do you have any arguments against atheism

it's totally soulless

Atheism makes you retarded and gay

makes me sad

>>17839968
that's really the only argument that truly matters

>>17839947 (OP)
dont have any that are strong enough, only ones that already have refutations
atheism is the truth, theres no argument against truth

"Atheism" is "A - theism". It's a negation of "god".

Consequently, it relies on a culturally biased, unnecessary and ill-defined concept of "god". It's not just culturally biased by being a rejection of the Christian god. It's culturally biased by being a rejection of the wide diversity of deities in human cultures. Atheists fall victim to the intellectual pitfall of relying on already-existing ideas in the unreliable library of human understanding. It misses the philosophical ideal of attempting to articulate the nature of reality purely and directly.

At best, atheism is incomplete, particular and does not constitute a fully formed worldview. At worst, it is a pathological distraction from genuine philosophical problems. If an articulate person is asked to define "god", the descriptive power of the word is invariably drowned and killed by more meaningful ideas.

>>17839958
That experiment only reduce the activity of the part of the brain related to fear, meaning that the study actually supports the argument that belief in god is just a cope to deal with mortality

>>17840016
So... atheists reject what is to you a culturally biased, unnecessary, and ill-defined concept of God or gods, the "already-existing ideas in the unreliable library of human understanding."

And from that, you conclude that atheism is what's culturally biased and a pathological distraction from genuine philosophical problems.

???

It seems like you agree with atheists, but, instead of calling yourself an atheist, you prefer to gesture at some notion which you would like to refer to as "god" that no one or hardly anyone is actually using and which you yourself haven't communicated.

>>17840084
Spot on. He's clearly some flavour of petersonian "theist".

>>17839958

>>17840021
>n-no it's actually a good thing that disabling parts of the brain makes me act in a way contrary to my biology
what a cope.

>>17840016
>negation
No, anti- or un- are negations, a- is neutral without.

>a rejection of the Christian god.
No, its not just that demon, atheists are without belief in all magical demons.

>does not constitute a fully formed worldview.
Because its not about having a view, its about lacking a view just like peanut allergy does not describe a fully formed diet, it just describes an ingredient one's diet lacks.

>the descriptive power of the word is invariably drowned and killed by more meaningful ideas.
So "god" doesn't actually mean anything, its just a jumping off point for people to make up flowery bullshit which is why most people who talk about god aren't even talking about godan, the namesake of the word?

>>17840006
the truth is that you are a tranny.

>>17840084 (cont.)
Since you said
>It misses the philosophical ideal of attempting to articulate the nature of reality purely and directly.
I might guess that your preferred meaning for the word "god" is "reality." But, you see, we already have a word for reality. It's conveniently called "reality" and, although I haven't done any surveys, my impression has been that most atheists do at least believe in that.

>>17840108
Its not disabling, though, its adding energy to parts of the brain and increasing throughput which disables fear, not the brain.

>>17840108
Using the internet is contrary to biology too, you should only be able to communicate your retarded ideas to people within earshot who can see you are just a raving lunatic with poor personal hygiene.

>>17840113
trannies are christian
galatians 3:28

>>17840117
>its adding energy to parts of the brain
put your head in a microwave.
>>17840118
>Using the internet is contrary to biology too
>autopoietic systems and allopoetic systems are mutually interchangeable with one another
fucking moron.

>>17840126
Microwaves destroys the cells while the medical device does not, they go back to being scared little good goys as soon as the electrode signal is removed.

Why does God allow your free will to be overrode by a magnet? Doesn't this mean someone could hypothetically go through life without ever having the chance to believe in the Gospel?

>>17840084
>>17840087
>>17840112
>>17840115

A-, anti- and un- are different contexts and forms of negation.

I will admit a fault in strawmanning atheists as annoying fedora faggots whose main viewpoint is atheism.

You can't argue that language isn't limited and flawed. If I gave an opinion that some entity or entities exist that has the qualities associated with god, what would be the utility of saying that was my god? Would it refute or add to any of the ontological concepts that would entail? What if mathematicians were discussing infinite sets circa 1935 and you busted into the room and made the whole discussion about god? What if Nick Bostrom was speaking about simulation theory in some glass building nobody knows about and you raised your hand to ask a question. "IS THE SIMULATOR GOD? IS IT REALLY GOD? IS IT ACTUALLY GOD?" How do you invoke god without recourse to ancient spirituality? God is a psychological, anthropological and historical subject. It's a show of cultural immaturity that theists and atheists alike don't move past it and replace the language with more substantial things.

>>17840129
>Microwaves destroys the cells while the medical device does not
non-sequitur, unless you can provide definitive proof that "adding energy" (whatever the fuck that means) is consciousness expanding in the way you make it out to be.
>>17840130
>free will vs determinism argument out of nowhere
it amazes me how you're already moving the goal posts.

>>17839958
>>17840108
>>17840113
christbeaner meltdown

>>17840148
cope

>>17840139
So I still take it that you're an atheist but you just don't like the label because you have negative emotional associations with it.

I consider myself to be an atheist because I don't believe in the notions that most people are referring to when they talk about God (at least those people who aren't using God as their preferred synonym for another word with a much clearer agreed-upon definition, like "reality"). I'm perfectly capable of separating topics like the simulation hypothesis and transfinite set theory from the concept of God. They're interesting, and the simulation hypothesis may or may not be true, but neither topic has anything to do with the concepts of God that I reject in my mind.

>>17840006
this is a good argument against atheism
anyone who says there's no argument against them is suspect of being wrong

>>17840171
ad hominem
also theres no arguments against truth, and atheism is truth.

>>17840178
There's often lots of arguments against true propositions.

>>17840181
>>17840178
This person clearly means there are no valid arguments against true propositions

>>17840183
There's lots of valid arguments against true propositions.

>>17840189
True is a subset of valid. "If green niggers can teleport to gensokyo, then all milk is brown. Green niggers can teleport to gensokyo, therefore all milk is brown." The argument is valid but the premises and conclusion are false.

>>17840130
God is an evil demon, therefore free will only refers to the freedom to do evil, not the freedom to prevent evil happening to you. Only Cain had the free will to choose to murder, Abel didn't have the free will to choose not to be.

>>17840147
>unless you can provide definitive proof that "adding energy" (whatever the fuck that means) is consciousness expanding in the way you make it out to be.
They use the same technology to help figher pilots train in simulators faster.

>>17840178
>also theres no arguments against truth,
Relativity. There are tons of arguments against universal truths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth

>>17840201
They obviously meant that there are no good arguments against truth. You're pretending not to understand.

And if you make an argument against universal truths, aren't you claiming that said argument is true?

>>17840206
Nta but you haven't said what you consider a good argument. For instance, there are arguments against true propositions which are convincing to many people, arguments against true propositions which have false premises that we nevertheless consider true because we are mistaken etc.

>>17840206
No, those are specifically arguments against the idea of truth and in favor of various forms of subjectivity like relative truth approaching consensus.

>>17840206
>aren't you claiming that said argument is true?
No, he is only claiming it feels true to him, not that it is definitely 100% universally true.

>>17839947 (OP)
>do you have any arguments against atheism

There's always something more...
Bigger
Smaller
Moral
Intelligent
Important

>>17840220
how do you know what i mean?
im saying atheism is objectively true
there is no valid argument against truth, theist arguments are built on fallacy and delusion

>>17840225
>how do you know what i mean?
I don't, I am just making an educated guess based on the words you use some of which can be translated in a variety of ways.

>there is no valid argument against truth
Relativity and Subjectivism are just a couple of examples of arguments against universal truths, the universe is not locally real, etc.

>theist arguments are built on fallacy and delusion
So are mathematical and logical arguments, they just call them axioms and propositions instead, but underlying every axiom is a contradiction even if the logical axioms are used to prove further "truths".

>>17840224
A tiger is bigger than a house cat, but that doesn't mean the house cat should view the tiger as a god

>>17840224
That only disproves omnipotent gods since there can't be an ultimate power given there will always be something more powerful, so its more powerful all the way up.

>>17840225
Logic is orthogonal to order and chaos. For example, if you have a number sequence 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 4559, it isn't illogical that the pattern is interrupted. Likewise, if something appeared that violated the laws of physics, it wouldn't be illogical, just unexpected. If god appeared in the sky and said "I'm literally god, Jesus is my son and the world is 6000 years old" and bombarded you with supporting evidence, it wouldn't be illogical. It would just violate a pattern set by the laws of physics while all logical rules stand strong.

>>17840239
>Relativity and Subjectivism are just a couple of examples of arguments against universal truths, the universe is not locally real, etc.
they are not "valid" arguments
objectivism is self evident and epistemological realism is correct
>So are mathematical and logical arguments, they just call them axioms and propositions instead,
are you really comparing axioms with the claim that god created the earth in 6 days, made two humans and 4000 years later sent his son to die?

theres a reason im confident in saying theres no good arguments for theism, it is because i have not encountered one yet, but i do accept axioms because ive faced logic
you cannot compare these two, says i
>>17840258
>If god appeared in the sky and said "I'm literally god, Jesus is my son and the world is 6000 years old" and bombarded you with supporting evidence, it wouldn't be illogical
keyword "if", once that happens i will be a theist, until then im confident in atheism.

>>17840263
>objectivism is self evident and epistemological realism is correct
Not until you have proved a theory of everything, until then you have a bunch of competing theories of partial truth.

>are you really comparing axioms with the claim that god created the earth in 6 days, made two humans and 4000 years later sent his son to die?
Those are some axioms of christianity that have as much contradiction as logical axioms that end up asserting that the first number is 0.

>theres a reason im confident in saying theres no good arguments for theism
You have no good argument to say you know the truth until you can predict everything that will happen in the future as a result of your entirely true worldview either.

>>17840270
youve started arguing for even more extraordinary and ridiculous premises
>You have no good argument to say you know the truth until you can predict everything that will happen in the future as a result of your entirely true worldview either.
this part is a clear fallacy

how about this, can you actually give an argument for theism instead of these semantics where you reject the basis of reality and axioms?

>>17840288
>I know the absolute objective 100% truth of reality
>NO I CAN'T USE IT TO MAKE ACTUAL FUTURE PREDICTIONS, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN ASK THAT

Your argument has nothing to do with theism, though, you are trying to equate atheism with truth when they bear little in common and nobody even knows the truth for certain.

But fine, if you want logic games: if an omnipresent god exists anywhere, it must exist everywhere by definition.
An omnipresent god exist in the bible as well as numerous other holy books and the human imagination, so it must exist everywhere by definition.

>>17840295
>>I know the absolute objective 100% truth of reality
do you have autism? why do you take everything i say to the extreme?
just because i believe in objectivism and that i can deduce things through sense data doesnt mean i know everything
you are fallacious
>Your argument has nothing to do with theism,
my argument is that there are no valid arguments against atheism, because its truth.
youve failed to provide any valid arguments against atheism, instead youre being distracted and talking about everything except arguments for theism.
>nobody even knows the truth for certain.
theism, especially abrahamic religion is a positive claim, until they can prove the existence of their god the default is more correct, and atheism is the default.
>But fine, if you want logic games: if an omnipresent god exists anywhere, it must exist everywhere by definition.
this is not evidence of that god existing, its just a description of what he would be like if he did exist
"if harry potter existed, he would live in the united kingdom"
even if its true, it doesnt prove that harry potter exists.

Abraham liked his invisible friend, so he cut his cock off.
Trannies like their non-existent womanhood, so they cut their dicks off.
You are all the same to me, unable to cope with reality not being mystical so you cut your dick off.

>>17840303
>I know the truth, just not the actual truth and not in any way that is helpful, just in a way so I can call you derogatory names.

>youve failed to provide any valid arguments against atheism
Because I am not arguing against atheism I am arguing against your retarded conflation of truth to atheism.

>this is not evidence of that god existing,
It is, it is proof that it exists in those books and the human imagination, the fact that you know what the word god means and already knew it was associated with omnipresence proves you know it existed in principle before this discussion even began and you are the one peddling untrue.

> its just a description of what he would be like if he did exist
No, the description comes from a book that describes his existence and defines his omnipresent qualities, not one that speculates he may exist.

>"if harry potter existed, he would live in the united kingdom"
So you are not sure if holy books exist and you don't know that god is written about in them and you don't know that they describe him as omnipresent, but you know the whole unfettered truth of reality other than that?

What I am saying would be more like saying "If harry potter exists in the books then he lives in the uk".

>>17840311
>Because I am not arguing against atheism I am arguing against your retarded conflation of truth to atheism.
you have no clue what youre talking about
atheism is truth, there is no conflation.
>It is, it is proof that it exists in those books and the human imagination
so your argument is that if i write a book about a god and his feature is omnipresence that means he exists omnipresently outside of that book?
do you know what the map territory relation is?
by this flawed logic i could make a book on an object that is omnipresent that disables god's existence and thus it would disable god's existence in real life
your entire argument is basically "god exists because book on god exists"
youre a fallacious retard, dont even bother replying.

>>17840315
>so your argument is that if i write a book about a god and his feature is omnipresence that means he exists omnipresently outside of that book?
It necessarily existed outside of the book before it existed in it since the book came from your imagination.

> i could make a book on an object that is omnipresent that disables god's existence
No because god was already defined as omnipotent well before you came up with that, so he has the power to disable your device before it can disable him.

>your entire argument is basically "god exists because book on god exists"
So your entire argument is basically "truth exists because books on truth exist"

I accept your concession, smart thinking trying to preconcede since you realize how retarded you have sounded so far.

I'm writing a book that explores some of these ontological and epistemological areas. Unfortunately I have a cowardly impulse to harbor and gatekeep the core of my position.

>>17840319
>>17840315
Ordinary logic and empiricism do not in fact satisfy the philosophical aim for existential answers. One has to look underneath the founding axioms of logic (non-contradiction etc.) for better answers but relativism is not the answer. Relativism is a lazy and incomplete reaction to the limits of logic. Either way, one handles and relates the notion of "god" some way or another.

>>17840324
It does however, if you think existential questions like "why are we here" need some deep profound answer instead of "your parents wanted a kid" you are ignoring the truth in lieu of wanting to be the main character of some epic fantasy novel. Philosophy first and foremost is an attempt to find truth, but pre- and postmodernists have done nothing but introduce mysticism/emotional coping mechanisms to ignore the reality that is unfolding right before their eyes.

>>17840319
>It necessarily existed outside of the book before it existed in it since the book came from your imagination.
ok so what does that entail then? god real because i imagine god in my mind?
jungian argument? solipsism?
>No because god was already defined as omnipotent well before you came up with that, so he has the power to disable your device before it can disable him.
yet he didnt do that, so clearly he allowed himself to be destroyed
>So your entire argument is basically "truth exists because books on truth exist"
no my argument is that truth is self evident and that your belief that axioms shouldnt be pre-assumed is retarded
>>17840324
>Ordinary logic and empiricism do not in fact satisfy the philosophical aim for existential answers
god is not existential, but rather a claim that deals with ordinary life
when philosophers try to argue for gods existence they always use arguments that vaguely describe the monotheistic omnipotent omnipresent omniscient god (monad) but even if we managed to prove that god, we cannot prove that hes the one from abrahamic religion, that is rather that he had anything to do with the bible's claims, such as genesis, the flood, exodus slavery etc, which are further extraordinary claims that need to be proven but cannot be proven because they are false

>>17840324
>Relativism is a lazy and incomplete reaction to the limits of logic.
Its still an argument against universal truth which anon said didn't even exist >>17840178.

>>17840178
>atheism is truth.
You can't go a single post without plagiarizing jesus and trying to replace him with something else can you?
>I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

>>17840340
>Its still an argument against universal truth which anon said didn't even exist >>17840178(You).
do you really think i meant that theres no arguments against objectivism? you really just might have autism because you take things head on
its quite fucking obvious that i meant theres no argument that stands up to it
>>17840346
jesus did not invent the word truth nor did he invent the concept of truth
dumb fucking christcuck your king is that of the kikes

>>17839953
>>17839968
This seems to be the laymens reason for opposing Atheism
They think a God or gods are required for life to be meaningful, and they think that rejecting the idea of a creator trivializes existence into it's mere physical constituents.

As much as I understand this way of thinking, I completely disagree, and I think it's a shame so many people think this way, because I think it just mischaracterizes atheism into either nihilism, or misotheism (if you're a schizo)
You can be an atheist and still find meaning, atheists just lack belief in a God (yes schizos, this is what atheism is, if atheists were just out to hate on your particular God they would not call themselves atheists, they would call themselves Misotheists, so grow the fuck up), but this does not necesarilly preclude a belief in a greater metaphysical reality, especially with more soft flavors of atheism

Futhermore, Nontheistic religion is also a real thing, and this also includes Christian Atheism, as outlined by scholars like Thomas Altizer and John Capouto
I think generalizing atheism as just hatred of God or nihilism or scientism or whatever the current boogeyman is, is just being intellectually lazy, but the reason so many theists do this is because they have a hill to die on, and so are more likely to reason with emotion rather than rationality.

>>17840337
>god real because i imagine god in my mind?
You imagine him and think about him constantly because he is real and lives rent free in your imagination.

>yet he didnt do that, so clearly he allowed himself to be destroyed
Yet here you are namedropping him for hours on end, failing to disprove his existence or prove your replacement truth.

>no my argument is that truth is self evident
Which is just plagiarizing every theist's argument about god.

>god is not existential, but rather a claim that deals with ordinary life
No, the claim is generally that life only exists because god exists, so proving the existence of life is proof of god unless you are saying that all life is actually dead because choice is just an illusion and reality is completely deterministic according to concrete unchangeable physical laws.

>>17840348
>i meant theres no argument that stands up to it
Until you conceded that theistic axioms have just as much, if not more, predictive power than atheistic axioms.

>jesus did not invent the word truth
Who else equated themselves with the truth before him? Even if he plagiarized someone else, you still plagiarized them both.

>>17840362
>Until you conceded that theistic axioms have just as much, if not more, predictive power than atheistic axioms.
You're a schizo dude

>>17840356
>You imagine him and think about him constantly because he is real and lives rent free in your imagination.
there we go, youve completely given up on logical argument because you know there isnt any
im glad youve conceded pathetic christcuck
>>17840362
>Until you conceded that theistic axioms have just as much, if not more, predictive power than atheistic axioms.
you have no clue what axioms even are, there is no theistic axiom
and i didnt concede anything
i bet youre a shitskin mutt because your comprehension is so low

>>17839947 (OP)
Atheism cant explain what being a good person means.

>>17840351
I would argue most Christians alive today are Christian Atheists

>>17840368
Man survived on earth by using his mind and senses to interpret reality to a degree previously unseen in the known universe. It can be safely assumed that the human mind is the reason humans still exist, as we are not half as strong/fast/tough as most other creatures here. Thus, to infringe on a human's consent (the product of that mind) is to mistreat him, you are treating him as less than human. There, initiating force is evil and respecting consent is good. No mysticism required and you would have to ignore the most basic survival mechanism a human has to pretend it's not true.

>>17840364
No, you >>17840288 are the one who balked at using atheistic axioms to make future predictions and acted like it was pure insanity to be able to do so.

>>17840368
A good person is one who contributes to a higher standard of living by ensuring all parties involved may live in maximum comfort to the best of their abilities and through the principle of reciprocity

Sorry man but this argument doesn't really fly anymore, morality is not required for God, otherwise we would have no secular moral framework. We don't live in a theocracy.

>>17840368
It means not being a bad person and a bad person is an intentionally malicious person.

>>17840368
A good person is a person that has desirable qualities (when fulfilling a role such as a chef or a father) or a person who is morally righteous. What is considered morally righteous can vary from person to person.

>>17840365
>youve completely given up on logical argument
No, hypocrite, I just pointed out with 100% certainty that god is a vast part of your imagination and you probably think about it daily while still claiming your life is without god.

>you have no clue what axioms even are, there is no theistic axiom
God created reality is a basic theistic axiom.
Christ is king is a popular christian axiom.
You are the one who doesn't seem to understand what the word axiom means.

>and i didnt concede anything
You conceded that your 100% truth is incredibly lacking in predictive power.

>>17840388
NTA but doesn't it get exhausting just flailing around saying things that don't make any sense? Doesn't it suck leaving every single "debate" completely unsatisfied knowing you were just being an obtuse retard the entire time?

>>17840397
>I can't understand the concept of god because nothing makes sense to me.
Doesn't being retarded get exhausting?

>>17840397
The exhilaration of seeing a (you) pop up on the screen makes his axe wound tingle, don't bother.

>>17840410
Ah this must be the 100% objectively logical arguments we keep hearing about, its totally not just impotent seething from some rude retard who doesn't fit into modern civilized discourse.

The guy above me will call me anything except wrong.

>>17840425
>I don't understand multisyllabic words that are synonymous with wrong because of my mental retardation.

>I am still bleeding from my axe wound and you will taste my vitriol!
Nah I think I'll just laugh at you

>>17840368
Theism cant explain what being a good person means.

>>17840432
Since you can't make a decent argument, you might as just cackle like a maniac while frogposting, it suits you.

Do a pancake recipe next!

You can't do 10 posts shitting and farting, THEN start whining about the quality of the discourse when people are not treating you seriously

>>17839947 (OP)
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.

>>17840468
We've created amino acids in a lab bro

>>17840474
>the atheist begins to argue that abiogenesis is totally real guys

>>17840456
>>17840432
>>17840425
Do you always cry and seethe like a little bitch like this when you lose an argument or just when the argument is about god?

>>17840477
Okay but it is, we've even observed single cellular organisms evolve into multicellular ones in a lab in realtime

>I got some of my own medicine and now I am mad, how can this happen to me!?
Keep giving yous saar do the needful

>>17840481
>amino acids = living cells
>watching mitosis = the origin of life
>still have billions of years of lotteries to get through
You are not winning this.

>>17840468
Pretty sure this reasoning just get you stuck in an infinite recurse of inferring intelligent causation, unless you special plead for God

>>17840490
I mean, it does kinda give the abiogenesis crowd more credibility than you. All you're doing is abusing continuum fallacies and moving the goalpost like you always do whenever this topic is brought up. That's why people like James Tour are now a laughing stock. I don't even know why you would choose to die on this hill, you could just be a Deist and be done with it

>>17840493
>we can literally replicate all of the PARTS to life
>we still cant make life
>"abiogenesis is totally real guys and can happen in nature!"
You're failing to see where your leap of faith occurs that you all deny having in your eagerness to kill God.

I'll preface this by saying I'm an atheist living in the west, so I'll mainly be talking about Christianity and the New Atheism of the 21st century, which is what I'm most familiar with. The issue with atheism is not that is seeks to question religious truth, it is that it seeks to remove a cornerstone of society without providing a substitute. Debates are often focused on two topics: whether religion is factually true or not, something that cannot be proven or disproved, and the topic of morality and if/how secular morality can replace religious morality. These questions are fun to ponder for the academic elite that enjoy thinking deeply about philosophy and such, but the common person get their morality from cultural (and by extension religious due to how closely they are connected) religious osmosis, they don't care for creating consistent moral frameworks that are based on reason and logic.
The important question that these debates miss is the communal aspect of religion and this is the true loss. In a world where people are increasingly more and more lonely and isolated we have lost that important 'third place' that churches used to provide. We no longer see and meet the community that we live in. Let's also not forget about the power of rituals - I live in one of the most atheistic countries on the planet and we still cling to church marriages and baptisms because they are nice, rituals in often beautiful places - this sort of symbolism resonates very strongly with the human mind. I think the best argument against atheism is simply pointing out that it indirectly dismantles these important places and rituals without providing a replacement, and that leaves a vacuum in a lot of people.

>>17839947 (OP)
>do you have any arguments against atheism
It creates a moral vacuum filled by Islam and Jewish pedophiles.

>>17840498
It's just basic systems chemistry, the problem is that at the lowest level there really is no real distinction between life and a self-replicating chemical reaction. What you want is for scientists to just produce a full blown alien creature like in some sci-fi movie but that's ridiculous, since we would essentially need billions of years for that to happen anyways.

>>17840507
Technology increases exponentially though. Couple hundred years back we were fighting with swords and some people thought the moon was god. Fast forward a little and we're flying a rocket there to stick a flag in its ass.

>>17840498
You could make the exact same argument for why lightning proves God, some hundred years ago.
Can you give a principled reason why we should think you'd be wrong in that case, but not in this case?

This is just gonna be more of the same "explain literally anything, else God did it"-nonsense, right?

>>17840507
>that you want is for scientists to just produce a full blown alien creature
no. I want scientists to provide a proven natural explanation for the origin of life. That shouldn't be a hard task since "everything already has a natural explanation" And despite decades of cutting edge research, this explanation still cant be produced.
Naturalists are beginning to cling to the idea that life came from an asteroid as some kind of cop out to the question.

Not only that, you have no observational evidence either. Our universe is lifeless. There is nothing in the entire universe that signifies life beginning naturally.

>>17840500
Religion is not a good moral framework. What happens is as time goes on, we begin to simply ignore the more reprehensible aspects of a given religion, and religion becomes more subservient to secular institutions.

Don't even get started on abiogenesis. It's just fucking inconclusive. It's like using the question of exoplanets in an argument about god in the 1970s before they were discovered. It's stupid.

Are there some biochemistry problems that were so hard, we needed AI to solve them? Protein folding? Fuck off.

>>17840509
You are the ones denying having faith in anything. You're al skeptics remember?
That means your argument of abiogenesis fails the test of logic because you have no proof only faith.

>>17840500
The replacement is objectivism, reciprocal human freedom and holding the peaceful creation of value as the highest moral. This would replace cutting off a piece of our sons dicks the moment they get born into the world. What the fuck are you smoking to not think that's a good thing?

>>17840521
You could make the exact same argument for why lightning proves God, some hundred years ago.
Can you give a principled reason why we should think you'd be wrong in that case, but not in this case?

>>17840514
>I want scientists to provide a proven natural explanation for the origin of life.
Oh, well that's easy, the earliest evidence for life on Earth is around 3.7 billion years old, and has been found in underwater hydrothermal vent, this likely provided ideal conditions for early life to the ocean provided plenty of oxygen for a sustained reaction, plenty of energy from said thermal vents, and plenty of shielding from the suns radiation, since early life would not have been evolved enough to have appeared on land

>>17840527
Because we're capable of proving and replicating the natural process of lightning?

>>17840528
>proven

>>"earliest evidence"
>>"around"
>>"likely"

kys.

>>17840529
Right, so people would not believe so hundreds of years ago.

You can't prove where life come from
therfor
God did


amazing.

>>17840533
what's your point?
If life did come up naturally, we have the technology, today, to replicate it, if it was possible. It's not.
No amount of combinations on the periodic table is going to give you a living cell.
And you still have the baggage of attaching billions of years to its survival and growth.

>>17840537
see the original premise before screeching "god of the gaps" >>17840468

It is inherently more rational to believe intelligent design is the cause of the origin of life rather than a natural process that will never be proven or observed anywhere in the universe.

>>17840516
You're missing the point, my argument was specifically not about the moral framework question, it was about the communal aspect that religion provided but atheism doesn't.
>>17840524
Those are moral values. I'm talking about social benefits like regularly gathering with your community.

>>17840539
Everything else that was ever explained, had a natural explanation
therefor
Origin of life, will also have a natural explanation

>>17840498
Amino synthesis and abiogenesis are completely different things, though, you are the one doing the conflating because you know you can insert your god into the gaps.

We have produced Peptide nucleic acid, Glycol nucleic acid, and Threose nucleic acid artificially, these are direct precursers to RNA, and what "life" would've been based on in a pre-RNA world around 4 billion years ago

The fact that AI image generators tend to recycle their own outputs, leading to a gradual decline in quality, makes a strong case—at least to me—for the need for an intelligent mind external to the system during the creative process.

not living cells. not proof. more faith from the "faithless"
Welcome to atheism in 2025.

You've lost.

>>17840539
The point is, that if you made this argument 500 years ago - you would be wrong.
I want a principled reason to think you wouldn't also be wrong today

>>17840545
>uses an AI to criticize AI
???

>>17840541
You can regularly gather your community without instilling the fear of god in them. Just invite them lol.

I don't get it. Does theism hinge on scientist being unable to create living cells?
Like if they do that in a lab 20 years from now, that mean theism is false? Would you become an atheist?

>>17840545
What you just said doesn't actually mean anything by the way, quality is subjective

>>17840544
RNA and DNA have also been created artificially, but that's not as relevant to the study of abiogenesis

>>17840552
this argument is one of 500 million for God's existence. You can screech "god of the gaps" all you like but my worldview actually has the scientific observable evidence behind it. There is no life in the universe.
Now unless you want to shill for ayyys, I suggest you rationally follow the trail of evidence that shows life on Earth being a miracle caused by a higher power capable of producing life.

>>17840559
Wouldn't the fact that 99.9 percent of the universe is a deserted wasteland that's hostile to life kinda disprove the idea that the universe was made with us in mind? Logically speaking, we exist in-spite of the universe, not because of it..

>>17840559
Even in your argument you're admitting that further down the line it will get disproved and creating new lines of retreat, lmao

>>17840551
You can, but people don't. When people stopped going to churches there wasn't a rush by secular governments and institutions to regularly host events where people with shared values can mingle, sing sons together in beautiful places, network and see what's going on in the community. It would be really cool if social events were hosted regularly but they simply aren't, not in the same frequency and not for the same crowds as having weekly church service.

>>17840566
If they do not come then that is their own free choice.
>People are not agreeing to my lifestyle choices for them, the west has truly fallen.
Show them something worthwhile and they will come.

>>17840565
>>"further down the line it will get disproved"
>unironically shilling for ayyys
I meant it as a joke, you troglodyte.

>>17840568
>If they do not come then that is their own free choice.
>Show them something worthwhile and they will come.
So no worthwhile replacement has been shown, as this is not an occurrence? You're proving my point for me.

>>17840566
I do somewhat agree in that I do think the government should do more to promote community and social spaces where interaction is encouraged, especially with the loneliness epidemic that's been created as a result of the internet
That being said, I rode my bike down to my local beach earlier and went to the bar for a drink, plenty of people outside doing their own thing, I get that it's not exactly the same, but I think it can be if we cultivate a culture that promotes it instead of our current culture where everyone is stuck inside of their own bubble.

I don't get it. Does theism hinge on scientist being unable to create living cells?
Like if they do that in a lab 20 years from now, that mean theism is false? Would you become an atheist?

>>17840500
This argument and any of the banal moral arguments are totally irrelevant -- Christians go to Church because they believe that Yahweh created the earth and then sent Jesus down as his son/representative. They don't go to Church because they believe that praying in a building once per week results in tight communities or something. It's an argument for pretending to believe in any religion.

>>17840572
People come to my house to eat barbeque and play some dnd and watching the game, you do not need the fear of god if you are not a power hungry sociopath.

>>17840555
Sure. But I'm mainly getting at the problem of complexity in evolution. How can seemingly simple genetic changes lead to the vast complexity observed in living organisms? Just a really, really, really long time and you'll see it?

>>17840581
A longtime + a chaotic enviornment that promotes evolutionary adaptation

>>17840368
>god is real because an imaginary flying jew zombie on a stick said murdering people is bad thereby inventing morality and being the first person to decry thievery in 33CE

>>17840503
crickets btw.

>>17840591
oh sorry man everyone thought your post was a joke when you tried to separate christcuckery from pedophilia, you were serious? lmao

>>17840590
>>god is real because an imaginary flying jew zombie on a stick said murdering people is bad
The funny thing is that murder is actually fairly common in the Bible and it's usually sanctioned by the big G himself

>>17840597
>baldcels have been oppressed since prehistory

>>17840585
Is the so called "Mathematical Problem" of evolution credible in your opinion?
https://youtu.be/D8RQgM3PemM?si=SSRK9edXUDCkjJR9&t=502

>>17840575
>I get that it's not exactly the same, but I think it can be if we cultivate a culture that promotes it instead of our current culture where everyone is stuck inside of their own bubble.
That is my whole point. I'm not saying people are literally not going outside, of course people still go to the beach, to restaurants and to the bar, but you typically do those things specifically and exclusively with people in your bubble. When you and your friends go to the beach you don't really want a complete stranger inviting themselves to your table. The third place (church) provided a regular place where everyone could gather to regularly have an excuse to socialize a little with the people who made up their immediate community. That is the benefit of it. It would be nice there were replacements like the government hosting a barbeque in the local park or some local company sponsoring a little league event, but those events are in comparison very infrequent and some of them are exclusionary (childless people might not have a reason to attend the little league event) whereas church was very regular and for everyone. It's essentially forcing people to regularly meet with their community, which I think was healthier than the lonely bubbles or complete atomization we have in today's society.
>>17840578
Regardless of why they go to church if church attendance had a positive effect that was lost when we stopped going to church then that still means we lost a positive effect.
>>17840580
"People" don't come to your house for BBQ and DnD, you're talking about friends.

>>17840595
>falling for Jewish media bombing of their archnemesis
I almost feel bad for you.
>https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3912&context=etd

>>17840611
Protip: Your friends are people and you can invite people who aren't your friends too. My local library organizes DnD events too where you can meet strangers. And now I'm just talking about a really niche hobby too. You can connect with strangers over anything.

>>17840597
Reminder that Jesus is God.
Jesus did that.

>>17840613
>their archnemesis
LMAO

>"[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints of Our predecessors of happy memory, [...] admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection.

>We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism.

>Too, no Christian ought to presume...to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.

>Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform.

>...We decree... that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried.

>If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this decree once known, to go against it...let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.
Pope Alexander III - Sicut Judaeis (further bulls reaffirmed the doctrine, including Celestine III (1191–1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246, 1247), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272, 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285–1287), Nicholas IV (1288–1292), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).

>>17840619
We're not talking about the same thing. You're describing a get together between friends and people who share a hobby. DnD events are by their nature exclusionary towards everyone who doesn't like DnD. I'm talking about gathering across a whole local community, i.e hundreds of different people who are different in many ways, not at best a dozen people who happen to have something in common. You are still in a bubble.

>>17840611
It's irrelevant as an argument for or against religion. Fundamentally the religion doesn't exist to make people listen to a pastor read verses every Sunday. Once again, the absurd idea that community values and morality can't exist without Christianity rears its head.

>>17840641
>DnD events are by their nature exclusionary towards everyone who doesn't like DnD. I'm talking about gathering across a whole local community, i.e hundreds of different people who are different in many ways
And you're arguing for a get together between people who all believe the same Jewish man created the earth in 6000BCE, which is fundamentally just as realistic in the modern world as expecting everyone on the planet to start playing DnD.

>>17840643
My argument is not that community and morality can't exist without Christianity. I'm arguing that Christianity provided a place for community and that atheism doesn't provide an alternative. It would be nice if it did, but right now it doesn't.
>>17840648
My argument is that it is healthy for a community (and the people in it) to regularly meet each other and that it is unfortunate that as church attendance is dropping no secular replacement for these community get-togethers have popped up.

>>17840654
And I'm saying it is healthier if those gatherings are based on mutual interests that are real instead of forced by fear of a magic man that throws lightning.

>>17840660
Do you think I disagree with that or am I displeased that these gatherings aren't happening?

>>17840664
No, I think you hold the christian version to a higher standard arbitrarily. There have been people who haven't gone to church since time immemorial.

>>17840666
>There have been people who haven't gone to church since time immemorial.
Does that mean that church attendance can't have positive effects for those who attend or how is this relevant?

>>17840671
It's relevant because you keep deeming the christian gathering to have some higher quality to it, and the only argument you give for this is (I'm talking about gathering across a whole local community, i.e hundreds of different people who are different in many ways, not at best a dozen people who happen to have something in common.) which implies that the totality of it makes it better. I argue the contrary, it doesn't mean anything *and* it is not total.

>>17840675
I have two arguments why I like that form of gathering and they are:
- it is non-exclusionary in the sense that it doesn't only speak to one group like hobbyists, parents of small children or people who like sports - this is good because it gathers the whole community instead of isolating them into bubbles. It is not strictly about the totality of people it can serve, it is the idea that it is inviting and appealing to DnD players, gymbros, musicians and sports fans instead of being four separate things where those people go exclusively.
- it happens with reasonable frequency - I don't think local municipalities could organize barbeques, sports leagues or music festivals with the same frequency. One could argue that once a week is actually too often and I'll admit that I don't know what the magic number is, but my intuition is that is should be somewhat frequently.

>>17840695
Specific to this example, the church has for decades denounced DnD as satanic and shunned its play. Why should I then, knowing it's just a complex game of dice, take the churches opinion seriously on anything at all? I'm getting denounced for liking a game. Detached from that, there are absolutely weekly barbeques in some communities as well as sports tournaments that have an overarching points system where they play every weekend and then announce a winner at the end of the season. Every city has a stadium for this of some sort. People also like different things, I watch the game and go to the stadium sometimes and other times I join a DnD session at the local library, meeting different groups of people who in turn also have their own communities for different parts of their lives. To me that is good because everyone has the freedom to fill their lives as they see fit without having to associate with people they don't want to associate with. More reciprocal freedom = better.

>>17840708
>To me that is good because everyone has the freedom to fill their lives as they see fit without having to associate with people they don't want to associate with. More reciprocal freedom = better.
I largely agree with you on this actually. I just think there's one big downside with this system and that is that I think it creates more losers. By placing the responsibility of creating, finding and joining these communities on the individual you're essentially rewarding people who are already very social, motivated and connected and you're punishing their opposites. It's like a freedom paradox where more freedom should be a good thing but more freedom also includes the freedom to make bad choices. You sound like you enjoy it a lot and I live with my girlfriend and our dog, have a good relationship with my family, I have friends with varied hobbies and occasionally do things outside of work with my coworkers. We are the winners of this system because we have extensive social networks and we're in a position to take advantage of that. I just think there are losers that slip and fall between the cracks in modern society because they don't have these communities and they don't really know how to find any, or they lack the confidence/motivation to join them. I know that's ultimately on them and church is probably not a silver bullet but there are a lot of lonely people in the developed world, wouldn't you agree?

>>17840729
> By placing the responsibility of creating, finding and joining these communities on the individual you're essentially rewarding people who are already very social.
And by forcing introverts into communities like a chruch gathering every weekend you are punishing them for being introverts. You are creating the "I hate the church because mom made me go every weekend" archetype. I am an introvert as well, and having to congregate for something I am not interested in is torture to me. I wouldn't talk about what we are talking about right now with just about anyone on the street but even here we are finding connection based on our mutual interest in history and humanities. The fact that no one is forced to be here gives it its value in my opinion. How to deal then with the "loser problem"? I think holding everyone to the same standard creates it in the first place. An example:
>I am forced to go to a Taylor Swift concert
I hate pop music, I don't like standing in a packed crowd, I am not enjoying myself and stick out like a sore thumb. People see me and think "why is this dude even here", our differences light up like a christmas tree. I'm not going to make friends like this.
>I am invited to watch some sports by a colleague
I like sports, I enjoy watching it, I'm having fun and know how to contribute to the conversation. People see me having fun being positive and we have a good time.
I am still the same person, but at 1 of these events I would be seen as a "loser" because I fall out of tone with the general group.
In my honest opinion, we are only deemed losers when we are judged by our faults/differences instead of our strong points and commonalities. It's why I believe public school is a blight on the youth, everyone is held to the same standard and then you get jocks and geeks who despise each other because , simply, they are forced to occupy the same space.

>>17840741
It sounds like we had wildly different experiences with public school because in my experience you took 20-25 kids (many of whom didn't have shared interests) and most of them ended up getting along pretty well even though they were forced into that same shared space. I know that's not comparable to spaces you visit on your free time because school and work are necessities, but still, I think people can get along pretty well with people they don't share interests with.
Anyway, on the overall argument I still think there's a loneliness problem in the west and no one really has a solution for it. Tech and the internet are probably more to blame than the declining rates of religiosity. My overall point is that I think it's good for people to gather with each other and our social sphere have shrunk as of late, which makes us feel more and more detached to the community around us. That and rituals are still cool - you don't need to baptize someone in the name of the holy father, but it is cool to have a ceremony where new additions to the 'tribe' are introduced and given a name, just like it is a nice tradition for couples to gather in front of people and give each other vows at they enter into a marriage. At any rate it is a great excuse to gather with people you like and eat some good food. Again, I don't think religion is NECESSARY for that but it helps. Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving - even people who are not religious usually gather with their family for these religious holidays to eat food and hang. I just wish that secular society pushed for more of that, or coming-of-age rituals for young men. I'm an introverted atheist myself but I really do think a sense of community (not just immediate friends and family, but neighbors and other people that are merely acquaintances) are really important to our well-being.

>>17839947 (OP)
I've seen God, or at east the light beneath his throne.

>>17840794
I see. Personally I don't experience that problem even though I socialize way less than most people I know. To be fair, I do think community is important. However, I believe wholeheartedly that a group only has moral value to the degree it serves its individual members. Once the members start serving the collective instead it is a plain cult / control scheme / tyranny. The church (or mosque or synagogue or whatever the fuck) has historically done little more than this forced collectivization which makes my stomach turn, therefore my contemptuous reaction at first. Thanks for elaborating your point.

>>17840566
My town does community events practically every month. Whether it's seasonal festivals, local artist galleries, vintage car shows, trunk or treating, etc, etc. None of this is under the pretense of religion. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>17841418
>My town does community events practically every month.
Does that mean that every single town on the planet also does this, or do you think there's a possibility that there are a lot of towns that do not have regular events?

>>17839947 (OP)
Yes - it is mostly coupled with materialism. Which is the poorest paradigm that one could realistically have.

>>17841422
Likewise, are these town's churches holding public events? Because mine aren't. Not even the christian holidays are church affairs anymore. In fact, last Halloween back in my old hometown there was supposed to be a "witch parade" where adults dressed as witches and handed out candy to children and it protested by the church as satanic and a petition was enforced to shut it down. So there's an example of religion actively killing community.

>>17841472
They are not hosting public events in the sense that a local bar might host a band, no, like I've said their communal contribution is regular get-togethers in the form of church attendance.

>>17840351
>You can be an atheist and still find meaning
I don't think that's the main objection behind "soulless". If you are under the impression that meaning can be manufactured then of course you will find meaning behind every corner (or so you will claim you do). But the objection that it is soulless seems to be about the fact that it usually stems from dismissing anything remotely spiritual. Like souls, I suppose.

>Misotheists
Worshipping soup?

>>17841590
>Worshipping soup?
Misotheism is the hatred of God. But you could've just googled that yourself couldn't you?