Thread 23071100

I am an atheist. Debate me. You will lose.

>>23071100 (OP)
Chicken or egg?

>>23071100 (OP)
Nigger or watermelon?

>>23071101
Single cell organism.

why dont you believe in god?

>>23071100 (OP)
Steel Man my position that homosexuality is a net negative based on crime statistics

>>23071100 (OP)
Thread belongs on /pol/ or not

>>23071100 (OP)
Why is the moon white?

>>23071103
You're supposed to pick one you dumb cunt.

>>23071103
how did the first cell wall form?

>>23071100 (OP)
Youve never seen a vagina yet they exist. Response?

>>23071100 (OP)
What flavor of atheism are you?

>>23071100 (OP)
baby killer

>>23071100 (OP)
Trump is a pedo

>>23071103
Already wrong. Cells were not the first thing that came.

>>23071100 (OP)
>1pbtid
I Already won
Herbs and report off topic spam

Prove the existence of numbers.

>>23071100 (OP)
Atheists always baffle me, there's infinite number of post death scenarios possible, and atheists choose a single one. The probability you're correct is 1/infinity ->0

>>23071100 (OP)
>I am an atheist. Debate me. You will lose.
you already dead but you dont know it yet

>>23071108
Protochicken

>>23071117
>Atheists are sooo illogical! Now go come on down on your knees repeat prewritten poetry to try to apease an invisible jew

>>23071105
I love when these dorks post the.most obvious shit lol

>>23071117
two big problems here.
1. You misstate atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in gods; it doesn’t commit to a specific “post-death scenario,” and many atheists are agnostic about an afterlife (SEP: “Atheism and Agnosticism”; Wikipedia: “Atheism”).
2. Your probability move is nonsense. You can’t assign a uniform prior over “infinitely many” mutually exclusive afterlives—there’s no well-defined 1/∞ here. And even where infinity is used (continuous probabilities), probability 0 ≠ impossible (e.g., hitting exactly 0.5 when throwing a dart at [0,1]) (SEP: “Probability”; Wikipedia: “Almost surely”).

Rational credence tracks evidence, not the count of stories. With zero evidence for any specific afterlife claim and strong evidence that mental states depend on functioning brains, the parsimonious view is “no afterlife until shown otherwise” (SEP: “Simplicity/Occam’s Razor”; SEP: “Burden of Proof”; Kandel, Principles of Neural Science).

Also, your logic nukes religion too: each concrete afterlife/religion would be 1/∞ 0 by your rule. So your argument undercuts itself.

>>23071116
Physical quantities

>>23071121
>My magic sky jew is real because gravity exists
Hahaha wow

>>23071100 (OP)
How did the first atom come to exist.

>>23071126
What does this have to do with atheism?

>>23071125
can you explain to me why gravity exists?

>>23071128
Because you touch yourself at night.

>>23071100 (OP)
Debating an atheist is like debating a giraffe, you're subhuman unironically, the niggers who made cave paintings 80 000 years ago are more human than any atheist, a spiritual experience is only accessible to humans not to animals

>>23071100 (OP)
Sure, I use to be an atheist so I will give it a go. Do you think you are capable of knowing for a certainty how life originated on this planet? You weren't there and there is absolutely no evidence of how it originated. There has been less than a handful of lab experiments that prove it is theoretically possible that it was random but that is it.

>>23071126
condensed out of quarks when shit cooled down enough?

>>23071121
“fine-tuning” isn’t the slam dunk you think.
1. You claim the odds are “astronomically low,” but we don’t have a valid probability measure over possible constants or any reason to treat them as independent. Without a prior, “1 in N” talk is meaningless (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Fine-Tuning”; Colyvan, Garfield & Priest 2005).
2. The life-permitting region isn’t a knife-edge once multiple parameters vary together; trade-offs widen the space that allows long-lived stars and chemistry (Barnes 2012, PASA 29:529). The “1 in 10^120” line about Λ is a naturalness ratio, not a probability (Carroll 2013).
3. “Design” has no predictive distribution for the constants, so P(data|Design) is undefined; by Bayes it doesn’t raise the likelihood of our exact values over non-design hypotheses (Draper 1989; Ikeda & Jefferys 2006).
4. The multiverse isn’t a bare ad hoc dodge. Eternal inflation and the string landscape generically yield domains with different low-energy constants; while unproven, they’re live research programs (Guth 2007; Susskind 2003). Anthropic reasoning in such a setting even predicted a small, nonzero cosmological constant near the galaxy-formation bound before the 1998 discovery (Weinberg 1987; Martel, Shapiro & Weinberg 1998).
5. Calling this “grounded in observable science” smuggles in the philosophy at the end: the observation is just “these constants allow life.” Whether the best explanation is design, deeper physics, or selection effects is a philosophical inference, and design doesn’t currently add testable content (SEP “Fine-Tuning”).

Short version: the probabilities you rely on aren’t defined, the target isn’t as razor-thin as advertised, design lacks predictive power, and the naturalistic alternatives have theoretical motivation and at least one successful prediction.

What's your response to the basic intelligent design argument?

>>23071123
Wow what a retard

>>23071128
Gravity exists because mass distorts spacetime

>>23071100 (OP)
My argument is that you are still a Christian.

Looking at your ID, you come from the USA. I’ve studied religion for years on end now, and I can thoroughly deduce that you are either an edgy “atheist” who spreads hatred and/or ridicule among pledged Christians, or you are one of those spiritual “atheists” who grew up and abode by Yehusha’s lore, but don’t specifically believe in his higher power (albeit, you still very much believe in a God/Higher Power).

You likely grew up Protestant, as Catholics rarely stray that far from their creed. If you indeed grow up Protestant, then the Jesuits one and succeeded on the one goal they sought to accomplish: counter the reformation with liberal nihilism.

>>23071137
>My argument is a big strawman
Ftfy

>>23071132
How did quarks form then

>>23071109
magic jew god wished into existence ofcourse

>>23071123
Atheism doesn’t mean the same thing as agnosticism, dumbass.

>>23071101
the seed (and feed)

>>23071136
your mass distorts spacetime, yankee

>>23071136
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why

>>23071116
Numbers don't exist the same way love doesn't exist, these are simply concepts not actual physical objects

>>23071121
I really dislike the fine tuning argument. It makes a large assumption that the "universal" constants are actually true properties of the universe when its likely they are instead just artifacts of the math we invented to approximately describe the universe.

>>23071131
I don’t know. But if you want to attribute it to another being, you then have to ask where that being came from.
>muh timeless immaterial God doesn’t need to obey causality
If he can effect the material world then he isn’t immaterial, and if you can get your head around him existing forever then the universe existing forever is equally valid

>>23071123
>Atheism is simply not believing in gods
atheism isn't "simply" anything, there's many different atheisms, like strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism, negative atheism, explicit atheism, implicit atheism, practical atheism, theoretical atheism, philosophical atheism, scientific atheism, militant atheism, humanistic atheism, nu-atheism, existential atheism, skeptical atheism, gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, marxist atheism, secular atheism, spiritual atheism, empirical atheism, nihilistic atheism, post-theistic atheism, cultural atheism, psychological atheism, methodological atheism, ethical atheism, political atheism, naturalistic atheism, dogmatic atheism, progressive atheism, critical atheism, quiet atheism, minimal atheism, maximal atheism, meta-atheism, etc

you're pretending all atheism is weak atheism.
anon's probability framing was informal but his core idea stands.
if there are countless conceivable post-death outcomes, declaring one (nothingness) as certain without evidence is unjustified.

your "burden of proof" argument cuts both ways. if no one can prove what happens after death, then asserting no afterlife is just as speculative as asserting one.

>>23071143
Kek

>>23071123
1. Whether or not you believe there is or isn't a God, Gods, or god(s) it doesn't change what is or isn't. Your belief in atheism is no different from the belief of a theist, just the other side of the coin.
2. Probably argument stands because agnosticism is the most scientific and rational position to take. You can however attempt to prepare for a post-death scenario as you believe is true. I personally believe we are some kind of simulation/reincarnation cycle we repeat to improve our souls. As to why, I have no idea beyond potentially exiting the cycle. This of course does not negate the possibility of God(s), or being tasked with system administration and maintenance.

At the end of the day you're going to die like everyone else. I quite frankly don't give a shit what you believe or don't, it doesn't impact what is or isn't in the least.

>>23071100 (OP)
>The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago.

Where did this matter originally come from?

>>23071150
Probability* fucking phone

>>23071100 (OP)
Sure. Do you believe that we should change our laws that are mostly based upon christian morals?

>>23071100 (OP)
is the universe sentient and created itself?

>>23071139
i think as of now quarks are considered the first particles, but that they existed in a plasma state just after the big bang

i think study of the conditions of the first moments of the big bang is what scientists are trying to answer now with the large particle colliders they are building

>>23071151
Uranus

>>23071100 (OP)
Okay what would you like to talk about?

>>23071100 (OP)
What do you think of my take? Christianity is nonsense. Christians believe that a middle easterner from 2000 years ago will reappear one day, bring the dead back to life, and set up a utopian heaven-on-earth for a period of time. There might be problems with other religions, but they don't believe anything as retarded as that.

I think you should attack Christians for what they believe.

>>23071100 (OP)
Regardless of your existential beliefs, you will ride the journey of life. You will age, and die, like everyone else. Whatever thought pattern you adopt to carry you through this experience is really irrelevant, but ideally, it should make life more enjoyable. You however, as an atheist, are seeking attention on /pol/. Happy people don’t do that. This very post alone is enough to declare that atheism is a failed belief, insofar as you are concerned.

Best of luck

>>23071141
You’re half-right and still missing the point. Atheism ≠ agnosticism, but they’re orthogonal.
• Atheism: a stance about belief—not believing any gods exist (weak/“lack of belief”) or believing no gods exist (strong). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Atheism and Agnosticism”; Britannica “atheism”).
• Agnosticism: a stance about knowledge/justification—not claiming to know whether gods exist (Huxley coined it as an epistemic position, 1869; Britannica “agnosticism”).

Because belief and knowledge are different questions, you can be:
• Agnostic atheist (doesn’t believe, doesn’t claim certainty),
• Gnostic atheist (doesn’t believe and claims to know),
• Agnostic theist (believes but doesn’t claim to know), or
• Gnostic theist (believes and claims to know). (SEP; Britannica).

So no, atheism doesn’t “mean the same thing” as agnosticism—but calling someone a dumbass for pointing out the distinction just advertises you haven’t learned the basic terms

>>23071136
thats what gravity does, but why does it do it? and why is it so weak compared to the other forces?

>>23071100 (OP)
>I am an atheist. Debate me. You will lose.
dont care, you thrive on attention.
one of the smartest people to ever walk the earth was john von neumann. because of the synagogue of satan people dont know history for shit - much of the modern world is possible based on the things that he did for computer science and mathematics. von neumann was humorous, smart, had a family and kids and was one of the greatest minds ever to walk the earth - gauss / tesla tier. von neumann knew more about the natural world and how it worked that stem graduates today despite all the tools von neumann helped create at your disposal.
john von neumann:
"there probably is a god. many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't."
since you arent a john von neumann, or even 1% as smart as him, i literally dont give a flying fuck what your hylics ass has to say

>>23071100 (OP)
Do you have 100% proof of anything?

nigga I don't give a fuck about facts

>>23071133
I don't get it, are you denying intelligent design?

>>23071163
Great questions..the same internet you used to ask that can also be used to answer that.

Good luck

>>23071168
the answer is: "we dont know why"

>>23071162
So you are an atheist by faith?

>>23071148
>you MUST be one of these dumb flavors of atheism instead of the simple definition
>why? Because it’s more conventions for me to refute, that’s why
Come back when you grow a brain

>>23071147
No actually I don't. That is a logical fallacy based on the idea that a meaningful answer is obtainable or even useful to many of these questions. The unknowable is the unknowable, and in the case of how a higher power could have come into existence what benefit would knowing even have?

>>23071169
Cool, anything else?

>>23071170
>atheist by faith
Oxymoron

>>23071100 (OP)
Where did the universe come from? Who determines what is good and evil? How is matter capable of consciousness?

>>23071100 (OP)
the universe is too perfect to be a mistake golden ratio bla blah blah

Even if Jesus is God I would still reject him and if Jesus is God I am a fucking Satanist

>>23071100 (OP)
God destroyed Camp Mystic with a biblical flood because it was a child grooming site for evangelical protestant heretics. Prove me wrong!

>>23071199
Atheists have faith in their atheism being trustworthy.

>>23074048
Atheism takes far less faith than Christianity.

>>23074058
but that's a loaded comparison, isn't it?
the direct and fair comparison would be atheism to a more general theism—and if we make that comparison whilst defining faith as 'belief without definitive evidence', then both would seem to equally rely on belief sans evidence
although expecting empirical evidence of something transcendental is of course a category error

>>23074099
I would say atheism takes less faith than theism too. Because the atheist still believes in less things, or has less axioms which are something you'd take in faith as you have defined it.
>empirical evidence of something transcendental is of course a category error
Empirical evidence is just called evidence. They are the same thing because there is no such thing as non-empirical evidence.
The term you are looking for is unfalsifiable. Transcendental things are unfalsifiable.

>>23074133
outside of your multivariate framework for defining belief in God—which I haven't thought about enough to decide if I accept—if we take the more commonplace and straightforward [theism, agnosticism, atheism] spectrum, then is "no God" not axiomatic to atheism?

>Empirical evidence is just called evidence. They are the same thing because there is no such thing as non-empirical evidence.
well how are you defining 'evidence'?
if we define it as "a thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment", then a line of a priori argumentation can easily constitute evidence, and we can in fact exclusively use a priori proofs in several domains—mathematics and logic being the most obvious
a hypothetical a priori mathematical or logical proof of something transcendental would be falsifiable within those systems

>The term you are looking for is unfalsifiable. Transcendental things are unfalsifiable.
I hope the above has disproven this notion—they're unfalsifiable only within an exclusively empirical framework, owing to the methodological limitations thereof (most notably preconditions of matter, time, and existence itself)

>>23071384
>Where did the universe come from?
Big bang
>where did that come from?
We don't know
>Who determines what is good and evil?
The one with the most power does
>How is matter capable of consciousness?
no one really knows.