Ask atheist anything

ask me anything and i will respond the best way i can

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=2s
dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2OUTP1
youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc
dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why is God real?

i dont know if he is real or not but i assume he is not real until proven otherwise

here's how being an atheist is a technical oxymoron

a god in theory "knows all"

an atheist can't be 100% certain that there are no gods without "knowing all"

it's only possible to know for certain that there is no god by knowing everything
thus ... making you the god

... I know it's convoluted but read it slowly and it WILL make perfect sense

I'm agnostic (the only real alternative)

as an agnostic you can still be certain .. the current gods of religion X, Y or Z are not real

but can't be 100% sure a god has not yet revealed themselves as of yet

we are the same you and me
i understand what you mean the thing is for me agnostic means that you are not decided if you want to believe or not
and atheist means i dont believe there is a god

im not saying that i know there is not a god as alot of mainstream atheist claim
im just saying that i will considere it as really less likely until proven otherwise

the problem is that mainstream atheist butchered the language in to making
atheism = not beliving in god
into
atheism= knowing there is no god
we have the same mindset, but define it in a different way because the definitions of the words have been changed by the media

i'ma athiest too
not related question: what are your political views? (gov system)

glad you understood my thought process

you have the logic to analyze objectively

.. that's how people hold on to dying religions even as evidence piles up to the contrary (redefining words and meanings)

but Atheist *should be defined as "knowing the is no god" ... even if it breaks down logically like I demonstrated in my previous reply

and Agnostic should be defined as it has been from the start .. "knowing that it's impossible to know for certain the existence of god or not"

.. it just makes perfect sense to me
just because a person CAN determine that Islam's god or Biblical god's are impossible
it does not mean I can be certain there is no god out there

did you read my post?

it's logically impossible to be Atheist

please read it

well regulated capitalist country
i think democracy is the best option for the long run but it should be built up from the ground up again because now is just a nest hole for corrupt rats

im on the boat that fascism could work if the country has a competent leader that takes account the will of the population but not necesarely follows it. But there is no way i can see an transicion of power without being it corrupt or blood related wich is really stupid

that would be cool to stop with the confussion but sadly language is not something that can be regulated or reformed that easily

I understood your post. I still prefer to be called an atheist rather than an agnostic. From what I researched, all religions were made up, no real miracles have taken place. If there are a god I don't care, creating us just for the sake of worshiping himself is pointless and cruel, but there are no evidence of that, thankfully. I'm conservative on the most of the matters and I fully understand the value some religions have provided to us.

I think children should be thought that "someone's always watching to see if you're being bad" because they don't have the capacity to analyze why they should not be bad

as they gain the ability to reason and use logic. .. then and only then, should they progress to being agnostic about god

I understand you, I had similar thought. My current vision is building some logical structure, like constitution, but with all logical reasoning and implications and giving this set of rules the absolute power, government structures are too unstable, people change too fast. It's really similar to USA constitution actually, but without the ability to add bullshit like income tax, people should not hold office.

we are in complete agreement
I too, don't believe in the gods of past or present religions

..objectively though, I don't know if or how a future god can be defined
an atheist "knows"

some Greeks philosophized that gods exist but don't interact with humans

they live in their own world and we humans in ours (multiple dimensions)
that's the closest thing that makes logical sense and is "possible"

obviously I believe in Evolution
which is incompatible with how religions describe creation

hola

Cuck

i think that should be the case for most people just replace god is watching to the state is watchin and is likely for you to get catched

religion was the first system that put laws with moral and social issues in place, we like to believe that people is gonna behave with empathy without the need of an oustide organization pushing for it and that is just not true

religion was needed in a time when the uncertanty about the world was to much to handle or to let thrive a system without superstition behind it

it could have been better yes
was it needed yes

now we can move on to improve it, and let the goverment regulate this behaviours according to the circunstances of every age humanity goes through, for it to happen in a global scale the life standard needs to be improved greatly in every place

but i would never bash a religious person for being religious because they have something secular system will never be able to give right now wich is comfort and love and if you have a shity life or you are going through a shity moment you need that more than anything

hola

i understand what you mean but for it to have a perfect standard of rules you would need a really big set of extreamly intelligent people in every area and that is really hard to accomplish

the reason that thing like constitutions are really open to interpretation for saying it somehow except in really obvious things like for example punishing crime like behaviours, is because every other area changes too fast to have a premonition of whats going to happen or is going to be needed

i dont really know the ramifications of an income tax to be put but i think the best thing would be that every tax like for roads and schools etc should be adjusted to your income before hand
not to have another tax cashed direct from your income without any reason given at all
but this is all speculation from my part

my point is that an income tax may seem really stupid right now but some day if the economic system changes and for some fucked up reason an income tax is really needed is gonna be a big trouble having it being aggainst the constitution
thats why we need the people that rule the country to make the big decission but we have to give them a frame to work within first

bumping

I know that you understand that free market is the best and more efficient way to distribute resources that satisfy needs.
What do you think should be restricted in the free market?
I think that it is all about education of the person. If a man needs to earn money to support him he will not abuse drugs for example.
Can you give me example of a thing that can't be legal.

Language is an ever-changing thing, you could always shift the definitions back to something you want if you you have enough momentum to do so.

i think education, infratrusture regarding roads and water also the assetlement of new towns and things like that should be restricted of the free market or rather than being restricted being regulated in a way that third party companies compete to get the jobs rather than the goverment being in their hand and paying the same amount or more than companys to do this things


regarding healthcare if i were to start a country from the ground up 500 years ago it should have been free

but right now its not that simple, every country thats gonna change from paid healthcare system to a paid one is gonna experience horrible troubles both in administration and is gonna have trouble affording it
right now i think the best option would be having both leave the companies and doctors that are more qualified to work in a private more profesional enviorment have their jobs in the private sector
and let the new ones who need more experience work in govermental instititutions
people are not gonna flod in the free healthcare establishment because they are really shitty or slow compared to the private ones
the ones who can afford a better treatment should be allowed to have it
but the ones that cant afford any treatment at all should be granted an option as well
(except if you are diabetic and eat candys every day if you are wasting tax payer money and not puting effort into getting better you can fuck off)

i forgot to say that private colleges and private highschool and soo on should be allowed to exist but if they follow state educational rules for example you shouldnt be considered a real doctor and be allowed to practice as such if you werent tought microbiology or evolution

>here's how being an atheist is a technical oxymoron
Here's how being a theist is a moron

We can't know anything 100%
We do know for a fact that there have been thousands of gods that came before. Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Montezuma, etc.

You don't believe in any of those gods, do you?
It's because over time, all gods become folklore, legend and myth. Even yours will one day. It is the logical progression of all irrationality.

So the eventual mythology of your gods is something we can safely predicts because we literally have thousands of perfect examples.

Agnosticism is a childish denial of the real eternal truth - men invent gods.

>but Atheist *should be defined as "knowing the is no god" ...

Atheist is defined as I don't believe there are gods.

Beliefs are irrational. They cannot be proven. Why are theists so desperate to make their irrational beliefs seem rational when that is the real impossibility?

ATHEISM IS LACK OF BELIEF
>actively attacks theism
>promotes a view of God's non-existence
>says in the same sentence "god doesnt exist"

What created the universe or how was it created?

Have you ever had a fedora or thought about having one?

heh.... nice try

do you think masturbation is degenerate? and porn is a tool for zionist to control?

he is not a theist he is just making the point that the language was butchered and we been fighting over this definitions for so many time that if we adjust the definition to say that people that defines themselves as knowing that there is no god should be called atheist
and people that say that they dont think it exist but cant never be sure should be called agnostic throwing out believe or the lack of it out of the ecuation

op pls comment on pic related

what is your first thought in that head of yours?

>i just turned 15: debate me - the thread

get greenpilled niggers

I always just assume pol is larping whenever it talks about Christianity

Nobody is religious in the UK anymore. Good riddance.

there re many theorist being the most accurate so far the big bang theory but it only explains the existence of the universe until certain point that being the big bang so we can never be sure or at least now we can only make assumtions up until that point
no never i dont even like wearing "baseball hats" and never knew that edgy kids weared fedoras because they think it looks cool
i dont think masturbation is degenerate, i think to much masturbation is a bad idea tho but no masturbation at all it also is
regarding pornography i think people like to see weird shit if the jews are behind of it i have no idea
it would be better if nobody watched pornography at all or in any case nothing more than vanilla pornography and not so often, but anyone is free to see what they like and touch their junk as much as they want too this is just an advice

How do you rationalize a need for morality? Isn't life without God nihilism?

not really, i started it mainly because i hate most atheist now and i wanted to show or find Sup Forums some good not stupid atheist

>actively attacks theism
Organized religion has been putting atheists to death for thousands of years. They're still doing it today in the Middle East, home of your religion. If you're insanely butthurt over a few sensible words that sting your conscious, then good, we hit a nerve and it's about fucking time you snapped out of it.


>promotes a view of God's non-existence
Sure, because that means fewer atheists get drowned, hung, burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, be-headed and all those other tortures you sadistic bastards came up with.


>says in the same sentence "god doesnt exist"
A few atheist who mis-speak can't change a definition that's ben around for thousands of years. Then again, you guys fall for just about anything and you're too eager to kill prove you religion is right.

funny

Not really. I just live my life by the morals that make sense to me and feel just, and it's not like I can't learn anything from religious texts: Jesus was a bro.

>We do know for a fact that there have been thousands of gods that came before. Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Montezuma, etc.
>Implying they weren't all offshoots of the same ancient God.

there is no such thing. if you were smart you would be agnostic

Do you make any of said assumptions? Which ones?

you could read the thread and see that we already have a disscusion going about it and we already reached a common ground but that is alot of effort for you doesn it?

Explain this massive finding that fundamentally challenges the primary axiom of evolutionary theory:

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=2s

Si al morir descubres que si existe el otro mundo, y San Pedro te dice que vas a ir al infierno al sufrimiento eterno, no la interpretacion clasica, si no a vivir tus peores pesadillas, al menos que vuelvas a la vida y denuncies todo lo que dijsite del ateismo y te vuelvas un hombre creyente y así te dejaria ir al cielo, lo harias?

Why?

could you be more specific?
if you are asking if i admit that not beliving in god is an assumption you are correct any atheist that says otherwise is bulshiting you in some way or another
i dont think there is faith involved in this statement like alot of theist say or if there is any not in the same amount that they say but it is certanly an assumption given the qualities that this god presents

i already did

atheism is NOT = not believing in god
it means *specifically* believing there is no god

agnostic atheism = not believing in a god, but it has to have agnostic before it, and agnostic by itself usually works fine, because it's confusing

btw youre retarded

>How do you rationalize a need for morality? Isn't life without God nihilism?
Men invented morals before they invented the gods they needed to enforce the morals.

Why can't this one life be good enough? We cherish it more when life is scarce and precious. It makes what we do in this life so much more important to be ethical and just.

Then we die our atoms are recycled back into the environment for other living creatures.

In the Middle Eastern religions, people kill to please their gods. they care nothing about life because they've rationalized murder and abuse their made-up gods to justify it.

Time for all Abrahamic religions to go by the wayside.

y por supuesto, obtuve pruebas confiables de que existe y por lo tanto cambiaria de opinion siendo presentado los hechos
no estaria feliz de que dios sea el tipo de persona que mandaria a alguien que no le causo daño a nadie en su vida al "infierno" solo por que no creyo, y si mande a alguien al cielo por que hizo cosas malas pero en definitiva se arrepintio con el dios adecuado de los tantos que hay pero lo aceptaria al final

>Implying they weren't all offshoots of the same ancient God.

if it truly was the same ancient god, wouldn't the tales and myths all be the same or at least somewhat similar?

timestamp on what you want me to see im cooking right now

religion is just too unrealistic for me
it just has to do with the way i was raised

many civilization have a tale about a world flood send by God
check mate atheist

how do i do that?

The bible does parallel some of those ancient myths. The Great Flood for example.

>It makes what we do in this life so much more important to be ethical and just.
No it doesn't. What motivation is there to be ethical and just. Why not lie, steal and live for the sake of pleasure.

see the video until the point you want me to see in youtube
stop video
right click
copy video link with the time in it should appear as an option

You live in a Catholic country, yet you use the Protestant notion of faith.

Also, for Catholics, at least, God is not an assumption but known through human reasoning:

"The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; "for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" [ Rom 1:20]"
Dei Filius, First Vatican Council

quoting the bible saying that god is known by human reasoning doesnt prove that god is known by human reasoning
it only proves that it says in the bible that it is this way

That was not the point. The quote was to show you what the Catholic church believes. The most common reason is the cosmological argument. You would say that all materials accounts for how the universe came to be breakdown at some point. More importantly, if we extrapolate what is currently known to the past enough, to the first planck time unit, we will find that, while there are already space, time and matter, all laws of physics breakdown. At least one of these is required for there to be causality, in the material sense of the term, hence it could be not be taking place prior to this point - also meaning this is not just a god of the gaps. The same applies if you extrapolate to the smallest interactions possible, as they are held by laws which, even though they appear to be constant in space, they are not constant in time, meaning they are not the fundamental proprieties of the universe.
From this, we infer that whatever led to this initial state had to be non-material. Whatever this non-material something is, it has to be outside of space and time, as these are inherent to the material universe. Outside of space and time, the concepts of separability or of a chain of events make no sense. For that reason, this non-material something is necessarily one single thing. To that something you call God.

This is an adaptation from the cosmological arguments of St.Thomas, the most influential thinker of Christianity. It is literally in the beginning of his best known work, Summa Theologica, after he defines what theology is and ponders whether the existence of God is self-evident or not.

dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2OUTP1

Note that God is not assumed to exist at any point. Instead, other assumptions are being made here.

>many civilization have a tale about a world flood send by God
Sure, but their floods were hundreds sometimes thousands of years apart. They didn't all happen at the exact same time as your circular reference might suggest.

And how do you explain that so many cultures survived their floods if only Noah and his family were the great evolutionary bottleneck?

>check mate atheist
You win the Special Olympics.

ah sorry i missunderstood your point, it makes sense i should be more in touch with physichs to understand it fully so this would be just speculation from my part but regarding this non-material something taking the role of "god" it should be left out if its actions or consecuenses are related to a conscience being not even talking about in wich way it would be related to christianty more than any other religion

assuming that this non material thing is the way to go if we want to explore what happens before material state of things existed we have no way of get in touch to it or messure it in anyway so to give it the characteristics of something that exist in this time frame of existence seems a little to bias, in any case the more accurate way i would look at it is that this non material thing is a component from a non material place of existence and this non material thing came from a non non material thing and so on (i know that there is a doble negative there i just dont know any other way of refering to it)
the point is that we cant just yell out god every time there is something we dont know about or cant find explanation
please correct me if i missunderstood something again because im preaty sure i just got mindfucked with this one haha

>What motivation is there to be ethical and just.
The fact that I want others to be ethical and just with me. The Golden Rule preceded the OT by thousands of years.


>Why not lie, steal and live for the sake of pleasure.
Like your televangelists? Sorry, nihilism is an argument falsified by your own faith.

How's the 8th grade?

>every civilization had the same calendar
ugh you dont even know

>At least one of these is required for there to be causality,

There was no space, no time, and matter did not obey the laws of physics, however there absolutely must have been *causality* because the rules of logic could not possibly be affected. /sarc

Sure, you make stuff up, you might as well fall for that too.

wouldnt know im im college med school

The rules of logic are actually the only assumption required here. But since denying them is self-refuting, you could say they are prima facie true.

Do you think humans need and excuse to be violent or is it just in our most basic nature to assert oursevles and fight for dominance?

The actual argument from Aquinas has God being defined as the necessary something (it is explained by itself, not by anything else) required to actualize the contingent universe (explained by something else), or you'd be stuck in infinite regression loops both backwards (in time) and inwards (increasingly reductionistic explanations). Hence, there is no further non non material thing above God. If there was, it would be that non non material thing what we called God, not the first non-material thing.

This video also repeats more or less the same argument pretty well:
youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc

>every civilization had the same calendar

The Pacific Northwest Great Flood happened 13,000 year ago our calendar.

The Black Sea flood was 11,600 years ago our calendar.

The Yellow River Great Flood happened 4000 years ago our calendar.

Please explain the somewhat dramatic time differences. Did your God deliberately wait until the Chinese settled the Jishi Gorge to smack those bastards {{{9000 years later}}}?

Dis gon be gud.

right now most people need an excuse to be violent because they were taught social and moral rules since they were young
but i dont think humans are inherently good you just have to see any toddler punch his brother in the face to get a candy when he already has one, humans can develop empathy with time by themselves faster than any other species but if it werent because we developed societies through ages our basic nature would be more prevalent that our moral and ethics restrains

they calculate the date wrong
every one was in noah times

Also, I'm using causality but the actual term is actualization: a process where something goes from potential to actual. Think of stuff has being defined by variables which can have many possible values (like a position in space-time). A thing is actualized when it goes from the state where it had very different possible sets of values for those variables to a specific set. In a sense, it's very similar to the concept of the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics. What is contingent always requires something else doing the actualization. What is necessary only requires itself: that necessary thing is God. God is required to avoid an infinite regression of actualization.

and why would we give it the definition of a god wich would be a sentient thing
to something that just is the start up of the universe

if we did that we would be redifining and butchering the concept of god from every religion to just the thing that created the universe without having in regard all the other atributes theist gave to it

in any case it would be better to call it particle non material x and to know this thing is the key to the creation of the universe rather than calling it god because is convenient to someone s argument

>The rules of logic are actually the only assumption required here.
Great, because the rules of logic strict prohibit the introduction of supernatural explanations

>But since denying them is self-refuting, you could say they are prima facie true.
No, there could be millions of hypotheses that come close.

However, armed with only the wild-ass guessoloogy of Bronze Age shepherds, without a shred of evidence, only *your* creation tale is the correct one, despite the fact that is the very least likely.

This is what I don't get. When I flick the light switch and the light doesn't come on, my first reaction is *not* that I didn't have enough faith or I didn't pray hard enough. My rational reaction is that the bulb is burned out or I didn't pay the electric bill - the most likely explanations first. Occam's Razor, if you will.

What I said implies God not only started the universe (the part where we avoid infinite backwards regressions) but also keeps it going (the part where we avoided inwards regressions).

i am not butchering the concept of God. I'm using the concept the Roman Catholic Church has used for at last 1000 years. This is based on the works of Aristotle. If you look up Aristotle's God you will find a very similar argumentation.

Also, what I told you about is just the proof of God's existence. I didn't tell you anything else about His characteristics. If you're interested in more, take a look at Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which I also linked above:
dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP.html

There are more authors doing the same but he was really the first one to completely systematize it.

>What is necessary only requires itself: that necessary thing is God. God is required to avoid an infinite regression of actualization.

Your logic has failed you. If there is some eternal constant, why wouldn't that constant simply be the universe expanding and contraction on its own? Why do you feel you need to add some invisible sky wizard to the mix? Because it feels better to you?

Your creation tale adds a fabricated layer of convolution that the law of parsimony specifically rejects as the best explanation. I'm going to reject it for the same reason.

The rules of logic don't do that. But I'm actually interested in knowing why you believe that, though.

If you deny the rules of logic, you can't argue nor say anything, as you'd be denying the law of identity. The law of identity is required for you to have definitions and any argument you make requires definitions. Deny logic and you lose as you'd be self-refuting.

>every one was in noah times
Please read up on all the ancient floods and their causes. You seem like a nice guy, I hate to see you embarrass yourself like this.

there were 15000 years ago my man, why do you think they know
it's like you believe what they tell you about the creation of the universe

Where did the universe come from?
Why am I conscious?

The constants we know so far are contingent, so they are not the ones. Also, if you had some eternal constant it would need to be necessary: that is to explain itself. That would be no mere constant but God.

no one is certain from where the universe comes from

you are conscious because of the consecuence of the evolutionary process gave the conditions to organism with high reasoning thrive and develop new and efficient ways to assure their survival

>The rules of logic don't do that. But I'm actually interested in knowing why you believe that, though.
Well, yes the rules of logic specifically reject supernatural explanations because they violate the known laws of nature. Voltaire or somebody. Like all the atoms in the universe packed into a tiny hot blob, for example.

So you can't use *logic* in a world with no space, time and matter is fubar. But even if you could somehow apply logic, the answer still would not be the magical moon-maker.

>It's a circular argument thread, were everyone argues with each other for the millionth time, about something nobody can prove.
Wew lad.

>Sorry, nihilism is an argument falsified by your own faith

I don't know what you mean

>it's like you believe what they tell you about the creation of the universe

I don't believe the universe was created. Do I win a prize?

>no one is certain from where the universe comes from
So it could be god
>gave the conditions to organism with high reasoning
And how does this imply consciousness?
At what point does something become conscious

nop just wrong

Watch the whole video. It's a 20 minutes that will change your life if you understand the implications biologically of what this famous man is saying.

Cheers brother!

>I don't know what you mean
>Why not lie, steal and live for the sake of pleasure.
Your televangelists lie, steal and live for the sake of pleasure and they are your spiritual leaders. I would hazard a guess they are your religious version of nihilists.

Are you just a robot?

>nop just wrong
Then please proceed to prove the universe was deliberately manufactured.

You. Can't.

Rejecting supernatural explanations is called naturalism and is a metaphysical assumption, not a rule of logic. A rule of logic would be something like the law of identity or the law of the excluded middle.

You're forcing God into a naturalist metaphysical framework of the world.

it certanly could have been good there is always that posibility

a person is conscious when it is aware of themselves their surroundings and the passing of time as well as having an understanding that our actions affect this world in some shape or form
at least thats consciousness at a human level
lesser animal forms have lesser forms of consciousness