Thread 508491192

What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?

i came to the conclusion thay god did not exist because all advocates for god insisted on pushing a dungeons and dragons conception of god which was obviously untrue.
i had to figure out on my own, without the help of payed advocates or the self obligated guardians of our culture, what the metaphors were really about. and i think i did and at least an atheist would probably call me a beleiver.

I'm too smart to be an atheist.

>>508491192 (OP)
I am an dystheist. Is that close enough?

>>508491192 (OP)
I’m a black Israelite who believe Israel will fall for being fake Jews brothers and sisters

>>508491963
Had to google that, lol
Interesting

>>508491192 (OP)
As I got older the bible sounded more and more like something ancient desert people made up. The more I looked into it, I realized the jewish religion was originally polytheistic, then henotheistic which Moses used to maintain power, eventually they retconned everything into monotheism and merged El/Yahweh to unite the different tribes in their conquest of Canaan. Christianity was a fucking meme that kneecapped Europe for a thousand years.

>>508491192 (OP)
there's really no such thing as atheism, everyone worships some kind of god, but that god isn't always named. We live in an age of materialism, so many people worship Plutus and Hermes today

>>508491192 (OP)
I was already an atheist from a young age due to my experience with religion just being around scared and emotionally stunted adults coping with their own mortality and inability to embrace change. Most of my family was Christian in one way or another, and the more I read and researched, the more it just seemed like nonsense. Talked to priests, clerics, etc etc etc over the years and nothing ever convinced me that there was any greater intelligence or divine intervention. I think there's tons of holes in most scientific theories, before anyone jumps at me about that but I don't think that spirituality or the divine closes the gap on any of that either.
Five years ago, I knew for sure. Not going to type it all out here, but I did a large mushroom dose, and it just kind of clicked, how religious thinking starts, I just sort of "got it." There's no god or intelligent creation or any of that, and I'll never belive that there are, but I can understand how we arrived at that conclusion, with hundereds or more variants on the concept. All that said, I think out of all the attempts to explain the human experience/cosmos/energy/what the fuck ever, Gnosticism seems like the one that's closest to whatever the "truth" is.

>>508491192 (OP)
The only being worthy of worship is the superior force of the human spirit: poets, heroes, inventors, scientists, and artists, and all those who, through their creative genius or sacrifice, transcend the ordinary limits of labor and production to inspire and guide their nation toward its highest ideals.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
difficult to explain, but over the years I simply stopped seeing good evidence for belief. I transitioned as child thinking that the world was a miracle and orchestrated by the Creator, to seeing the world as total chaos, and random tragedies that humans had to fight everyday for a modicum of control. I don't see any evidence of the supernatural at all, and I don't feel we are "souls carrying a corpse" anymore, but simply biological machines, just as computers are silicon machines

>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
Idk. many atheists want to evangelize atheism, but I see no point. maybe most people need the yoke of religion to act even somewhat morally. Without promises of heaven and threats of hell, most people would never be Stoic and be good to live "in accordance with nature". That is how I conduct myself, but that is only me and a handful of atheists, the rest have a different nature

>>508491192 (OP)
I have a generally positive view of religion as a unifier and driver of civilisation but I'm too jaded to believe anymore, although I'd like to. I was fairly religious when I was younger and it was very comforting feeling, but you can't just meme yourself back into believing again unfortunately, I've done a bit of shopping around to see if anything takes but nothing really has yet.

I don't really believe the content of a religion matters as much as the people who follow it, Whites made Christianity great and whether it's destined to fade and be replaced or be restructured as it has in the past to reinvigorate European's faith I'm certain whatever comes next will awaken the warrior spirit of the Roman Legionaries, Frankish Crusaders, and Spanish Conquistadors again.

If I still believe in anything it's the greatness of our people.

>>508494659
Similar boat. I’m just unconvinced in all the magic spiritual bullshit, but I think organized religion is overall a good thing, especially a lot of modern protestant Christianity
>church serves as a countervailing power to both the state and major monetary powers
>operates for the common good rather than profit or control
>source of community and shared values like “love thy neighbor”, “the meek shall inherit the earth”, etc
>engages in good works and charity
>participation is totally voluntary, affiliation is based on your sharing of beliefs rather than arbitrary geographical boundaries
>free of charge, you give what you can

Churches are legit. Honestly I’d try to make my career as a pastor if not for the whole “I don’t actually believe this shit” thing, because it seems like deeply fulfilling work. But my respect for it keeps me from infiltrating it via falsified beliefs.

I actually kind of think the secular humanists got it right, at least conceptually. Atheism needs churches. Not to preach atheism, but to promote good moral values and support their communities without requiring the harry potter shit as the mental price of admission.

>>508491192 (OP)
Raised atheist and all the religions just seem like retarded ritualistic cope about reality. I couldn't pretend to believe in something that has no basis on reality.

>>508491192 (OP)
There's no evidence for god.

Christians - Copetards, and useful idiots but seem decent. Good community values.

Islam - Radical savages and violent extremists. Too dogmatic.

Hindis - conniving conmen. Dumbest of the 3 by far.

It does not necessitate there being any.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
Watching George Carlina and Christopher Hitchens youtube videos. Also thinking about it and reading the bible.
>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
I think they're all brainwashed.

>>508492708
Wrong. I don't worship any kind of god, therefore disproving your thesis.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
I lack belief because of the insufficient evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt

>>508491192 (OP)
Atheist from birth, despite constantly getting Bible stories books from the grandparents. I don't see how anyone can believe in a particular religion after learning anything about history, the wide world, and the universe. There have been so many religions to choose from, how could any of them be the One True one to believe in?

>>508492708
>golem equates an omni deity that created everything to liking things
I can't believe things like you exist.

>>508495431
>Atheism needs churches.
Universities.

I was also very attracted to the Consents that were in "Anathem". Like monasteries for rationality and deep time, recognizing that secular civilization is fleeting.

>>508493224
Posts stupid Soviet bull shit….hans u ok?

>>508491192 (OP)
I am, it helps me to hate Jews and Israel even more!

>>508496786
aren't you the "bacteria are atheist" guy?

>>508491192 (OP)
I stopped believing after concluding there is no proof of a divine being that is interested in what men do.

>>508492708
Sorry, homeboy. I don't worship anyone or anything.

>>508491192 (OP)
Non existence is the default position and I have yet to encounter a compelling argument for the existence of any particular god

>>508491192 (OP)
There is no God under the traditional definition of the tri-omni God. The only "gods" out there are clearly not in favor of mankind's interests. They are solely interested in your complete submission and that you sell your soul to them.
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
Ten year studies of biblical and islamic scriptures, plus realizing this world's parameters are just far too stupid, even for the concept of a "test".
>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
None are more deceived than those who think they know the ultimate truth, and those who call evil good and good evil.

>>508491192 (OP)
Atheist here. I believe extra-dimensional intelligence are influencing our material existence. All religions are just various ways of dealing withthem

Most atheists have learned to keep it to themselves once that faggot shoved a banana up his ass.

>>508491192 (OP)
No evidence. That simple.
There could be some creator or higher purpose to existence, but whatever it is, I'm confident it has nothing to do with flimsy anthropocentric human religions.

>>508499875
I think a lot of the edgy internet atheists of that stripe ended up returning to Christianity out of embarrassment for their past behaviour.

>>508491192 (OP)
> What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
Seems like common sense, at least in this day and age, that none of the major religions are correct in their description of god(s). All descriptions of a god that are compatible with observation of the physical world are inconsequential, i.e. whatever god possibly exists has no will and/or can not be influenced by any knowable behavior.

> What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
Are they though? These are identities more than anything. I will side with Christians against Islam any day of the week. I have no opinion on Hinduism.

>>508498842
Huh?

>>508502937
in another thread you said babies were atheist and then said ants were atheist and in the end you even said it was possible for bacteria to be atheist

>>508503146
Everyone is born am atheist. Bacteria and animals are irrelevant

>>508491192 (OP)
I have absolutely 0 idea why people would subscribe to 0AD mystery cults. It really bewwilders me.

>>508503238
>Everyone is born am atheist
how?
>Bacteria and animals are irrelevant
why?

>>508503399
>>Everyone is born am atheist
>how?
They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge until taught

>>508503567
>atheism is lack of knowledge in God or gods
ok
>Bacteria and animals are irrelevant
why?

>>508503749
>>Bacteria and animals are irrelevant
>why?
I answered that above.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?

I became an Atheist because I have concluded that human perception is so flawed that there is no possible way that our interpretation of god can be real. I am not anti-Christianity, per se. I am not anti-religion either. It's just that I think people are wrong and it doesn't matter how many ceremonial hats or clothes you wear, you are not speaking to god and you are not special. The more glib approach to religion is that it has been hijacked by Jews to lead us into war against one another in their favor. So, that also makes me question the major religious movements in America. Most of the mega pastors are complete bullshit artists who never have and never will see or hear the voice of god. Usually, they are plied with drugs, sex, alcohol and other debauchery to keep them doing Israel's bidding. Islam seems more entertaining as a religion, I have to admit. Hinduism seems ridiculous. I'm a complete germaphobe, too, so the idea of being around other people who have so many diseases is completely out of the question.

>>508503848
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge until taught
>I answered that above.
where

>>508503987
Learn some nuance my man

>>508491192 (OP)
I completely ignored all literature and refused to explore spiritual matters

Therefore I have resigned that there is no man on a cloud, I can see clouds.

I am a smart

>>508504132
>Learn some nuance my man
ok
>Bacteria and animals are irrelevant
why?
>I answered that above.
where?

>>508504488
Lol somebody woke up and felt like being an obnoxious faggot today, huh?

>>508504488
>why?
>>508503567
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge
>>508504488
>where?
>>508503567
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge


Hope this helps :^)

>>508498067
I like monumentalism

I'm not an atheist anymore but there's obviously no Christian type God, it's just literally ridiculous and childish from a logical standpoint

Most people really aren't intelligent enough to think about things in any analytical or logical ways at all, so here you are.

>>508504654
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge
so animals and bacteria are atheist?

>>508491192 (OP)
2000 years of failure to fix anything is evidence of falsehood.
Too many rules and laws conveniently benefit "priests"
Utter nonsense and stupid shit
Only a retard thinks is true.
All religious people got into it from birth, very rare is the person who becomes religious.
100000000000 gods, all different, all true, all real, sure bro

>>508504715
Yes, the concept of a non-intervening higher power isn't all that illogical, but thinking the creator of everything is reading the thoughts of billions of people at all times to ensure they love and believe in him in earnest is insane.

>>508491192 (OP)
Yes, many atheists and jews here, difficult to tell the difference, they are basically the same thing. You just need to start a thread about Jesus Christ and there they are all over your thread seething at everything you say with sealed eyes and ears.

>>508504765
I'll tell you whay. What you can find a bacteria and/or an animal who can tell what the difference between theism and atheism is then you'll have your answer

Good luck :^)

>>508505127
>I'll tell you whay. What
I'll tell you what*. If*

>>508505127
>I'll tell you whay. What you can find a bacteria and/or an animal who can tell what the difference between theism and atheism is then you'll have your answer
>Good luck :^)
you already answered. you said animals and bacteria are atheist, again.

>>508505204
>you said animals and bacteria are atheist
I said they are irrelevant. And I've explained why. If you can't understand that then it's skill issue and a you problem

>>508505336
>I said they are irrelevant. And I've explained why. If you can't understand that then it's skill issue and a you problem
you did not explain why they are irrelevant. a baby is an atheist in the same way an animal or a bacteria is an atheist. the baby has no knowledge of God or gods and is incapable of understanding said knowledge which means the baby is atheist by your definition. neither do animals or bacteria, therefor per your explanation, they are also atheist.

>>508505565
>you did not explain why they are irrelevant.
One more time
>>508503567
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge
Which separates them from baby humans because baby humans grow up and learn about religion and philosophy and then can make the conscious choice which path to follow

Seriously bro, this isn't hard but you want to keep trying to pilpul for a gotcha. I thought kikes do stuff like that?

>>508491192 (OP)
What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
>be me, 5 yrs old
>dragged to a wedding
>weird dude in dress says we're in the presence of God
>look around for this God dude
>nobody there
>keeps banging on about this God dude
>"Mummy, which one is god?"
>"Shut up"
>"I can't see him Mummy"
>"Shut up, people are starting to look"
>Shrug
>Never see this God dude. Think it's weird why Mum could not point him out
>Grow up some more
>Nobody can point out Santa either, it's clear everyone is lying
>People still lying about God like he's some sort of Santa
>Why are people such fucking liars?
>Get even older
>Can ask pertinent questions now and Mum can't tell me to shut up anymore
>Holy fuck, not only are these idiots lying, they're lying to themselves?
>Wow, it's embarrassing the shit they come out with to prop up their beliefs
>Get to 6th Form (Age 16-18). Teacher asks "Who believes in God"
>29 in class, 1 hand goes up. It's Mohammed
>"No Christians?"
>Shakes of head
>"Who is atheist?"
>"28 hands go up"
>"There's this thing called agnostic *describes agnostics as if we didn't know*. Who is agnostic?"
>Zero hands
>"Who is atheist?"
>"28 hands"
>pikachu.jpg
>Books 5 Christians in to talk to us
>Each introduces themselves
>"I was an alcoholic then I found Jesus...."
>Repeat x4, literally every single one
>Mate raises hand "Don't you all think you just swapped one drug for another?"
>Class bursts out laughing
>One hour of showing Christians how stupid they are
>They leave, utter failures

Why the fuck does anyone believe? Five year old me figured out it was bullshit.

>>508504715
How is it any illogical than your own belief? Both are baseless conjecture

>>508505565
Human spirituality isn't relevant to animals you retard.

>>508504932
A god level being requiring fealty or else it punishes you for eternity? It's just nonsense. I'm not an atheist now as I believe there's probably some kind of great spiritual oneness to the universe. But it's not something we can understand only something we can work towards through what we know inherently is good. In this way religions like Christianity are still useful

But the fealty and punishment and etc are simply to control low IQ, uneducated people without access to technology. Period. People will view this no other way in 200 years, Yahweh and El will be as Zeus and Jove.

>>508505870
>baby humans
when does it become a human?
>grow up
what if it doesn't

>>508506441
Using religion to instill a universal morality would be fine, so long as the deity in question embodies those ideals and the god of Abraham does not. Unfortunately it's what we're stuck with and a lot of people need that spiritual guidance to be decent human beings.
The inherent narcissism required by all parties involved to believe in that framework is something that I just can't look past anymore.

Man fuck those muslims I have to live with, they are despicable and disgusting.

>>508505870
are sperm cells atheist? are zygotes atheist?

>>508491192 (OP)
> What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
Cancer and Leukemia in children. What kind of God gives cancer to children? Not one worth worshipping even if it was real.
Also, if god is real, then why is there so much suffering in nature without even including people? What did a deer with rabies, or a deformed lion cub ever do to offend god?
I could go on, but there is no need. There cannot possibly be a loving god behind this fucked up world.

Who hurt this guy talking about the religiosity of sperm?

>>508491192 (OP)
Ex-Muslim here.

Basically I started doubting as soon as I heard the story of Noah’s ark. As a 7 year old, it was absurd to me, so I just tried to suppress thinking about it. It was very weird to me how none of the adults questioned that absurd story. I stayed away from questioning the faith until I was 25. We immigrated to Canada since I was 13, and the idea of all my (white) friends were going to hell for not believing was starting to become very unjust and absurd. All my friends were atheists in college and we kinda admitted that we don’t really know what to believe in. College was also the place where I met some rabid christcucks, the kind that would spill Palestinian blood for Jews, I thought it was weird as fuck. My ex-gf was also a christcuck but of the catholic variety, not evangelical. She was a whore basically. So my impression of christcucks is that they are even more unhinged than Muslims, and it’s always the trashy heroine addicts that convert to Christianity, kind of like the BDSM of religions.

Later when I hit 25 I started studying religion and atheism, mainly Christianity, it was just fucking absurd. There is more evidence that the events in the bible did not happen, than there was evidence of things it claimed actually happened. Suddenly almost every single story (besides Noah’s ark) was also bullshit and absurd.

>>508508032
I’m ex muslim too

>>508493085
i have never done a serious drug, for me God was an intellectual idea, im trying to prove a person made the world, and that worlds like this one can't happen naturally, as it is too unlikely.

the reason being unlikely matters, is because even if you had infinite budget of chance in an infinite multiverse, simpler universes that contain life are more common than complex ones, and if all that is being selected for is conscious experience, then we should expect to be the simplest conscious observer that can possibly exist, as it is far more unlikely to not be that.
We (and our universe) is, of course, the farthest thing from the simplest most common kind of observer universe, meaning it would be absurd to think we are actually in that multiverse. It would be like thinking we are in the world where a man got 10 royal flushes in a row, instead of thinking we are in the world where he is cheating. Even in a multiverse, there are far more worlds where he is cheating than where he is telling the truth.

For example, imagine a world where every square inch of space if perfect for life, and so is full of conscious observers; or you can imagine a mostly broken world, that just so happens to form a physical brain like thing for some moments enough to cause a single conscious observation, before breaking again. Given the share number of broken universes compared to orderly ones, this would probably comprise an absolute majority of all life anywhere in a multiverse, so why aren't we one of these observers? A well balanced world is the exact opposite of what we should expect to see come about by chance; So so much for not needing miracles, you need a miracle of chance just as much as we need a miracle of God.

Atheists rely on cope theories to fill gaps in their knowledge every bit as much as christians do, everyone uses temporary explanations until they find the real answer. This isn't some idiot superstition, there's legitimate reason to suppose God exists.

>>508491192 (OP)
Yes. Common sense and empiricism. I just can't force my brain to believe any bullshit I can't actually observe.

>>508508352
are you a solipsist?

>>508508411
no, I am perfectly aware that everyone has a different perspective and their own set of feelings

>>508508128
It’s a much healthier life style. As you grow old you will see all the ways Islam damaged you. Like waking up early for dawn prayers then going back to sleep. You enduring epigenetic damage just to pray like that.

>>508506402
when does a "baby" become a "human" and therefor an "atheist"?

>>508491192 (OP)
> What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods
Rejecting god does not require any special justification beyond how one would reject any other piece of clearly made up fiction.

>>508508510
i say this cuz like... if you are a materialist, you literally exclusively believe in things that are invisible and cannot be confirmed to exist, and think your conscious experience (which is the only thing that self evidently exists) is an illusion that doesn't actually meaningfully really exist. ie no souls or anything.

like... if thats what you believe in, you are literally the opposite of "i believe in what I can see", you believe exclusivly in the existence of what cannot even in principle self-evidently be confirmed to exist. Mental experience is self evidently there, so Idealists believe in what they can see, they deny the existence of non-mental invisible objects like external worlds, and construct their world out of the self-evident stuff. Its kind of like videogames constructs a world upon a screen; except in our case our screen is our mind. There's nothing behind the screen that actually exists, its just mental stuff moving around to make a virtual world designed by God. Thats what happens when you actually only believe in what can be seen, as everything in that worldview is a mentally verifiable object.

>>508492708
Material things that actually exist are not gods.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
I think it's intuitively rather obvious.
What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
I think the people who ascribe to those religions are stupid.

>>508492708
i used to think like that, but i'd rather think humanity didn't abandon God for some other God. Rather, they simply abandoned God for no one, because no other God is good enough, we just thought he was just too good to be true. I know its not really the case, but its nice to think it.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
The fact that there is so many different, incompatible religions and believes makes you realize that none of them hold any truth. "they all are right, just different perspectives on the same" is just a mental gymnastic that falls short as soon as you start including polytheistic and animistic religions along with their dogmas. The only common aspect is that they all are believes, but that's literally the initial criteria for what makes a religion. Everything points to the fact that all these believes are just fairy tales that people told each other to explain gaps in their knowledge.

>Christianity
Christianity is fine, good morals and quite flexible so it can suit various people from various cultures. Catholicism seems to be especially progressive, trying to find a way to coexist with science and modern society, at the cost of losing some virtues and believes. Orthodox's seriousness is respectable too.
>Islam
Dunno about these different kinds of islam. Seems to be a religion of savages and retards. Probably more hurtful than helpful for an average believer.
>Hinduism
Buddhism seems pretty based and interesting, but I don't know much about Hinduism.

But these 3 believes are pretty boring imo. I find animistic religions much more interesting. I always really liked Greek mythology, how they associated gods with specific places, phenomena or abstract concepts. Nowadays I also find myself reading on Shinto because weeb, but it's the same kind of deal with their 8 millions of kami. Even a human can make a self-aware god, you just have to wait 100 years for a hand made object to get a tsukumogami.

>>508509334
I can observe a different person's perspective through the lens of empiricism. They have the same organs, the same neurotransmitters wiring their brain and similar signals going through them and the arrangement of those neurotransmitters are decided by their genome and their genome is the product of insane amounts of evolutionary pressure. I can understand that I'm not the only flesh and blood creature and my perspective is the product of signals that are not unique to me.

I don't need anything else. I can deal with the bleakness of it.

Everyone lives for something. Whatever that something is for you is your "god".
Everyone believes something. You may lie to save your life, but you will never stop believing.

>>508491192 (OP)
>no one has been able to show evidence for unicorns
>why are you an aunicornist?
Same reasoning for your gods/goddesses. No one has actual evidence.
All the philosophical arguments for god are babby tier. To the point that fucking youtubers are able to defeat them with no formal philosophy education.
If we want to really get into it, most god-concepts are incoherent anyways. "It's an immaterial mind, that's outside of spacetime, and it's all-powerful and all-knowing, and maybe some other things like all-loving and everywhere but maybe not". Like what the fuck does that even mean? It's just cope of thinking that gods lived on mountains, until we climbed them, and saw no gods. Then thinking that gods lived in the sky, until we searched the sky, and found no gods. So people just removed the god-concept from the interactable reality, to have an unfalsifiable way to feel like you can't lose. It's pure cope.
The eastern religions/gods are equally as nonsensical too.

>>508510073
>Whatever that something is for you is your "god".
That's a stupid definition of "god". if I live to masturbate my dick, no one thinks of that as a "god", as we already have a word for it.

>>508491192 (OP)
god is coping mechanism towards death
life is will to power
as long as you have power as long as you're the best you gonna escape death
cope
you want to be that god you talk about
it's projection of conscience
"God" issue is a power fantasy a coping mechanism towards death a psychosociological issue
that's it

>>508506629
>pilpulling
Have a nice day

>>508507485
Something for you to think about I guess lol

>>508491192 (OP)
oh also fuck islam and hinduism too why not
but mostly islam
islam is fucking cancer on this world
i loathe all arab culture and heritage
christianity i'm biased cause of anthropological reasons sure but i feel you can build some civilization on it
and btw despite being some fucking horrible book the bible is quite amazing all considered i think

>>508511215
>pilpulling
>Have a nice day
it's a shame you have no logical foundation for your opinions.

>>508511351
I do and I gave them. You are desperate for a gotcha that you keep splitting hairs

>>508496348
>>508497209
>>508499436
>>508509411
you guys aren't even trying to understand. gods are not some mythological beings. the lithuanian has a higher level of thinking than all of you, hope you see that some day.

>>508509677
you're just saying they turned into self-worship, which is just self-deification

>>508511450
>babies are atheist because they are human
when does the baby become a human?

>>508511506
When is it not a human?

>>508496786
would you agree that the physical universe has a logical system governing it which it is ontologically dependent on?
where does this logic come from? what even IS logic?

>>508491192 (OP)
christgolemry and islam (a sect of christgolemry) are golem religions that have destroyed ethnic religions throughout the world in order to spread the elohim of israel.
saul was a student of rabban gamaliel.
abdallah ibn salam was a jewish rabbi that converted to islam and participated with muhammad in the conquest of syria.

>>508491192 (OP)
if god exists then he is cruel

>>508491192 (OP)
of course. religion is dumb.

>>508491192 (OP)

I believe in god, but I don't believe in anything else. What's that called? Like there's only mind and god up everything just to forget that he's alone and always will be

Just basic logic, because 1 = 1, so either you're god or you're god's imagination, if you were every equal to god then you're looking in a mirror, if you are beneath God it's just something he's doing to be entertained

>>508511749
Logical chain of events

1, 2 etc

So if you realize that those who can't stop cause a logical pattern

>>508511860
no, we're cruel. stop blaming God for our bullshit

>>508491192 (OP)
I'm an atheist. It's pretty obvious there's no God in the way religions present it. Does that mean I think religion is back and should be abolished? Fuck no! There are a ridiculous number of stupid people on this planet. Billions of them are below average IQ. Billions are little more than mindless beasts. They're selfish, ignorant, aggressive, short term thinkers, controlled by their base urges, and society would collapse if they were in power. But they're still human and still useful. Instilling into them virtues, and proper ways to act is fantastic. Of course, they need the fear of an ever-present, invisible authority to monitor them with threat of everlasting hellfire damnation for not following the rules. And it was a great idea. They stop breeding like rabbits, stop robbing and killing their neighbors, minimize drug use, act proper and civil towards each other, create a family with a single person and look after their offspring, etc. Society was genuinely way better when everyone was pretending religion is real rather than the degeneracy that's come from atheism becoming the norm.

>>508511968
yes but where does that arise out of? why does 2 follow 1? why isn't it 2,3,4,35,23,1?

Man I love watching people use the logic that God gave them to disprove God.
Man I really love when people try to bind God to the logic that he created.
Man I really really love when people put the blame of mans free will on God.
Man I really really really love when people think they know better than Gods plan

>>508510031
i never understand the materialist position on this. and I don't say this as a christian, like i could have been an atheist and I just don't get it. How can anyone not think of mental experience as not a real thing that actually exists? like... if you're having an experience, it must exist, you can't be "having" something that doesn't exist. to have it, means it exists, It can't be an illusion, experience in it of itself has to be real as some kind of actual substance. And to deny its substantial existence is clearly cart before the horse, you wouldn't even know there was a world at all if you didn't experience it through mental substances first.

and like... if mental stuff is actually just a kind of physical stuff (which I don't think makes much sense if you really think about it), what's the point in experience even existing? if its physical, its probably energetically expensive, and the same task can be done by something that doesn't experience anything at all, so there's just no point in making experience exist to cause things things in this convoluted dual system. Like both systems need to be made, you need to shape the mental stuff to make everything you experience, and thats difficult software, and then have the mechanical side do it anyways, without the mental stuff even causing anything, because all that really matters is computation and that can be done non-mentally. idk just doesn't make sense to me evolutionarily.

i think mental stuff exists, and its a different kind of thing than physical, because I actually pay attention to what mental experience is actually like, and draw conclusions from there. Personally, i don't see any reason to suppose non-mental stuff exists, if making a simulation out of mental stuff explains things very exactly, precisely and directly, with way less suppositions. If you simulate a mental screen, and you can make every single thing that you are entirely, you don't need anything more. so why suppose more?

>>508511749
>would you agree that the physical universe has a logical system governing it
Logical as far as we understand it. And our understanding is changing which changes the logic
>where does this logic come from?
Well it at least takes a mind to understand logic and a mind is represented by a physical brain.
>what even IS logic?
From my own words, a system of workable scenarios and outcomes

>>508511602
>When is it not a human?
yea, when is that?

>>508510031
>I can observe a different person's perspective through the lens of empiricism
no you can't. it's literally impossible to observe someone else's subjective experience, because in order to do that, you'd have to BE them, and then you wouldn't be you.

>>508512060
This.

>>508512256
You tell me

>>508512370
>You tell me
i don't know when a baby becomes a human and when it becomes an atheist according to your definitions. that is why i'm posing the question to you.

>>508512287
Fair enough, then I can reasonably deduce that from what I can observe. They DO have the same signals and hormones defining their consciousness, that is established.

>>508512522
>when it becomes an atheist
It never became one, it just is. It's thst simple.

>>508512167
>Logical as far as we understand it. And our understanding is changing which changes the logic
When I say "a logical system governing the physical universe", I'm not talking about the human understanding of logic, i'm talking about an "absolute logic" which underlies it, that we don't have full knowledge of (yet?)

>Well it at least takes a mind to understand logic
If it takes a mind to understand logic, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it takes a mind to "create" logic?

>and a mind is represented by a physical brain.
what do you mean by "represented"? are you equating mind with brain? or do you think the mind emerges from the brain?

>From my own words, a system of workable scenarios and outcomes
Based on the research I've done, the best definition I can come up with is: "The principles of true reasoning". Would you agree with that?
I think it's important because it implies two ontological dependencies, namely, that logic requires both a capacity for reasoning and some access to or understanding of truth.

>>508512724
>It never became one, it just is. It's thst simple.
>it just is
based on what?

>>508512701
Qualia can't be reduced to physical objects though
There's nothing empirical about what makes "redness", the quality of actually seeing the color red. It's inherently a private and non-physical phenomenon within the subjective experience alone

>>508506323
>christianity is false
>therefore no god

I bet you stopped believing in science when we found out the aether isn't a real thing.

>>508512769
>i'm talking about an "absolute logic" which underlies it, that we don't have full knowledge of (yet?)
I don't kno?
>>508512769
>If it takes a mind to understand logic, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it takes a mind to "create" logic
Not really. A tree falls in your path. Is it logical to climb over or walk around it? Or do you need to know more?

>>508512769
>what do you mean by "represented"? are you equating mind with brain? or do you think the mind emerges from the brain?
The mind is the brain which spawns consciousness

>>508512769
>The principles of true reasoning". Would you agree with that?
Sounds like what I said

>>508512769
>that logic requires both a capacity for reasoning and some access to or understanding of truth
Maybe.

>>508512894
And we're back at the beginning now
>>508503567
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge until taught

Everyone has a certain set of basic beliefs that most don't even consciously think about. We all have some epistemology we operate off of, we all have some metaphysical understanding of reality, we all have systems of morality and ethics, etc.
Your "god" is the foundational principle that undergird all of those beliefs. This is what it means when people say "there are no atheists". It's because everyone HAS to believe to some degree. There's always faith involved, because we cannot perceive things with absolute knowledge and understanding.

>>508513028
What experiences we can measure map consistently to physical states, therefore they are reducible. The fact that the science is not complete doesn't mean that the perception of redness is not something that can not be measured within the brain.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
No evidence for them.
>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
I think religion is a vital component of a functioning human society. I don't believe in a god or gods personally but I think it's best if the majority of the population do.

>>508513336
>And we're back at the beginning now
>They lack knowledge in God or gods and are incapable of understanding said knowledge
and so are animals and bacteria. so again how are they irrelevant, how are they not atheists?

>>508513472
I don't think you understand my point. The subjective experience of the state is separate from the state. The qualia in itself is not the same as the neuronal activity associated with the perception of the qualia.
The qualia is the experience of the perception itself. It's "seeing red", or "feeling love", or "being bored". These are experiences. They might have brain states associated with them, but those aren't the same thing as the experience of those states.

I have no reason to doubt the natural sciences or the principle of reductionism. The world is very consistent with our models at least as far as we know them. With a worldview that natural laws have applied everywhere the same way for all time, there isn't any rationale for thinking god or gods are present in the system.

>inb4 before/outside le big bang
if there is something "bigger" than the universe, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't bear on the natural systems of a compartmentalized universe, as we understand them.

>inb4 god of the gaps
occam's razor means there isn't any reason to think it won't just be more reductionism all the way down

>inb4 jew
talmud denounced

>>508513661
>and so are animals and bacteria
They are irrelevant. And I've been through this already

>>508513759
>and so are animals and bacteria
>They are irrelevant. And I've been through this already
why are they irrelevant? because they aren't human? when is a baby a human?

>>508513684
>They might have brain states associated with them, but those aren't the same thing as the experience of those states.
Why not? Why couldn't the experience be just the physical state of the brain?

>>508512117
Logic is independent of the world though. It's freestanding, with the same axioms assumed you are going to get same results in this world and in any other, with God or without. God, you or even a machine can define any axioms you wish in order to construct any logic system you need. You can even go for higher order logic in order to reason about systems that no one defined concretely, consider infinite families of logic systems, etc. It's like saying God made 1 + 1 equal 2. But 2 never needed God to be recognized as the integer successor of 1, anyone can define it as such.
Mystifying logic like this is not much different from quantum woo grifters trying to sell people magic stones. Learn the fundamentals, you will quickly realize there is no gods hiding behind, just a tons of proofs standing on top of few axioms.

>>508513336
>Not really. A tree falls in your path. Is it logical to climb over or walk around it? Or do you need to know more?
I'm honestly unsure what you're getting at.

>The mind is the brain which spawns consciousness
So are mind and brain just synonyms in your view? What is consciousness? I think most people might use the term mind to mean what you mean by consciousness

>Sounds like what I said
>Maybe.
Well wouldn't that imply a reasoning mind with access to the truth of the physical universe would be responsible for the "writing" of the "rules" of the universe?

I am agnostic. I don't have a reason to believe in God

>>508513862
You can keep asking the same questions over and over but it's not going to change my answers I've already given. Keep trying to pilpul though

>>508513058
They're all false.
Just billions of halfwits lying to themselves. But it seems the illusion is wearing off. Iranians, according to two surveys, are 60% non-muslim. Most of them don't pray daily, half of them drink alcohol. Islam is dying, just as Christianity died in the west.
I'd like to say the same about Hinduism but they're shit-wallowing retards so it might take them a while to catch up

>>508513991
>>Not really. A tree falls in your path. Is it logical to climb over or walk around it? Or do you need to know more?
>I'm honestly unsure what you're getting at.
Its ok. Nuance is lost on you people

Anyway do you have a point to make?

>>508514061
>not going to change my answers
you haven't answered anything you've no foundation for your belief

For me it's always been very simple. The idea that someone is coming to save humanity is the cope of all copes.

>>508491192 (OP)
Nigger

>>508513893
Because an experience isn't a physical "thing". It's an experience. A moment of perception. Your entire awareness is a string of these moments through time. You can't physically quantify that, it's a qualitative subjective experience.

>>508514230
>Because an experience isn't a physical "thing".
Says who based on what evidence?

>>508514167
>Nuance is lost on you people
Why'd you have to be a dick for no reason? I'm trying to genuinely engage with you here.
And my point was literally in that post you illiterate buffoon. The fact the universe adheres to some logical system implies a reasoning mind that is omniscient that created it.

>>508514317
it's self-evident for anyone that is conscious?
i feel like this is just a semantics issue at this point

>>508514171
>you haven't answered anything
Yeah I have. You just don't like the answers so you keep splitting hairs to irrelevance.

A you.problem.

>>508514428
So your argument is that I just have to "get it", because there's no physical proof of your claim?

>>508506385
Because my own belief is "it's something we can't know but can intuitively seek to grasp through our understanding of what good is"

This is infinitely more probable -- literally infinite --than specific magical things with specific rules occuring at specific times to specific people in specific places.

Basically, my view of spirituality is an open future, where things like Christian God are a closed past.

>>508514370
>The fact the universe adheres to some logical system implies a reasoning mind that is omniscient that created it
Nice presupposition. Or maybe it doesn't

>>508514540
>because there's no physical proof of your claim?
it's impossible for there to be physical proof of subjective experience. this should be self-evident to anyone with a subjective experience

>>508503239
If there is no apple on the table then there isn't one. Religion is a joke, trash that has ruined many a society/civilization. All the most religious countries(middle east) suffer in circumstances atheists would find unbearable. I'm not only an atheist but an islamophobe and antisemite. Everything we owe modern conveniences to stemmed from science and research. There is no god. If you need to take out the garbage, you have to pick up the bag and throw it out, no amount of prayer is going to do it. Atheism is the way.

>>508514588
it's not a presupposition, it's the logical conclusion from the ontological dependence relationships I explained earlier of logic to a capacity to reason and acces or understanding of truth, based on a definition of logic you agreed with

>>508491192 (OP)
Jews are too scummy to be god's chosen people, and Jesus being a jew is also disgusting

>>508503239
>old therefore bad!!!
it's funny because the modernist viewpoint is predicated on the belief that everything was bad until old ideas were "rediscovered" with the renaissance

Why are you niggers listening to memeflags? You know they are all jews, right? Is it because you agree with them? Maybe your mind is closer to jew's mind than you think.

christianity is provably false and fails its own internal logic

all abrahamic religions are mind viruses

>>508514670
Subjective in this case means nothing else than the input signal being processed in marginally different way due to differences in brain chemistry and genetics. If two brains have the same wiring and they receive the same input and arrive at the same physical state then they "experience" the same exact thing. Any experience is a physical state which can only vary based on slight differences in our brains.

>>508514782
>it's not a presupposition, it's the logical conclusion
Eh, it's God of the gaps. Maybe we're in a eternal cycle of entropy?

>ontological dependence relationships
OK, let's try this again

You're crossing a bridge to get to the basin below. A tree falls onto the bridge and now creates a path straight to the basin. Is it logical to stay in the path or take the new short cut to save time. Provided the latter is safe to travel

>>508514904
0AD isn't old though, at all, kek.

>>508491192 (OP)
Throughout the whole history of humanity, people have had gods, and claimed their god, or gods, are 100% real, that their word is law, and claimed monopoly over 'truth', over good and evil, and over life and death...

Every single religion would have 'proof' that THEIR god is real. And people to claim they felt that god / those gods...

The Abrahamic religions often get a biased 'truth' pinch because most people in english speaking circles online grew up with them, but a shinto priest, or a hindi guru, can know NOTHING about Yahweh, believe their own gods are real, even that they have seen proof with their own eyes / prayer...

so either all are real, or none are real... Any western 'but I felt christ with me in the church' could be met with a shinto 'I felt inari ookami in that temple'... or hell, a jewish 'felt god' / muslim 'felt muhammad'.....

also, merit / survivability ≠ truth

if something lasted for a long time, or has functions that are good for societal cohesion, doesn't give it that monopoly over life, morality, and death....

>>508515074
Ah, but that's where you're making an assumption. Is your red my red? What if my red is your green?

>>508515115
>Eh, it's God of the gaps
You don't know what "God of the gaps" means

>You're crossing a bridge to get to the basin below. A tree falls onto the bridge and now creates a path straight to the basin. Is it logical to stay in the path or take the new short cut to save time. Provided the latter is safe to travel
I'm just not sure what you mean by "logical" here. Do you mean efficient? Because logical has a specific meaning and it doesn't seem like you're applying it correctly

>>508515157
Then why mention it as if it is relevant?

>>508491192 (OP)
aint no atheists in front of the draft board

>>508515421
>an assumption
A deduction. You're the one making the assumption that each brain is completely different and process every signal in wildly different ways. You are far less unique than you think.

>>508515421
>You don't know what "God of the gaps" means
Sure I do. It means you don't how to explain something so you suppose a God/mind/being/creator did it

>>508515421
>I'm just not sure what you mean by "logical" here
I guess that refutes
>>508512724
>wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it takes a mind to "create" logic?
Then lol

>>508515256
Ok if your accounts account for the events as occured the best of your linguistics the more clear the ontology of it will be

Ergo if you disregard accounts of events based on the word for it or the book in which is written

Like the sell of a donkey, a basic real relatable and emotionally empathic but that it describes trade and scams in trade and mention coins by name

Which all existed and exists, this simple understanding not only of the world but of the world of worlds, the past existence of world discovering individuals

>>508515256
>muslim 'felt muhammad'.....
Pretty sure quite a few muslims "felt muhammad" in them, when he was alive

>>508515555
>dat git

>>508515899

CUBED in the name of Allah

>>508515896
maybe it's the 2AM haze, I really don't get what you're trying to say... If you claim the existence of your god as the absolute arbiter of morality, truth, life and death, and ruler of fate and all that... if you do so based on personal experience - you must answer why someone not even knowing your god, has the same experience with their god. If you claim it on historical account, same thing. If you claim it on some absolute proof, again, you are met with another religion with a similar proof of the same caliber...

religions work within themselves, since they can excuse everything somehow... but outside of themselves, they have a hard time... it really is just a matter of FAITH, not logic. You can't fight faith with logic, and can't fight logic with faith. They are ultimately two different games with different rules.

>>508491192 (OP)
Ex atheist here.
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
As a child, I prayed to the god of the Christians and my prayers were completely ignored. Naive as I was as an 8 yo boy, I concluded from that experience that all gods must be false gods. Only much later in life, when my search for the fundamental truths brought me to the limits of the humanly knowable and humanly doable, I learned that real gods exist and why they exist. I also learned that atheists only remain atheists when they don't take their research serious enough to do it thoroughly.

>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
None.

>>508517122
Go to bed Samuel. You talk any more sense and we might have to stop laughing at the Iranian rocket videos

i struggled with anxiety/depression for a few years and faggot therapists didn't help (i never took meds don't worry).
Anyways I always prayed and basically just thanked God for what I have and told him I'll be happy to answer for my mistakes after I die.
Well one day I gave up and just asked God for help and over the course of a few weeks I basically stomped any anxiety and depression out of my life.

Also one time I was in the shower and felt a beam of light (I felt it but didn't see it, but I know it was light...) and just got filled with love and peace for a good 10-15 seconds. I went and sat down and just reflected for a few minutes to make sure I can fully remember it.

>>508518146
For me, having to adhere to religion's rules in face of family's disapproval and eternal damnation was the biggest sources of anxiety as a kid.

>>508491192 (OP)
Assuming agency behind reality is dumb nigger tier shit.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
studied at a religious school, always knew it was irrational but the older I got the more far fetched it felt. especially when I started asking questions, I could see the fear in my teacher's eyes when they were unable to answer simple questions like "why don't biblical tier miracles happen anymore" (like plagues or angles or giant hands in the sky)

>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
ill extend my answer to humanity as a whole and say that religion single handedly set back humanity thousands of years. not just the wars but the type of cope it allows in being able to avoid agency and responsibility by surrendering to a higher power.
people become dumb and lazy when the finality of death is cushioned rather than treated like a horrible flaw we must always resist. for example one might desperately try to develop a cure for their dying daughter, curing cancer, had they not accepted it as "god's will" for her to die and that she'll be better off in the afterlife.

the identity, unity, and spiritual well being that religion imparts on the believers is not worth the massive loss in human potential and progress

>>508491192 (OP)
Are there any atheists on /pol/?
Yea
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
None of your goddamn business.
>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
Sand nigger cultists should all be shipped to the middle east where their jew worship cult originated from.

>>508513986
And these things just happened to be all on their own?

>>508521776
>god could be real
>therefore you should worship a dead jew from 2000 years ago
Face the wall.

>>508522107
not my argument at all leaf, how about you butt out and go have some poutine faggot?

>>508522192
Look how much it seethes.

>>508491192 (OP)
Any intellectually honest athiest is agnostic, actual athiests are sub tier IQ

>>508512117
Why should anyone believe your opinions about what God is?

>>508523060
>Any intellectually honest athiest is agnostic
Agnostic atheist

>>508514494
>Yeah I have
you have not, as you haven't provided the foundation for why a baby is an atheist. "it just is" does not answer that question. for my part, atheism is obviously a choice to not believe in a god. it is not an arbitrary "default setting" the way you suggest.

>>508523060
(a) agnosticism was a joke, coined at college in response to the Gnostic Society by Huxley, who was amused that they could have any gnosis of God. Later in life Huxley himself penned the foreword to Darwin's work. He commented "how remarkably stupid not to have thought of this before!" (with regards to evolution). Huxley, despite naming himself agnostic as a joke, almost certainly wasn't
(b) nobody is agnostic, even if they claim they are, at least not in the sense they mean. God is a binary proposition - he exists or he doesn't, you either believe in him or you don't. Regardless of what the agnostic spouts (and let's be clear here, he's just a posing cunt trying to act superior) - the agnostic COMMITS in his day to day life. He either ACTS as if there is no God or he ACTS as if there is. There is no actual middle ground he can build a fence on and sit on. If an agnostic behaves like God doesn't exist, then he's a fucking atheist. What he's ACTUALLY agnostic about is how knowable it is. This is up for debate, but regardless, the agnostic fucking commits.
All agnostics, therefore, are agnostic atheist, like this chap >>508523215
or agnostic theists.
They either don't know if it's possible to know if God exists but they're going to behave as if it is or as if it isn't.
Any intellectually honest agnostic would stop pretending they're not one or the other, but they just LOVE trying to appear superior to either, despite the fact that one of the two positions HAS to be right and the only position guaranteed to be WRONG, is the halfwitted agnostic position the halfwit agnostic believes he has taken.

>>508523820
>you have not,
Sure have
>>508523820
>as you haven't provided the foundation for why a baby is an atheist
Sure did. Their lack if belief in God or gods, rather their knowledge which I forms belief

I don't know why this is hard for you

>>508524288
>or agnostic theists.
Yup. Gnostic and agnostic are branches in both atheism and theism

>>508524452
>I forms
Informs*

>>508524452
>Their lack if belief in God or gods, rather their knowledge which I forms belief
lack of knowledge pertains to all other species by your definition. unless you are also speaking on potential, in which case you must define when that potential becomes relevant in order to provide your foundation. and since you can't you have no foundation.

>>508517187
What did you discover that made you think God(s) is real?

I've heard people say psydellics made them believe in the metaphysical but I've never tried them. I also heard about Orch OR's theory of a "quantum soul"?

I'm agnostic, I would be quite comforted if I found any evidence death isn't the end / my consciousness is immortal.

>>508491192 (OP)
I just do not like the concept.
i do like afterlife concept so i believe in that.

>>508524766
>lack of knowledge pertains to all other species by your definition
But other species doesn't process knowledge like humans do. So they are irrelevant as theism and atheism are aspects that only apply to humans

>>508525382
>But other species doesn't process knowledge
neither do babies

>>508525516
Keep reading >>508525382
>like humans do. So they are irrelevant as theism and atheism are aspects that only apply to humans

I don't trust the clergy in this matter, i am not trying to overthrow the fabric of society. Basically the word God itself has very little meaning because too many meanings and is only limited by thoughts so its like playing a game with no rules. If it is a book god i just outright dismiss it and the clergy apparatus that it works under.

Ultimate justice, Afterlife, meaning to everything, destiny, good and evil. Those are only brushed or hidden away behind death and dealt with in a human fashion day to day for a reason.

>>508525625
>Keep reading
i did. babies do not process knowledge of God or gods, or atheism or theism.

>>508525704
>babies do not process knowledge of God or gods, or atheism or theism.
So, by default they are atheist until they decide they're not or remain so

Glad we cleared that up :^)

>>508525841
>So, by default they are atheist until they decide they're not or remain so

>Glad we cleared that up :^)
so by your definition animals and bacteria are also atheist. by default, as you say.

>>508524622
Exactly so. Too many agnostics think agnosticism is the centre of the cross. That position doesn't actually exist, they fall into one of the four quadrants.

>>508525990
>animals and bacteria are
Irrelevant

>>508526069
This anon gets it. Glad to see more of you who do

>>508526089
>Irrelevant
to you because you cannot provide the foundation for your belief as you cannot identify when potential becomes relevant.

>>508491192 (OP)
Most of us are atheist. Christgolems suck kike cock, Islamofucks too but to a lesser extent. Hindudumbasses love kikes for some reason and buddhists don't care about the real world by definition (unless they're retarded enough to be manipulated into becoming murderers by kikes like in myanmar). Who's left, retards who worship Zeus or Odin or some dumbshit even though those gods didn't protect their worshippers before?

>>508491809
> I'm too retarded to be an atheist
Ftfy. If you were actually smart you would have a reason for your thinking instead of "hurr durr I smart k believe me plz"

>>508492708
Kys christgolem, you're retarded bible verses aren't welcome here

>>508526426
>>Irrelevant
>to you
To anyone. You'll never see an animal answering questions about philosophy
>you cannot provide the foundation for your belief
I already have. The foundation is the lack if belief in God or gods. No matter how much pilpul you try and how many times you lie. It won't chnage anything.

>as you cannot identify when potential becomes relevant.
This is also irrelevant. You're making gila posts that have nothing to do with the subject.

>>508526821
>gila posts
Goal posts*

>>508526821
>To anyone. You'll never see an animal answering questions about philosophy
nor a baby.
>I already have. The foundation is the lack if belief in God or gods. No matter how much pilpul you try and how many times you lie. It won't chnage anything.
lack of belief which is also shared by animals and bacteria making them atheists by your definition.
>This is also irrelevant. You're making gila posts that have nothing to do with the subject.
it is relevant, potential is the foundation for your belief of babies being atheists, and you cannot define when potential becomes relevant.

>>508527122
>>To anyone. You'll never see an animal answering questions about philosophy
>nor a baby.
But a baby has the capacity to grow, learn and then be able to. An animals doesn't. Hence why they're irrelevant
>potential is the foundation for your belief
Lack of belief is the foundation.

No need to make up more strawman and lies my dude. Take the L

>>508527486
>But a baby has the capacity to grow, learn and then be able to
most of the time. sometimes a myriad of unfortunate circumstances prevent that from happening. aside from that, you are speaking again about potential for knowledge and thought so i ask you again, when is a baby considered to have this potential? at what phase of their creation does this become relevant? do you also consider mentally handicapped people to be atheist? those that have no potential for knowledge or thought?
>Lack of belief is the foundation.
nope if it was animals and bacteria would be atheist. your foundation is potential for knowledge and thought.

>>508491192 (OP)
Sort of...I just do not believe any religious dogma, I do believe this reality is not all reality, or the only reality. An anthropomorphic god is not something I believe in.

>>508491192 (OP)
There is no evidence for the existence of god(s). There is only evidence of liars.

>>508527853
>>But a baby has the capacity to grow, learn and then be able to
>most of the time
We aren't talking about the abnormalities. See this is you pilpulling again

>you are speaking again about potential for knowledge and thought so i ask you again, when is a baby considered to have this potential?
This is irrelevant. Because "potential" is subjective. Some kids know its bullshit right aways. Some take longer. Some believe whatever their parents say. What their subjective potential become or when that takes place is irrelevant to what they started out as.

>>508527853
>>Lack of belief is the foundation.
>nope if it was animals and bacteria would be atheist
If you want to call them atheist. Knock yourself out. I don't because they're irrelevant.

>your foundation is potential for knowledge and thought.
The lack of.


You have no more arguments left.

>>508528332
>We aren't talking about the abnormalities. See this is you pilpulling again
it is more of an anecdote. if you prefer not to define mentally disabled people or miscarriages as atheist, i'd agree with you.
>This is irrelevant. Because "potential" is subjective. Some kids know its bullshit right aways. Some take longer. Some believe whatever their parents say. What their subjective potential become or when that takes place is irrelevant to what they started out as.
>what they started out as
cells. are those cells atheist?
>If you want to call them atheist. Knock yourself out. I don't because they're irrelevant.
it is irrelevant because you are separating living beings based upon whether they have the capacity to reason to support your statement that "babies are atheist" when babies do not have any capacity for reason.
>You have no more arguments left.
unfortunately for you, i do.

>>508528765
>it is irrelevant because you are separating living beings
I'm only talking about humans. Thats all this has ever been. Then you come in with some none argument


I was right you have no actual arguments

>>508528765
>babies do not have any capacity for reason.
Which makes them atheist by default.

Thanks again duder :^)

>>508528976
>I'm only talking about humans. Thats all this has ever been. Then you come in with some none argument
and why would you not include other living beings in your definition? because they don't have the potential. your foundation. and so i ask again, when does that potential become relevant?

>>508529076
>Which makes them atheist by default.
which makes all other living beings atheist by default.

>>508529086
>and why would you not include other living beings in your definition?
I've already answers this several times and in many different ways

>when does that potential become relevant?
When the user deems it so.

>>508491192 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxFE5YOErcg

Fade from all that was before
We shut another door, but not a last goodbye
Fate has taken once again
A fight we'll never win, and time again, we try
Left alone, I can't wait too long, fade

>>508499841
I believe that intelligence is just fragments of the collective consciousness of the universe reacting when it can assert itself in our plane

>>508529255
>I've already answers this several times and in many different ways
by saying it's because of potential, and yet
>When the user deems it so.
you cannot define when that potential becomes relevant.
as you have previously avoided my statement
>what they (babies) started out as
cells. they start out as cells. are those cells atheist?

>>508529163
When does another living being besides humans decide to remain athiest?

Christian God is retarded because you're meant to believe this being created all of space and time, but then had to wipe out humanity multiple times because he made a mistake? Mother fucker you're the sole reason everything is happening the way it is, you created all of time. That means God knew when he created the universe and time he'd have to wipe out humanity multiple times and blame the humans for it, and thats retarded as fuck.

>>508529389
>by saying it's because of potential, and yet
No. That's your strawman animals don't have the potential so they're irrelevant. And potential is subjective, again irrelevant.


>you cannot define when that potential becomes relevant
For me I can. I can't speak for someone else's subjective experience

>>508529424
>remain
they were not. i do not subscribe to your definition of atheism.

>>508529637
No. That's your strawman animals don't have the potential so they're irrelevant. And potential is subjective, again irrelevant.
it's the entire foundation of your belief in which you separate living beings from babies and naming them atheists.
>For me I can. I can't speak for someone else's subjective experience
you avoid the comment again.

>>508529723
Ah so they're irrelevant even by your standards kek

What a clown you are

>>508529859
babies were never atheist. an atheist is a person that decides not to believe in a God or gods.

>>508529852
>it's the entire foundation of your belief
Nope. That's you're strawman

>>508529852
>>For me I can. I can't speak for someone else's subjective experience
>you avoid the comment again.
Sure didn't.

Anyway, concession accepted

>>508530003
>an atheist is a person that decides not to believe in a God or gods.
Go home kid

>>508530013
>Nope. That's you're strawman
your only point of separation and definition is a potential that you cannot identify or build upon.
>Sure didn't.
sure did. babies start as cells. are those cells atheist?

>>508530229
>your only point of separation and definition is a potential
There isn't anything to separate. Atheism and theism only applies to humans.
>>508530229
>>Sure didn't.
>sure did
Nope. I don't need to answer irrelevant pilpul bait

>>508530065
exactly as i said

>>508530361
>There isn't anything to separate. Atheism and theism only applies to humans.
and why is that? because babies have the potential to gain knowledge or reason. and when does that potential occur? outside of unfortunate circumstances (miscarriages, mental disability, etc.)
>Nope. I don't need to answer irrelevant pilpul bait
it is relevant but as you can't define when a baby's potential becomes relevant to your definition you have no foundation for your belief.

>>508530517
There's a difference between disbelief and lack of belief. Both are lack of belief but one is a positive knowledge claim while the other not claiming with knowledge, but rather lacks the knowledge and thus the belief

Thus babies being in the latter

>>508530734
>>There isn't anything to separate. Atheism and theism only applies to humans.
>and why is that? because babies have the potential to gain knowledge or reason.
Yup. Animals do not
>and when does that potential occur?
Potential for what exactly?

>>508530865
>Yup. Animals do not
that you know of. an assumption on your part. there's not much evidence to the contrary. elephants make their own graveyards but that doesn't mean animals are spiritual or believe in a God.
>Potential for what exactly?
reason.
>>508530770
you and i disagree on this definition of atheism. picrel.

>>508508645
>>508508032
>>508508128
Glad you love living in a white country so much, gurpreet. Can you get off 4chan and focus on driving? I don't want my Uber eats to be cold when you get here

>>508491192 (OP)
If there's god, the only reason for him to allow religions is to see who's ready to accept obvious lies and atrocities for personal benefit.

>>508531755
>>Potential for what exactly?
>reason.
Up to the user my man. So much in a person's life will effect and affect this.

>you and i disagree on this definition of atheism
You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

>picrel
Read the very first sentence in that pic for the class if you will kind sir

>>508491192 (OP)
If there are they won't be for long, or they're not very smart. Whatever, not my problem. Christ? King

>>508491192 (OP)
I'm a "apatheist".
It seems like the precondition for needing to take a stance on the existence of deities comes from a need to explain the origin of existence, to which I say "who cares?"

>>508532568
>Read the very first sentence in that pic for the class if you will kind sir
writers disagree.....however the norm is
>You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions
thanks your validation is priceless to me.
>Up to the user my man. So much in a person's life will effect and affect this.
a baby does not have any capacity for reason. neither does a fetus, nor a zygote. they have potential to decide to become atheist or theist. as a fetus, zygote, cell, baby they are neither theist nor atheist, by definition. you definition tries to conclude that atheism is the default state of humans but as you can't define when the "human" begins you have no foundation to support that theory.

>>508533583
>writers disagree
Thanks bud

>>508533583
>a baby does not have any capacity for reason
Sure they do, they start learning rather early
>>508533583
>atheism is the default state of humans
It is. We are all born with a lack of belief or knowledge in God or gods.

And as we grow. We learn to reason and depending on the lactation we're born, will heavily influence to reason or what reason is.

Humans start out as atheist but develop the reason to decide if they remain so as they grow and experience life.

>>508533583
>you can't define when the "human" begins
Don't need to.

>>508526552
You are too stupid to prove yourself to be smart. Nothing but an irrelevance loser.

>>508530065
rocks are atheists, therefore, atheists are as dumb as rocks.

>>508534093
Hell o there loser

>>508534438
>rocks are atheists
They're also irrelevant to atheism

>>508491192 (OP)
Most christians today are atheists. Otherwise they would lead completely different lives out of fear of hell.

>>508491192 (OP)
>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
Default position
>What are your thoughts on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism being major influences among the user base here?
They're major influences everywhere so it's nothing new

>>508521776
Logic system simply emerges from chosen sets of axioms. They don't exist in a physical sense, these are just abstract structures, not really reflections of anything tangible.

>>508534743
>>What lead you to conclude that there is no god or gods?
>Default position
This anon gets it

>>508534093
>Sure they do, they start learning rather early
how early?
>It is. We are all born with a lack of belief or knowledge in God or gods. And as we grow. We learn to reason and depending on the lactation we're born, will heavily influence to reason or what reason is. Humans start out as atheist but develop the reason to decide if they remain so as they grow and experience life.
I would agree with you but since
>>508534093
your theory does not trump the current prevailing definition of atheism as you cannot identify the beginning of a human's potential for reason that separates us from other living beings and are also working under the (more than likely correct but disproven nonetheless) assumption that all other creatures are nonspiritual, i find your belief lacks credible evidence.

>>508535039
>>Sure they do, they start learning rather early
>how early?
Look it up

>>508535039
>your theory does not trump the current prevailing definition of atheism
It agrees with it. As the definition I gave covers the one you gave lol

All of this because you argue something you don't understand. Dunning Kruger is the term

>>508535193
>It agrees with it. As the definition I gave covers the one you gave lol All of this because you argue something you don't understand. Dunning Kruger is the term
your definition of atheism is not the prevailing definition and also attempts to define atheism as the default state of humans without being able to identify when that state occurs or why it would be different from other living beings.

>>508534672
You can't serve in an army or build weapons for it if it kills innocent people and really believe in God at the same time. You can't even make a fortune and truly believe in God. When people still really believed in God, the church got rich with letters of indulgence because people saw the church as their last resort to escape hell. Today, true believers are in the single-digit percentage range worldwide.

>>508535371
>your definition of atheism is not the prevailing definition
It is. That's whst the disbelief means in the beginning. Atheism is the disbelief (active rejection) OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods.

I've explained this already too

>>508535371
>without being able to identify when that state occurs
I said it's the default..learn what the answer bud

>>508534672
Why should I fear Hell when my God is greater than Hell?

>>508535660
>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods
"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"
and since you provide no clear evidence or support to the contrary....

>>508535724
>I said it's the default..learn what the answer bud
when do we have a "default" state? at what stage in development? this is your foundation, again.

>>508535855
>"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"
This idiot quoted the wrong part of what I said
>>508535660
>That's whst the disbelief means in the beginning. Atheism is the disbelief (active rejection)
Why are you so dishonest?

>>508535947
>still doesn't understand defuslt
Are you ESL?

>>508535731
The fact that god and the devil are opponents does not mean that if god denies you access to heaven he does not do so in full awareness that you will end up in hell. God created hell.

>>508536038
>>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods
is not the prevailing definition of atheism. it's your (unfounded) belief.

>>508491192 (OP)
>be.me.
>uber driver
>pick up two sisters, and a discussion on the paranormal is brought up (yah i visit x frequently)
>ask them about there paranormal experience.
>proceed to tell me thta they were both at a funeral for a loved one.
>choked up pretty bad
>gentleman and a lady talked to both of them separately.
>the message was from there loved one
>basically telling them everything is ok they are in heaven happy as a clam and looking out for them.

>they finish the story and im like "WOW thats really amazing i wish I could get a message from God like that"

>two hours later, pick up lady and her two littlegirls from the airport
>just got back from the holy land walking the steps of Jesus Christ. after the small talk is done, it goes silent for a few minutes.
>lady touches my shoulder and says "i dont want to scare you anon, but i have a very close relation ship with God and he has as message for you"

>after i finish freaking out and cussing up a storm in front of her two little girls I immediately apologize for my cussing its just that I LITERALLY ASKED for this two hours ago, and i asked what the message was with tears in my eyes.

>but yah she knew somethings about my past. Lets just say God is real, and all you Atheists are wrong, Its literally for THE BEST. Would i type all this up and LIE?

anyone who thinks im lieing worships BAAL and SACRIFICES children.

>>508536115
>Are you ESL?
when do humans have a default state? at what stage in a fetus' development does this occur?

>>508492106
TROOF.

>>508536197
>is not the prevailing definition of atheism.
Again
>>508535660
>That's whst the disbelief means in the beginning. Atheism is the disbelief (active rejection)
Is the same as
>>508531755
The highlighted part here in your pic

>>508536363
this is the prevailing definition of atheism
>Atheism is the disbelief (active rejection)
this is not
>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods
as stated here
>"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"

>>508536308
When do you call it a human?

>>508536549
>When do you call it a human?
exactly, this is what i am asking you.

>>508536492
>>Atheism is the disbelief (active rejection)
>this is not
>>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods
Hey bro. Notice how the word OR is capitalized?

Why is that?

>>508536154
God created Heaven and Earth.
Both are creation.

Hell is the Abyss.

Abyss = Void/Zero

In Hell, there is nothing but yourself.

>>508536257
>Would i type all this up and LIE?
Yeah, it's a really typical christfag style delusion.

>>508536643
>Hey bro. Notice how the word OR is capitalized?
yes it is the separation of your statement from the prevailing definition of atheism.
>"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"

>>508536597
>exactly, this is what i am asking you.
And I'm asking you. When so YOU call it a human?

>>508536655
I really appreciate that comment. The fact its SOO unbelievable and actually happened really strengthens my KNOWING i wouldnt even call it FAITH ANYMORE.

for example; i have faith the sun with rise tomorrow, but theres a chance it wont,

imagine now using FAITH in the terms of the all mighty hahahaahha NO YOU MUST KNOW

If you dont hear these words i pity you

>>508536780
>yes it is the separation of your statement
Good so my statement
>>508535660
>That's whst the disbelief means in the beginning. Atheism is the disbelief (active rejection)
Pertains to
>>508536780
>define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"

>>508536803
is this your refusal to answer? do you feel uncomfortable defining when "human" occurs? i wonder why, atheist.

>>508536652
>Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

>>508536905
>Good so my statement
>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods
goes against the prevailing definition of atheism
>"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"
the first part is correct, the second, not so much.

>>508537084
Hell is a by product of creation. In a sense, yes, God created Hell by the merit of inventing Creation.

It's like being rich then go back to being poor

>>508536922
>is this your refusal to answer?
Nope. I>>508536922
>do you feel uncomfortable defining when "human" occurs? i
Not at all. I have an answer but it's irrelevant

>>508537153
>>"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"
>the first part is correct
I accept your concession

Awareness of existence will make the eternal Void an Absolute Hell to any soul

Religious claims are obvious bullshit you can identify by the overwhelming anthropocentric bias.

People are really stupid enough to believe everything in the universe was created as them as the main character.

Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are clear examples of this. Supposedly this figures are the lynch pin of all creation, who happen to be human figures from our recent history.

The absurdity is revealed more every day as we learn about the universe. For billions of years these figures were completely irrelevant. In a billion years they will be completely irrelevant. Why would future lifeform give a shit about an ape prophet from a billion years ago?

>>508537263
How can you believe in God but not in the judgment? Do you think you can commit as many sins as you want but go to heaven because you believe in God?

>>508537385
>Not at all. I have an answer but it's irrelevant
do tell.
>"however the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism"
>the first part is correct
>I accept your concession
unfortunately for you, the second part of your statement is not the prevailing definition of atheism.
>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods

Being born as a blind
vs
Becoming blind as you live

The latter obviously will have a hellish times compare to the former.

>>508537733
>>Not at all. I have an answer but it's irrelevant
>do tell.
I'm split, either at conception or birth
>>508537733
>unfortunately for you, the second part of your statement is not the prevailing definition of atheism.
Again, that's what the OR is for. More nonsense piliul from you

>>508537732
The judgement of God is pretty fair. Kicking you out of Creation, because God does not own you anything.

Don't like it? Make a new world yourself.

>>508537948
>I'm split, either at conception or birth
so according to you a baby is an atheist at either conception or birth. now what is the reasoning behind that, why conception or why birth?
>Again, that's what the OR is for. More nonsense piliul from you
the OR is against the prevailing definition of atheism, as i said. thank you for confirming what i already knew, i guess.

>>508538220
>>I'm split, either at conception or birth
>so according to you
More irrelevant shit lol

>>508538220
>the OR is against the prevailing definition of atheism,
Nah, it's there to encompass the gnostic and agnostic of atheism. Your definition handles the gnostic side

>>508538106
That is true. Nevertheless, he gave a lot of guidelines and tips on how the judgment will probably turn out better for you. Of course, if you violate all of them or follow all of them, there is no grant for anything. Nevertheless, surely you don't want to call God dishonest or deceitful and believe his words?

>>508538486
>More irrelevant shit lol
is it? according to you a baby is an atheist at conception or birth, right? now what is your reasoning behind either?
>Nah, it's there to encompass the gnostic and agnostic of atheism. Your definition handles the gnostic side
which is against the prevailing definition of atheism. "explicit disbelief", atheism is a choice to not believe in God or gods.

>>508538620
Deception is the tool of the weak. God has no reason to lie.

>>508538803
>>More irrelevant shit lol
>is it?
Yeah, you're just looking for.more shit to nitpick at
>>508538803
>Your definition handles the gnostic side
>which is against the prevailing definition of atheism
Now you're contradicting yourself
>>508537153
>the first part is correct
Kek.

Done and done :^)

>>508537263
You're a retard if you think think people should face infinite punishment for finite mistakes.

>>508538803
>atheism is a choice to not believe in God or gods.
What about those who can't make a choice?

>>508539016
As I said. Don't like it? Make a new creation for yourself.

In my late 30s, been irreligious almost my entire life. Was never forced into anything by my parents, never indoctrinated. Was allowed to come to my own conclusions. I don't really know when I became an atheist, it just kind of happened organically in my life as I aged. When I was a kid I was big into astronomy and geology, the more I learned in school about science especially geology, the more I drifted away from any kind of religious thinking. I used to pray every night with my parents, I remember them kneeling at my bed and praying with me, they both came from religious families (Dad was Catholic, mom southern Baptist) but we never went to church or anything. Now decades later my parents are pretty much atheists too, at the very least agnostic / non religious, we never talk about it anyways so I don't really know what they consider themselves. Religion is just irrelevant in our lives and has been almost my entire life.

Anyways, what I remember specifically is sitting in bed when I was like 10-12 years old, closing my eyes and just thinking how unimaginably huge the universe was, how many planets there were, how many stars there were, each dot in the sky another star with planets around them, some of them having planets like Earth, that we weren't alone, it was almost mathematically impossible. Then learning geology in school learning how old the Earth was, learning about the cambrian explosion, hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth, it was just so much information that just confirmed to me how bullshit the fantasies people choose to believe are. I never needed to pray again, I could sleep with the wonder of thinking about how much else is out there in the universe.

I probably became an atheist as far as I knew what that was when I was in Young Life, having to sit there as they sang Christian songs, prayed, at the summer camps I went to, I hated it. That's what pretty much made me an unbeliever.

>>508539120
>What about those who can't make a choice?
i asked you about that, the mentally disabled and miscarriages or other unfortunate circumstances. you said it was irrelevant.

>>508539294
>i asked you about that, the mentally disabled and miscarriages or other unfortunate circumstances. you said it was irrelevant.
Do babies fall into this category?

>>508539177
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Show me were Hell is. You're the one who believes in it. You can't show me where it is. And I am telling you it's a stupid concept and you are stupid for believing in it. You can't even answer the question.

>b-b-b-but God just knows better
Differing the matter to your invented faerytale? Coward and peabrain. You can't justify any of it.

>>508539001
>Yeah, you're just looking for.more shit to nitpick at
articulating your reasoning and defining the foundation of your belief should not make you this uncomfortable.
>Now you're contradicting yourself
nope.
>>OR lack of belief (lacking in knowlege thus lacking in belief) in God or gods
goes against the prevailing definition of atheism. "explicit disbelief".

>>508539516
Just gouging your eyes out. Make yourself blind. That should be easy.

>>508539481
>Do babies fall into this category?
i would say so. babies are neither theist nor atheist as they have no capacity for reason, certainly not at conception or birth. neither do the mentally disabled, unfortunate souls who do not make it to this world, and any other circumstances that occur. none are atheist or theist. they do not have "an explicit disbelief" of anything.

>>508539528
>articulating your reasoning and defining the foundation of your belief
I've already done that. And every time I do you pivot to something else to find.
You're not an honest person

>>508539528
>>Now you're contradicting yourself
>nope.
Yup
>repeats another strawman
Kek

>>508539643
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>508539724
>>Do babies fall into this category?
>i would say so. babies
I don't
>babies are neither theist
So they are without theism, yes?

>>508539784
Hell = Darkness

You will see nothing.

>>508539958
Thanks for the fanfic update oh wise one

>>508539734
>I've already done that. And every time I do you pivot to something else to find. You're not an honest person.
you have not, you provide your own definition for atheism and decide that that means babies are atheist. the prevailing definition of atheism is "explicit disbelief" a choice made. babies cannot do that. your definition is not the norm. and you have nothing to support your belief because you refuse to define define it. you cannot define why a baby is considered human and therefor atheist at conception or birth, you cannot even explain why you believe that or what is the difference between either state.

>>508540017
It's just the Truth. No God = no creation.

>>508540027
>you have not,
I have.
>>508540027
>you provide your own definition for atheism
Actually it's the Oxfords definition

See this is what I mean about you being dishonest.

There's zeeo reason to engage further with you.

>>508539834
>I don't
ok
>So they are without theism, yes?
they are neither atheist nor theist. they are neither. you can be neither.

>>508540094
>No God = no creation
Every attribute you feel you must aspribe to God can be ascribed to the universe itself. So if you must believe in unsubstantiated speculation as a religion, the why not just day the universe is eternal and uncreated?

>>508540187
>>So they are without theism, yes?
>they are neither atheist nor theist.
Even now you still are dishonest.

If they are by default without theism then they are by default atheist. Which means
A, without, theism.

Have a nice night

>>508540261
I have seen God. The universe is nothing compare to God. God can delete the entire universe with a snap of a finger.

God > Creation

>>508540163
>Actually it's the Oxfords definition.
is it?

>>508540340
>If they are by default without theism then they are by default atheist. Which means
A, without, theism.
incorrect. a being can be neither.

>>508540360
The idea that there is a real theoretical distinction between God and creation is also retarded. How can God create something outside himself that isn't subject to the same exact power he has over himself? It all must be God.

>>508540527
You are a retard tho. You are not the best of humanity. So, you will be nothing but a retard.

>>508491192 (OP)
Either god doesn't exist so who cares, or he does exist and an all-knowing all-seeing creator would easily understand why a human being wouldn't believe he exists. If he couldn't understand, then he isn't all-knowing or all-seeing.

atheists BTFO yet again

>>508540367
Yup, see
>>508530065
Says the same thing
>>508540437
>A, without, theism
Is what babies are

>>508540786
>Yup, see
>Says the same thing
but it doesn't, picrel
again a being can be neither.

>>508540605
I don't need to be any near the best of humanity to point out some basic and clear absurdities with religious claims. And you haven't helped resolve any of them.

>>508540938
>but it doesn't
Sure does

>>508541184
>Sure does
that is not what Oxford Dictionary definition says.
>>508540938
picrel, again.
>disbelief
>denial
both conscious decisions. anything else is a being that is neither atheist nor theist.

>>508541320
>that is not what Oxford Dictionary definition says.
Learn what synonymous means bud.

If you're without theism then youre an atheist. It's that simple.