove me wrong.

If you believe that there will be nothing after death, prove to me that nothingness exist.

Our sensory organs are pretty well understood. Either we have all collectively understood a false reality pretty well, or we observe what actually happens. The second theory requires fewer assumptions.
I don't know. I don't play video games.

>If I didn't ACTUALLY answer your question, then you should leave while I go on believing that I really did.
I hate fools who think they're wise. You just rattle off the first thing that comes to mind and think that it's a sufficient response. You haven't done what I asked you to do and I'm fairly certain that you're incapable of it.

Thinking of metaphysical things expands the mind, since metaphysics is different from other forms of thought it must help excersize uncommonly used portions of the brain. This probably also helps with other types of thinking.

Another obvious tangible benefit is providing people with a framework of understanding so they don't surrender to existential despair.

If God doesn't exist then how come meteors always land in craters?

> prove to me an abstract concept exists

Do you feel happy/complete?

In time of crisis, how do you keep forward?

If I take off your fedora will you die?

So enjoyment isn't tangible enough for you? Any benefit of any kind is ultimately subjective, so I really don't see why it isn't a good enough answer.
Checkm8 I guess

Well that's what I'm saying. It's a made up idea, no different from heaven or hell. Nothing doesn't exist, just like hell doesn't exist.

They're only "understood" insofar as you assert that they actually correspond to real objects.

But it's not necessarily true that they do.

>Either we have all collectively understood a false reality pretty well, or we observe what actually happens
There are many more alternatives to these - that's a false dichotomy. It could also be that you actually don't understand a false reality very well, and that you only believe that you do. It could also very logically possibly be that there is no "collective" of which to speak - you could be the only mind.

Also, in regard to the "number of assumptions claim", that's not true. Neither requires more assumptions - they require exactly the same number of assumptions to get off the ground.

Thought I was on Sup Forums there.

Nigger thread

yea i know what you mean. I feel like there is no good word to describe what i do believe. i think god is synonymous with consciousness but there still is something outside of all of that that created this. I feel like im 30% athiest 30% agnostic and 60% belief in a creator

>since metaphysics is different from other forms of thought it must help excersize uncommonly used portions of the brain
This is objectively incorrect. Different parts of your brain are not used to think about different subjects. Different parts of the brain are used to process different stimuli, but merely changing a few hypothetical variables will not suddenly shift the process to a different part of your brain. The mind and the brain are two different things, and the mind is not tangible. Besides: You can't argue that "expanding the mind" or "avoiding despair" has any purpose whatsoever without arguing from a moralistic or existential perspective. Both perspectives that cannot be constructed under the tenets of atheism.

why are you an atheist ?

That's impossible to prove.
> (OP) (You)
>Do you feel happy/complete?
Most of the time, yes.
>In time of crisis, how do you keep forward?
I have meaningful relationships with many people. I talk to them and if needed they help me through it.
I don't own a fedora.
Then I guess I don't know. Does this relate to the existence of a God or lack thereof?

Let's postpone the debate until we die.

No, it's merely pointing out that your beliefs are just as faith-based as almost anyone else's in that the very foundations of all of your reasonings rest on unverifiable assumptions.

You can't "live and let live" on this one. You are relying on principles that are not atheistic in order to justify your position. Without intelligent design there is no "tangible benefit". Without tangible benefit, there is no reason to gain knowledge. Saying "I enjoy it" is not sufficient. That implies that you have a biological imperative to seek metaphysical debate, which is not the truth.

God is observable: religious people report being able to "feel god" while in prayer. Why is their observation of God less valid than your observation of any of the stimuli you take for granted?

There is absolutely nothing that contradicts atheism in that position.
My observations are reproducible. If I look at an object, others see the same thing. If I listen to a song, others hear the same thing. This is not true for the presence of God.

Exactly, because you've just said "I'm an atheist" you can't expect people to debate you when they have no idea what the fuck else there is to it. "I'm a rock, debate me" I think it needs a bit more thought than that mate. What am I supposed to debate you on, the existence of a god, something neither you nor I can prove or disprove? Idiotic waste of time

>I'm an athiest, debate me

Translation: I'm a bore, avoid me.

I too am an atheist. Shut the fuck up and go about your life.

But there is. Without intelligent design, there is no tangible benefit to gaining knowledge. Without a set of moral absolutes, such a circumstantial thing blows away like sand in the wind. What if, for example, someone told you that people should be stupid? What if he were right? You can't attack that position in any way without implying a set of moral absolutes, which cannot exist without intelligent design. Hence that you're contradicting your professed world view by saying "Gaining knowledge produces tangible benefit by making people feel good." Outside of a moralistic or existential perspective, you can't imply that it really is a tangible benefit to make people feel good. Everything is going to be eroded by time and knowledge does nothing to stop this process. Does the despair from death not weigh heavier than the slight, subjective joy that some people might be made to feel?

>Different parts of your brain are not used to think about different subjects
Yes they are. The hemispheric divide is thoroughly studied. Its also been shown if kids are not taught specific areas like math or reading at a young age their brains aren't as developed in those areas and its much harder for them to learn later. The brain's plasticity is higher than we thought. Through studying schizophrenics brains we see their brain's creative areas are overgrown but they've lost white matter in areas associated with linear reasoning.

>The mind and the brain are two different things, and the mind is not tangible.
That's rather a useless axiom to believe in when we have things such as placebos, and the basic fact that the more you concentrate on things with your mind the more your brain develops in a more specific way.

>You can't argue that "expanding the mind" or "avoiding despair" has any purpose whatsoever without arguing from a moralistic or existential perspective.
It highly likely belief and avoiding despair calms you down or that expanding the mind makes you more energized for knowledge and more likely to discover useful things, these are obvious tangible benefits. Avoiding despair is obviously good for everyone, it'll make you live longer due to less stress.

thats exactly what i am talking about (what does the color blue look like to you?). can you prove that we all see the same thing? is blue blue?

1. There are plenty of people who report identical results where prayer = feeling God. This observation is found in every religion in the world. Further, it's backed up by radioscopic images of the brain. Atheists are in the minority, globally.
2. Consider, a blind man cannot see the stars, so when you tell them you can see them he takes their existence on faith.

We have two conclusions to draw here:
1. God is real (even if no one faith has it right)
2. We are biologically hardwired for religion

But either being true would argue that we should reject atheism: even if the God effect is just a bio-chemical illusion, it's one that's been selected for, one that serves a purpose. The data backs this up: populations with low faith do not reproduce at replacement rate, and they do not defend their territory from invasion. If you saw a population of any other species that wasn't reproducing or defending itself one a given element was removed, you would logically conclude that element is important, even if you didn't understand why.

I honestly don't know if this is an argument for or against Christianity.

The brain's plasticity has nothing to do with thinking about metaphysical properties like the existence of God. Don't you think it would prove the existence of God if the health of the human brain depended on thinking about God? Development in reading is linked to specific regions of the brain because those regions are fundamentally required to offer those cognitive processes. The same can't be said for wondering why everything exists. That goes beyond logic, which mathematics would be a part of. That's an abstract thought that isn't linked to reality.

Think about this: What if a man set about to thinking about the nature of reality, but was wrong every single time? What if he became incredibly confident of himself for literally no reason? What if he spent his entire life affirming falsehoods to himself? Would that not be catastrophic to the mind, regardless of what it does to his brain? If it's catastrophic to his mind, then how is it good? Never mind "good" from a perspective devoid of moralism or existentialism. That reminds me to remind you that the entire premise of our discussion is based on that. You can't tell me that "living longer is good" because it implies that there is objective good. If there is no intelligent design, then death is as random as life itself.

>2. Consider, a blind man cannot see the stars, so when you tell them you can see them he takes their existence on faith

He can get the information from others who have evidence and can support their evidence accordingly, whereas you cant with a supernatural being. Same with the sun and the moon. Silly.

That's an awful lot of words but you're still full of shit. You're looking for an objective benefit which is impossible since all benefits are by definition subjective to a belief system. If you require a benefit from an absolute point of view then that a priori rules out my viewpoint.
We know that we can communicate to other people about things we see or hear in a meaningful way. We know that through this communication we seem to hear or see the same things in situations when we are expected to (e.g. looking at the same object). This is not true for 'feeling God' because in that case, similar experiences provide different results.
> (You)
>1. There are plenty of people who report identical results where prayer = feeling God. This observation is found in every religion in the world. Further, it's backed up by radioscopic images of the brain. Atheists are in the minority, globally.
Atheists may be a minority, but how many of those 'religious' people have felt God through their prayers? This is speculation but I'd wager not half. There are many counties in which your religion is pre-printed in your passport and there are many Christians in name only in the West. Even so, of you were to regard it as an experiment, with so many people not reporting feeling God you'd reject the hypothesis.
>2. Consider, a blind man cannot see the stars, so when you tell them you can see them he takes their existence on faith
He probably does because many people confirm the stars while no one denies it. This is not true for God.
>1. God is real
I honestly don't see how you arrive here from your previous statements.

Because he is from holland it would be weird if you are not one

Well of course it rules out your viewpoint. The only thing I wanted you to do was to consider the actual consequences of your superficial beliefs. The fact that you would dare to act positive while espousing a world view that literally dictates that there is nothing of intrinsic meaning and that everything we could ever love will erode away was offensive to me. Don't go around seeking knowledge when you denounce the value of knowledge itself.