So, what's the verdict, /po/? Are we better off now with more atheism than before?

>>510622339 (OP)
We are God, bitches. Atheists are mentally stunted from the methane released by the farts they sniff.

/thread

>>510622339 (OP)

>taking the guardrails off humanity

Not great, not terrible ...

>>510622339 (OP)
Atheism is fundamentally stupid because God is whatever predicates the existence, nature, and course of the universe. To say that no such thing exists is to declare the universe to be a coincidence, by which all logics, mathematics, and physics are thrown out of the window. Atheists are theological illiterates.

Yeah. You are free to believe that you are a fucking monkey, but don't project that shit on me. I'm gonna beat you.

>>510624036
>To say that no such thing exists is to declare the universe to be a coincidence
wrong, dumb christcuck

>>510622339 (OP)
It's better for the well-adjusted, critically thinking, intelligent people.
>less aggressive Islam
>no chosen people, no promised lands
>fewer children being skullfucked by priests,imams and rabbis
Over all it's a positive, but I'm sure it sucks for people who incapable of being moral without fearing the creator/destroyer of the universe will smote them.

>>510624396
You believe you are a fucking monkey. You are not better than me you stupid bitch.

>>510624036
You're a retard, nothing proves there's a "God"

>>510624396

>but I'm sure it sucks for people who incapable of being moral without fearing the creator/destroyer of the universe will smote them.

Some satellites should be able to fix this issue. Call it Project Damocles or something fancy ...

>>510624559
I am the God Emperor of the universe. Supreme One above Heaven and Earth.

>>510624178
>>510624477
Why are you so terrified of the truth?

>>510624646
The Truth is simple. I am smarter than you.

>>510624477
>You believe you are a fucking monkey.
no he doesn't, thats not what evolution claims lol

>>510624646
You are created to be beneath Me.

>>510624713
can also be beneath you cdcrvtbybhvgtrct5vyui hot, i have a god kink

>>510624691
The fucker believe in the moon landing. I just know it. So much for thinking themselves smart.

>>510624934
thats not related, evolution was observed in labs

>>510624036
>God is <make shit up>
Every. Single. Time.

>to declare the universe to be a coincidence
It's a false dilemma fallacy to force the past into some kind of binary 'random/coincidence' pigeonhole. It's far better that you learn statistics, realize you were a fucking idiot, and then be embarrassed by your shameless stupidity.

>>510624934
>t. lumping in Russian conspiracy theories
What part of Russia are you from HIVan?

>>510625539
I can beat every single last american in chess. That's all you need to know.

>>510622339 (OP)
My Dawkins origami says no

>>510624201
Marxism is a religion.

>>510622339 (OP)
To me, it's like those Detroit black memes. Where Western nations keep getting more and more gay and lame the less Christian they get, but people are like "just you wait, when we're 100% non-Christian, we're going to be gassing the Kikes, forcibly deporting all the refugees, putting homos back in the closet and installing the Fourth Reich!"

>>510624036
>words, words, words
Christianity is Jewish and anything that is Jewish is bad for the world.

>>510624559
I just explained it:
>God is whatever predicates the existence, nature, and course of the universe.
Whatever does this is God, and whatever doesn't do this isn't. That's what the word "God" means. If the existence/nature/course of the universe is predicated by, say, a flying spaghetti monster, then the flying spaghetti monster is undeniably God. If there is absolutely nothing that predicates the existence/nature/course of the universe, not even a set of truths (logical, mathematical, physical, etc) then and Only then is there no such thing as God.

>>510627131
This is a theism thread (atheism being the lack thereof), not a mythology thread. Christianity is off-topic.

>>510624713
So you're saying god knowingly creates people to make them burn in hell? Sounds like a psychopath to me.

>>510627329
The soul go where they belong.

>>510622339 (OP)
There is no God. Simple as. No lives matter. The universe does not care. Plan accordingly.

>>510622339 (OP)
Atheists are underrepresented in the prison population, and overrepresented among Nobel prize winners.

If you had two lists with one being the top 10 most religious countries, and another with the top 10 least religious countries, and had to pick one of the lists for a randomly selected country to have an increase in immigration from which would you pick?

>>510622339 (OP)
Atheism has a suicide solution.

>>510628737
>Atheists ... are overrepresented among Nobel prize winners.
Proof? Hardly anyone intelligent identifies with your ideology. Show me which non-jew Nobel Prize winners call themselves atheists.

>>510628982
Atheism is the an ideology or a religion. It's just an opinion about a question?

>>510629362
Is not an ideology or religion*

>>510629362
>>510629433
It is an ideology and arguably a religion, but I'm still waiting for you to show me which non-jew Nobel Prize winners identify as atheists. You won't because you can't because they don't.

>>510628982
About the Nobel prize according to Grok

>Atheists and nonreligious individuals are slightly overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners (10.5% compared to an estimated 5–10% of the global population), with significant overrepresentation in literature (35%). However, this overrepresentation is less dramatic than that of Jewish laureates (20% vs. 0.2% of the population) and varies by field. Factors like the intellectual culture of academia, where skepticism and secularism may be more common, could contribute to this trend. Data limitations and the complexity of defining “atheism” prevent a definitive conclusion, but the evidence suggests a modest overrepresentation, particularly in literature.

>>510629598
>It is an ideology and arguably a religion
Nope. It's just a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.

>>510628982
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates
When atheists were less than 5% of the population they were above that in the sciences, and way overrepresented in literature for whatever that's worth. The thumb is on the scale for religion too with laureates being attached to being "culturally" Jewish/Christian which is redundant if you take religion to be formalized culture and the lack of belief in any gods being the important factor.

>>510624646
Religion A is atheism. The guy on the right is a contrarian with 90iq.

>>510622339 (OP)
No.

Christ is King. Atheism is degenerate and is heavily promoted by those who hate Christ, and leads to personal and spiritual ruin. Why else do you think communist states heavily promoted atheistic propaganda? It's satanic, and all done by those who refuse to believe that Satan exists. It's the reason why the West has become so decadent in recent decades. And the reason why France, who first mandated state-atheism was excessively degenerate and dehumanizing, to where it was the first proto-socialist state. The Left is excessively atheistic, and therefore believe in post-mondernist nonsense. Believe in nothing, fall for anything.

>>510627233
>>God is whatever predicates the existence, nature, and course of the universe.
Yeah this called God of the gaps. It means you really don't know so you call it God as a stop gap

>>510629679
>according to Grok
Stopped reading. Still waiting for you to show me which non-jew Nobel Prize winners identify as atheists. You won't because you can't because they don't. Name them.

>>510629762
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates
>nonreligious
Try again.

>>510629882
>Why else do you think communist states heavily promoted atheistic propaganda?
Because all powerful belongs to the state. This isn't hard to understand of yoi weren't a mindless moron
>>510629976
>Stopped reading.
Sounds like a personal problem then.
>gets shown evidence
>no not like that!
Stupid nigger

>>510630106
And WHY do you think the state was atheist?

>>510629976
>show me which non-jew Nobel Prize winners identify as atheists. You won't because you can't because they don't. Name them
Richard Feynman: A Nobel laureate in Physics who openly identified as an atheist and expressed skepticism toward religious beliefs.
Niels Bohr: A Danish physicist and Nobel laureate who was an atheist and rejected religious views despite being culturally Jewish.

Geoffrey Hinton: A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who, as of 2024, has been recognized for his work in artificial intelligence and has not been associated with religious beliefs.

Ivar Giaever: A Nobel laureate in Physics who explicitly stated, "I'm not religious and I don't like religion," expressing critical views toward religious influence.

>>510630167
I literally just told you

>>510630106
I asked you to show me the non-Jew Nobel Prize winners who identify as atheists. Instead you posted some made up AI slop statistic that doesn't contain a single example of the above. Looks like a concession. You lost.

>>510630329
See here you dumb nigger
>>510630272
Now fuck off

>>510630272
>Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr
Those are Jews. I specifically challenged you to name non-jews.

>Geoffrey Hinton ... has not been associated with religious beliefs.
>Ivar Giaever ... expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.

Notice how you keep failing.

Sorry I'm just not going to worship a circumcised middle eastern rabbi with ridiculous comic book superpowers okay?

>>510630390
You are lying, though, as shown here >>510630586

>>510630586
>Those are Jews
Nope. You are either too stupid for this conversation or too disingenuous and dishonest. And I'm guessing it's both. >>510630586
>Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists
>>510630272
>who explicitly stated, "I'm not religious and I don't like religion," expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Learn how to read before you reply again

>>510630633
>You are lying, though
Nope.

>>510630329
>I asked you to show me the non-Jew Nobel Prize winners who identify as atheists
>>510630272
>Richard Feynman: A Nobel laureate in Physics who openly identified as an atheist and expressed skepticism toward religious beliefs.
Literally the first one.

Fuck dude you are very dumb and you lose

>>510630743
>>510630786
>>510630919
>Niels Henrik David Bohr was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 7 October 1885, the second of three children of Christian Bohr,[3][4] a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and his wife Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family
>Niels ... Bohr ... second of three children of ... Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family

>Feynman was born on May 11, 1918, in New York City,[2] to Lucille (née Phillips; 1895–1981), a homemaker, and Melville Arthur Feynman (1890–1946), a sales manager.[3] Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
>Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
Those are Jews. I specifically challenged you to name non-jews.

>Geoffrey Hinton ... has not been associated with religious beliefs.
>Ivar Giaever ... expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.

Notice how you keep failing.

>>510629920
>Yeah this is called [unrelated concept]
No.

>>510631192
You lose dude. Simple as. Keep changing the goal post though.
>>510631192
>Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.
This is the last time
>>510630272
>Richard Feynman: A Nobel laureate in Physics who openly identified as an atheist and expressed skepticism toward religious beliefs.
The very first one.
>inb4 piloul and goal post changing
I accept your concession

>>510631372
Yup

>>510631409
>Niels Henrik David Bohr was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 7 October 1885, the second of three children of Christian Bohr,[3][4] a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and his wife Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family
>Niels ... Bohr ... second of three children of ... Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family

>Feynman was born on May 11, 1918, in New York City,[2] to Lucille (née Phillips; 1895–1981), a homemaker, and Melville Arthur Feynman (1890–1946), a sales manager.[3] Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
>Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
Those are Jews. I specifically challenged you to name non-jews.

>Geoffrey Hinton ... has not been associated with religious beliefs.
>Ivar Giaever ... expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.

Notice how you keep failing.

>>510631192
This idiot doesn't understand what ethnic means kek. You really are a moron

>>510631487
I accept your concession

>>510631543
>>510631583
>Niels Henrik David Bohr was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 7 October 1885, the second of three children of Christian Bohr,[3][4] a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and his wife Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family
>Niels ... Bohr ... second of three children of ... Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family

>Feynman was born on May 11, 1918, in New York City,[2] to Lucille (née Phillips; 1895–1981), a homemaker, and Melville Arthur Feynman (1890–1946), a sales manager.[3] Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
>Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
Those are Jews. I specifically challenged you to name non-jews.

>Geoffrey Hinton ... has not been associated with religious beliefs.
>Ivar Giaever ... expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.

Notice how you keep failing.

>>510632743
This idiot again? Your concession has already been accepted

>>510633062
>Niels Henrik David Bohr was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 7 October 1885, the second of three children of Christian Bohr,[3][4] a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and his wife Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family
>Niels ... Bohr ... second of three children of ... Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family

>Feynman was born on May 11, 1918, in New York City,[2] to Lucille (née Phillips; 1895–1981), a homemaker, and Melville Arthur Feynman (1890–1946), a sales manager.[3] Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
>Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
Those are Jews. I specifically challenged you to name non-jews.

>Geoffrey Hinton ... has not been associated with religious beliefs.
>Ivar Giaever ... expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.

Notice how you keep failing.

>>510631441
>It's true because I say so
Get off your high horse.

>>510633097
>This idiot again? Your concession has already been accepted
>>510633361
It's true because you don't know so you fill that gap with God

Notice how no one ITT can name non-jew Nobel Prize winners who identify as atheists.

>>510633846
What's the difference between a jew and an ethnic jew?

>>510633975
>What's the difference between a jew and an ethnic jew?
Ask your rabbi. As far as I'm concerned a kike is a kike is a kike.

>>510634028
>As far as I'm concerned a kike is a kike is a kike.
Like I said earlier
>>510630743
>You are either too stupid for this conversation or too disingenuous and dishonest. And I'm guessing it's both.
Thanks for proving me right

>>510634204
>Niels Henrik David Bohr was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 7 October 1885, the second of three children of Christian Bohr,[3][4] a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and his wife Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family
>Niels ... Bohr ... second of three children of ... Ellen née Adler, who came from a wealthy Jewish banking family

>Feynman was born on May 11, 1918, in New York City,[2] to Lucille (née Phillips; 1895–1981), a homemaker, and Melville Arthur Feynman (1890–1946), a sales manager.[3] Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
>Feynman's father was born into a Jewish family in Minsk
Those are Jews. I specifically challenged you to name non-jews.

>Geoffrey Hinton ... has not been associated with religious beliefs.
>Ivar Giaever ... expressing critical views toward religious influence.
Now show me evidence of their identifying as atheists, as I specifically challenged you to do.

Notice how you keep failing.

>>510634521
You can keep spamming this all you like but it's not going to chnage your defeat

>>510622339 (OP)
No, normies need threat of religion to behave. They cant handle being truth pilled.

>>510622339 (OP)
"More atheism" isn't really the issue. What we actually need is "less religion" imo. It doesn't really matter if people believe in god or not. Dogma is the enemy.

>>510633537
>It's true because it's true
Circular logic. You're my inferior.

>>510635672
It's true because you don't know so you put the word God in the gap of your knowledge.

Why not be honest about it?

>>510635792
>You don't know because you don't know
Why not stop embarrassing yourself with circular arguments?

>>510636084
You're strawman is circular. The truth is you don't know so you put God in that gap. Kek.

Why is honesty do hard for you?

>>510622339 (OP)
>more atheists in western nations
>more faggoty in those western nations
There might be a correlation

>>510635640
atheism has plenty of dogmas. Be it support for faggotry or marx

>>510636144
>You're strawman
>Why is honesty do hard
Gottem

>>510636302
Still don't know eh?

>>510636266
>atheism has plenty of dogmas
Just a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods. But that's not really a dogma

>>510637021
Do you know whether you agree or disagree with my definition of God? You're either engaging with my argument or you're flinging shit like an ape.

>>510637254
>Do you know whether you agree or disagree with my definition of God?it doesn't matter if I do or not. The truth remains is that you don't know. That's cool man, believe whatever you like. Just be honest about it

>>510637491
>technical difficulties
Good one, retard. Fortunately I can reformat:
>it doesn't matter if I do or not.
That's in fact the only thing that matters in regards to whether you're addressing my argument or flinging shit.

>>510637061
>ignores argument
Care to comment on the atheist dogma with bananas?

>>510636266
Individual atheists can be captured by dogma - but that doesn't really have anything to do with lack of belief in god. In the same sense, people can believe in god and not be dogmatic about it. That's why I said the god part doesn't really matter. In the religion part that's a problem.

>>510637853
>Fortunately I can reformat
Yeah personal feelings works like that
>>510637853
>That's in fact the only thing that matters in regards to whether you're addressing my argument or flinging shit
Nope

>>510638005
What argument? You didn't make one

>>510638338
This anon gets it

>>510638409
>Yeah personal feelings works like that
Your retarded formatting wasn't a result of anyone's feelings but possibly your own. Are you mad?
>Nope
I accept your concession.

>>510638481
As someone highly libertarian leaning, I'm always surprised to find that most who otherwise agree with me are also devout Christians. Why would you not also oppose the idea of an eternal authoritarian government in the sky?

>>510638918
>Are you mad?
You are. Clearly lol
>>510639106
>Why would you not also oppose the idea of an eternal authoritarian government in the sky?
I'm atheist to that

>>510639106
If they're Protestants, it's because Protestantism is founded on the idea that people have the right to know what it says in the Bible and to be Christian on their own terms (granted that being Christian at all is defined Biblically here), as opposed to the terms of a corrupted institution like allegedly the Catholic Church. For them, the Right to be Christian outweighs the Supremacy of Christianity, and the right to be Christian is contingent on indiscriminate religious freedom.

>>510640107
Why would I be mad? Your butthurt is unrequited.

>>510640107
I think you just use the word in a different way than I do then. To me, "atheism" just means "not believing in god" and doesn't imply any more or less than that. I acknowledge that its possible to be a religious atheist. I'm pretty sure scientologist don't believe in god, but they're extremely religious.

Personally I just don't see any reason to believe in the existence of a theistic god. Would even say is raises more questions than it answers. But honestly nobody has any fucking idea what's going on. We're probably in some retard alien simulation or some shit.

>>510640922
>"atheism" just means "not believing in god"
This is a lie.
>but it was real in my mind
Jew.

>>510640610
Sure, but Protestants also believe an eternal all powerful king of the entire universe, who's word is the absolute definition of law and who can never be overthrown - don't they?

Not saying they give a shit about the pope or anything. But they worship the ultimate totalitarian authority - the god of Abraham or something similar.

>>510640699
>Why would I be mad?
Because your view about God is really just a gap in your knowledge. Kek

>>510640922
>I acknowledge that its possible to be a religious atheist
I agree with this as well
>>510640922
>I'm pretty sure scientologist don't believe in god, but they're extremely religious.
Indeed. But I've also heard L Ron Hunbard say Scientology is compatible with Christianity

>>510640922
>Personally I just don't see any reason to believe in the existence of a theistic god. Would even say is raises more questions than it answers. But honestly nobody has any fucking idea what's going on. We're probably in some retard alien simulation or some shit.
100% agree

>>510641169
Well it is the dictionary definition of the word. It's just the literal opposite of theism. Anything else you attribute to it is just your own generalizations.

>>510641447
>it is the dictionary definition
Dictionaries don't dictate the meaning of words. They are mere references and often faulty ones.

>>510641447
>Anything else you attribute to it is just your own generalizations.
Exactly

>>510641547
>Dictionaries don't dictate the meaning of words.
This is a moronic statement. Then why have dictionaries that are filled with th4 definitions of words?

I know you won't replay genuinely

>>510641547
Okay. So call it whatever you want then. What word would like to use going forward to describe a person who simply "does not believe in a theistic god?"

>>510641640
>why have dictionaries
To document post facto what the authors take to be the conventional meanings of those words in some rudimentary way, so that someone oblivious to it entirely would have at least a starting point for grasping the actual meaning.

>>510622339 (OP)
Real atheism has never been tried. New atheism is a protestant Christian sect. Its adherents have the exact same moral values and way of life as protestants do with the insignificant caveat that they don't believe in God.

>>510641680
>What word would like to use going forward to describe a person who simply "does not believe in a theistic god?"
What word would like to use going forward to describe a person who simply "does not believe in santa"? People who don't believe in things don't need special words to describe their ignorance or indifference. Ideological movements need special words to describe their active denial and opposition.

>>510641862
>the conventional meanings of those words
Thanks. So your statement prior is irrelevant >>510642017
>What word would like to use going forward to describe a person who simply "does not believe in santa"?
Is Santa a god? Do you understand what atheism means? A means without, so atheism is without theism.

This isn't hard my man

>>510642128
You've been spouting profound mental illness all throughout the thread. Nothing you say matters, jew.

>>510642196
Again, you're not telling me I'm wrong. Just getting mad at me being right lol

>>510642017
Yeah, I generally agree with this. But when "belief in god" represents the vast majority of individuals throughout history, it makes sense to have a word to identify people who stand contrary to the status quo here. Especially in the context of the conversation here: "Are we better off now with more atheism than before?" Is this question asking something other than "Are we better of now with less people who believe in god than before?" - because it is a key difference.

>>510622339 (OP)
Anything that assists in liberating more Whites from the shackles of the Abrahamic mind virus is a good thing, even if it appears cringe on the outside.

>>510642480
>when "belief in god" represents the vast majority of individuals throughout history, it makes sense to have a word to identify people who stand contrary to the status quo here
>stand contrary to the status quo
I get what you were trying to say, but you can't even say it without sound like an atheist. :^)

If the people who just passively lack a belief in god ever feel a need to create a special label to describe their own demographic, I'll leave it to them to do so. You don't get to include them among your ranks by default. I'd just call them non-theists.

Imagine an entire movement obliterated by a single piece of fruit

Atheism will help us defeat Israel. Christians worship it.

>inb4 retards reply to me

>>510642803
>I'd just call them non-theists.
Non also means without. As does a. So essentially you call them atheist.

Well done using pilpul in a circular fashion hahahaha

>>510641265
You can say it another hundred times like a broken record and will continue to be a false and retarded red herring. Your repeated refusal to engage with my argument is an unambiguous admission of defeat.

>>510642830
TJ Kirk would be a gayer version of Eve in Atheist Scriptures who put the forbidden in the wrong hole thereby banishing his descendants from the sweet heaven of getting attention.

>>510643022
>and will continue to be a false and retarded red herring
Nope. Cone back when you can demonstrate why it's red herring

>>510643022
>Your repeated refusal to engage with my argument is an unambiguous admission of defeat.
I did engage with your argument by pointing out its a God of the gaps argument lol

>>510642980
I like how every post of yours displays overt mental illness.

>>510642830
Right?

>>510643213
>You're not wrong
:^)

>>510643022
Hello, fren. I've been waiting for you to explain why you were trying to find the substance of an "eternal truth" in transient material instances as perceived by a human mind but you never provided a rational explanation. :^(

>>510643213
By your own admission, you're being bested by a mentally ill person.

LOL

>>510622339 (OP)
I don’t know. There’s no way to measure superstitious beliefs or propensity to believe them juxtaposed against real medical issues like brain health. But I think the spirit new atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins instilled in their defence of reason sets a great example for young men for generations to come because it doesn’t ask to dispose of God completely, at least the best atheists don’t, it simply calls for people to look at the facts.

>>510622339 (OP)
Its impossible to say. There have been too many changes to society besides Atheism.

>>510622339 (OP)
if religion is so great how come it loses so easily to "nah"

>>510624036
If you allow god to be anything, then the word looses all meaning. People typically understand god to be some kind of man in the sky. Atheists reject the sky daddy, not your definition of god which does not really mean anything useful.

>>510643710
Exactly this too

>>510643164
>Nope. Cone back when you can demonstrate why it's red herring
You may as well pee down my back and demand I prove to you that it's urine. Accusing me of committing "God of the Gaps" for no other reason than that I argue for the existence of God is obviously a red herring. Now shove it up your sore ass.
>I did engage with your argument by pointing out its a God of the gaps argument lol
That's doing the exact opposite, ignoring the argument, and asserting a baseless accusation that has nothing to do with anything anyone said.

>>510643710
He's trying to say that he identifies God with the transcendental. He's just very bad at expressing it, let alone arguing for it. Atheists deny the transcendental for the same reason they deny God.

>>510643843
Personally I neither accept or deny the transcendental, I have no idea what it even is. I reject the gods of common religions the literal "man in the sky" gods.

>>510644109
>Personally I ...
Ok, tranny. It's been fascinating to learn about your personality.

>>510643335
Anon please. Don't miss the point here. 2+2=4 is one of many examples of (an expression of) an immutable truth. We can also go with (this English-language expression of) the immutable truth that "If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C". Either way, immutable truths obviously exist, and their existence implies that our universe is contingent on them to the extent that our universe isn't itself immutable.

>>510622339 (OP)
let's consult the graph, shall we?

>>510643762
>Accusing me of committing "God of the Gaps" for no other reason than that I argue for the existence of God
It's not because you're arguing the existence of God but how. So no, it's not a red herring

>>510643762
>That's doing the exact opposite, ignoring the argument
I didn't ignore the argument. I read it amd determined it's God of the gaps. You don't have to like it but that's a you problem

>>510622339 (OP)

>>510628932
When you don't have insanity to fall back on.

>>510644157
>I don't know either
It's fun to watch you get dunked on lol

>>510643710
atheists typically describe god as a man in the sky. of course that's not the case. god is outside of our purview, the creator. that's all. atheists like to slam the perception of god by religion, but when faced with the idea itself, they can't argue it, they only argue on the superficialities of specifics used by religious groups to interpret the basic idea. the basic idea, they have no good arguments against.
>>510625338
if you learned statistics, you'd be on the same side as the scientists, who agree that things are incredibly fine-tuned to allow for even the existence of the universe. even they say that it suggests something besides mere happenstance.

>>510644335
lol, you've made pun in both literary and graphic form! I salute your cleverness.

>>510644243
>2+2=4 is one of many examples of (an expression of) an immutable truth.
You insist that this truth "exists". I want to know where you find its substance. Facetiously, I asked you to locate it in the concrete (something I assumed anyone expressing such ideas would understand to be impossible). You've taken up the challenge, but then erroneously tried to assert that some transient situation, as perceived by (You), encapsulates an eternal and immutable truth. That doesn't work, anon. :^(

>>510622339 (OP)
Atheism leaves a void that must be filled with science, philosophy, art, but most people are way too stupid for any of this.

>>510644649
>atheists typically describe god as a man in the sky. of course that's not the case
It's in reference to what happens to Jesus in the bible.

>>510644649
>but when faced with the idea itself, they can't argue it,
Sure I can. God is nothing more than man's subjective interpretation and personal feelings

>>510644649
> but when faced with the idea itself
The abstract god is not anything. Its a word without substance. The gods described by religions are actual things you can conceptualize, but the abstract idea of god, what can you even do with that. What does it even mean to believe in something that is completely undefined.

>>510644781
>You insist that this truth "exists". I want to know where you find its substance
So 2+2=4 isn't true?

>>510644860
>The abstract god is not anything. Its a word without substance.

atheism is overwhelmingly White
religion is overwhelmingly brown

>>510643710
Not absolutely anything. Simply the cosmic superlative, and whatever is capable of being the cosmic superlative and demonstrably qualifies as being it. Something that cannot be the cosmic superlative cannot possibly be God and is disqualified on that basis.
>>510643843
I identify God with the cosmos, with nature, with reality, with existence itself. I contend that any and every entity that can be said to exist is necessarily subject to the nature of existence, by which the nature of existence is God rather than any hypothetical deity people call "God". So my argument is for Divinity, not for any particular deity.

>>510644894
>dumb jew doesn't understand the difference between deriving truth in a formal system and proving ontological claims

>>510645141
Again, is 2+2=4 not true? No need to sounds smart my friend. You are anything but

>>510644894
No, truth in this case is the property that we ascribe a statement, it's not an entity that would exist. It's not anything real. Nothing in pure mathematics is real.

>>510622339 (OP)
White people will thrive under any religion, or none at all. The problem is jews driving wedges in whatever minor disagreements we might have with each other. Not atheism or Christianity or anything else.

>>510644781
nta but the truth is in every time a calculation is made that is correct. in everything, ever. a scientist can calculate a quantum effect to 10 decimal places and be correct in their answer because of the truth of 2+2=4.
it is true because the substance of it has been proven time and again, in fact, if you just take all the calculations computers have ever done just by working, the number of those mathematical calculations that prove the immutable truths of mathematics is greater than the number of atoms in the entire observable universe.

>>510645141
>the difference between deriving truth in a formal system and proving ontological
We've also been through this. Numbers are metaphysical until represented by physical quantities.

You couldn't refute this either

>>510645109
>I identify God with the cosmos, with nature, with reality, with existence itself
This is pilpul. You don't identify God with the material. You identify it with the transcendental laws that you believe to be governing it. You assert they "exist". Where do they "exist"?

>>510622339 (OP)
That alien interview was bullshit. A jewish masturbatory fantasy. And also occultist.
For those who don't know the symbol came from there.

>>510645141
The immutability of 2+2=4, or any other, doesn't have to be proven A Priori (analytically) for it to be true in our cosmos (synthetically) and thereby for my argument to be sound. It's obviously true.

>>510645109
> I identify God with the cosmos, with nature, with reality, with existence itself.
> Deus sive natura. Spinoza
See >>510644941

>>510645269
>it's an eternal, immutable truth because i can make an inductive fallacy and never be proven empirically wrong
Never change, /pol/.

>>510645237
>No, truth in this case is the property that we ascribe a statement,
What happens when you have 2 apples and then add 2 more apples? How many apples do you have now?
>>510645237
>it's not an entity that would exist. It's not anything real. Nothing in pure mathematics is real.
Until represented by physical qualities

>>510624036
It could have been a coincidence the first time universe exploded or some other meme bang, but to think ours is first in total existence is extremely absurd narcissism. After trillionths of iterations a lot of gods would have been created or evolved and further universes would definitely be created, not happened through accident.

>>510644844
>Sure I can. God is nothing more than man's subjective interpretation and personal feelings

>they only argue on the superficialities of specifics used by religious groups to interpret the basic idea. the basic idea, they have no good arguments against.

you literally just did exactly what I said you do.

>>510635501

>>510645315
You said it's eternal and immutable. You also said that it "exists". Where does it "exist"?

>>510645276
I'm not doing paypal with you, I'm professing my conception and recognition of God.

>>510645445
>Where does it "exist"?
When applied to physical quantities

>>510624559
There is no proof for a god - there is no way to falsify the existence of god. God is not a concept that works in a scientific way. Religious belief and theology as a whole are intertwined with philosophy.
Belief has no "objective" truth to it, but is very subjective. Of course does a god exist for the people who strongly believe in that god. Their god is a fundamental part of their individual personality, but not a universal, omnipotent creator that guides mankind.

>>510645194
It's a true statement but has no ontological quality. It's truth does not exist, it's only imagined, it's only an idea.

>>510645432
>you literally just did exactly what I said you do.
Not really

>>510645382
wow, you're quite an idiot, tossing around terms that you don't even understand the meaning of...
>An inductive fallacy is a reasoning error that occurs when an argument relies on weak or insufficient evidence to support a generalization or conclusion about a larger population or group. It's essentially a faulty generalization, where a conclusion is drawn from a limited sample size or unrepresentative data

So, a sample size that numbers in greater than the number of atoms in the universe, is "limited?" Fuck off you retard.

>>510645460
>I'm professing my conception and recognition of God.
Good thing the God your chose is so indifferent, otherwise he would surely threaten some kind of punishment for your intellectual laziness.

>>510645543
>but has no ontological quality
I disagree. They start out metaphysical >>510645543
>it's only an idea
Until demonstrated in a physical reality

>>510645548
yes exactly. "man's subjective interpretation"
you mean like, when a man interprets that god is a man who lives in the sky, right?

>>510645563
Your greentext describes exactly what you're doing here:
>>510645269
>it is true because the substance of it has been proven time and again,

>>510645665
>you mean like, when a man interprets that god is a man who lives in the sky, right?
It's not limted to
>a man who lives in the sky.
Kek

>>510645385
> Until represented by physical qualities
Like apples.
But these physical qualities do not prove the reality of the concept of numbers. In reality there are no numbers. Numbers as such are neither cause nor effect anywhere.

>>510645665
There’s really no point to using the word “God” if we’re going to just change the definition to “some transcendental thing idk”, when people talk about God they mean a sentient thing with supernatural abilities at the very least

>>510645740
>it is true because the substance of it has been proven time and again,
uh.. hate to tell you this, but proving something over and over again is not "weak" evidence.
you're really quite stupid. you tried to sound smart throwing around terms like "inductive fallacy" without even understanding what it actually means.

>>510645782
>But these physical qualities do not prove the reality of the concept of numbers
I disagree. Its physical quantities that prove them in reality

>>510645761
>It's not limted to
which is why i said
>atheists like to slam the perception of god... superficialities... etc.
so you're admitting you're just pointing out an example of a superficiality, and then doubling down on that by saying "oh but it's not limited to that one! I can argue about all the other ones too!"
but again, never have anything meaningful to say on the basic premise of a god.
do you have any meaningful thoughts on that?

>>510645882
> proving something over and over again is not "weak" evidence.
Pretty weak evidence when you make absolute transcendental claims.

>>510645853
well now we're getting somewhere. can you argue for or against that?

>>510645510
You apply it by having the idea of it. This doesn't make it real. It remains an idea, separate from the physical representation. It doesn't magically blend with it and starts to exist.

>>510638409
>didn't make one
>>510638338 understood there's an argument why can't you?

Also comment on the atheist dogma with bananas?


>>510638338
>Marxists getting rid of religions has nothing to do with atheism

>>510646113
I claimed that there have been more mathematical calculations made than there are atoms in the universe. And that is not weak evidence.

>>510646089
>but it's not limited to that one! I can argue about all the other ones too!"
I can argue against God or gods regardless of who defines it lol
>>510646089
>but again, never have anything meaningful to say on the basic premise of a god.
Depends. God is man made so I'm sure it has meaning to someone, depending on their intrepetations
>>510646089
>do you have any meaningful thoughts on that?
Do you have an actual argument?

Religion was one of the few reasons people respected the natural world. Look at America now. They will happily tarmac over the entirety of God's creation because they think they are the be all and end all of the universe when really they are just a cancer on this beautiful planet taking resources and materials out of the natural cycles and putting them into endless suburbs and carparks slowly killing the planet.

>>510646247
Woah, ok. You win the argument. Just please don't fuck your sister the way your dad did with your mother.

>>510646154
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I cannot definitively prove on a universal scale a sentient, supernatural being doesn’t exist but I also can’t make any claims about its hypothetical nature if it did exist either. So it’s totally meaningless to assert there is one, if I believed in one I’d have no consistent basis to believe/not believe anything.

This is usually when religion faggots start playing rhetoric games with Epistemology

>>510622339 (OP)
Okay, that logo really does look like that A Wyatt Man "hand-wringing merchant" meme. I mean, look at that nose!

>>510646208
>You apply it by having the idea of it
I had an idea of building a deck. Then I made that idea a reality. Funny enough, mathematics was needed to make it a reality lol
>>510646240
>Also comment on the atheist dogma with bananas?
Why would I need to comment on the mental illness of someone else. I don't stick bananas up my ass, do you?

>>510646240
>Marxists getting rid of religions has nothing to do with atheism
Correct. It had to do with allocating all power to the state. Which when you remove religion, then there arhiesm as a by product, not a cause

How does a Christian react if talking to someone who believes in a singular deity, but not the Jewish god?

>>510646208
Very valiant of you to take up the burden of enlightening the absolute dumbest poster ITT. You think you're picking a low fruit but you'll be picking no fruit. :^)

>>510645982
If you can't prove that numbers are real without the help of any physical representation, then they are not real as such but you just mistake the reality of the representation as their reality.

>>510646636
>a singular deity, but not the Jewish god
They call that guy the devil, I think.

>>510645377
>>Deus sive natura. Spinoza
That is exactly correct.
>Schopenhauer's take
I disagree to the assertion that Pantheism says nothing. It implies a great deal. To recognize the Cosmos as God is to recognize God (Divinity) in Everything (hence "Pantheism") as opposed to Nothing (Atheism, the polar opposite); to recognize existence and life as sacred, to recognize nature as a lord that we are rightfully subordinate to, to experience the universe as a harmonious sequence in which we have a place, etc. The implications of Pantheism lead to a sort of Daoistic worldview as opposed to the nihilistic one that Atheism leads to, and in opening my eyes to God (Divinity) it's enabled me to understand the experiences and values of other (perhaps more misguided) theists that make zero sense to Atheists who, in their failure to recognize God, just write them off as schizophrenic nonsense.

>>510630743
get a load of this christkike liar

Yeah there are no humans in this thread.

>>510646240
>>510646571
See >>510626645

>>510646691
>If you can't prove that numbers are real without the help of any physical representation, then they are not real
I disagree. Quantities are real regardless. That alone proves numbers for me.

>>510646842
I agnostic atheist bud and what am I lying about?

>>510646798
>To recognize the Cosmos as God is to recognize God (Divinity)
What are the qualities of "divinity"? Whatever qualities the cosmos happens to have?

>>510647444
Very atheist of you bro :^)

>>510647140
idk what the other guy was saying but most epistemologists would probably reject that knowledge requires 100% certainty.

>>510622339 (OP)
Guess it depends on your standard for better off. Basically irrelevant, though. The uptick in religious membership today is from fear and uncertainty. When (hopefully) things improve, people will need less emotional comfort and be able to look at the god claim critically.

>>510646571
>atheism has nothing to do with marxism
You don't know much about writings of the atheist marx do you?

>>510646470
You know you can reply to the same post in just one reply? It's a thing here on 4chan

>Why would I need to comment on the mental illness of someone else.
Atheist dogma as was the discussion. If you want to pretend banannas having nothing to do with internet atheism just like marxism well you are as >>510646637 says

>>510647581
>When (hopefully) things improve, people will need less emotional comfort and be able to look at the god claim critically.
Why would things improve if people continue to embrace a vile atheist mindset?

>>510647550
>that knowledge requires 100% certainty.
It's the claim, regardless of requirements

>>510647637
>You don't know much about writings of the atheist marx do you?
I do. Religion is opiate for the masses. But in practice what I said is correct
>>510647637
>You know you can reply to the same post in just one reply? It's a thing here on 4chan
Very cool but I'll 4chan my way, thanks :^)

>>510647637
>Atheist dogma as was the discussion
You mean your assumption of atheism..again, I don't stick bananas up my ass.

>>510622339 (OP)
>Are we better off now with more atheism than before?

>>510647671
>vile atheist mindset?
Odd coming from an anon who males atheist arguments lol

>>510647671
Because belief in a god is irrelevant to the health of a society. Otherwise muslim countries would shining beacins.

>>510647550
Christian Apologetic “””epistemologists” will typically resort to asserting that the without a source of universal, absolute 100% truth nobody can ever “know” anything, therefore if you don’t believe in God (their specific definition) you’re can’t know anything at all since you don’t have 100% certainty :)

>>510643272
Right.
LivingWater.com

>>510646637
>enlightening the absolute dumbest poster ITT.
Yet you couldn't refute anything I've said. Just ad homs.

You are the lowest fruit here bud.

>>510648119
Try less strawman in your next reply

>>510648119
My bad..
>S
LivingWaters.com

>>510648161
>Try less strawman in your next reply
Try less cock in your asshole.

>>510647444
Among other things, incomprehensible magnificence and absolute power over every aspect of your life. It's as awesome as it's terrifying. The closest "secular" experience is being in the presence of a black hole (if you can imagine at least that). This is the state of mind that Muslims immerse themselves into five times a day, and it's why they always (Always) obey Islamic laws over state laws. Islam is so menacing precisely because it weaponizes this naked awareness of God Almighty that human brains are arguably not meant to even attempt to process.

>>510648048
>belief in a god is irrelevant to the health of a society
All the empirical evidence shows otherwise. The vile atheist mindset makes people miserable to the point of suicide. e.g. >>510628932

>>510635501
>>510635640
>>510645436
>>510647140
You have to be 18 to pist here.

>>510647805
>regardless of requirements
so if people can be agnostic/gnostic without 100% certainty then what is the split? and why does it say 100% certainty all over everything
>>510648109
that's true. I'm coming at it from the modern epistemology angle, not the baptist pastor angle.
the whole gettier problem thing broke the aristotelian conception of knowledge, but people still want to say knowledge is possible.

>>510648242
Speaking from experience I see

>>510648199

>>510648286
>You have to be 18 to pist here
Better leave then

>>510648298
>so if people can be agnostic/gnostic without 100% certainty
Again. They claim with 100% certainty.

This isn't hard my friend

>>510648264
>The vile atheist mindset makes people miserable to the point of suicide
Not for me :^)

>>510648298
>so if people can be agnostic/gnostic without 100% certainty then what is the split?
The truth is that the term “agnostic” is absolutely meaningless in practical terms and only exists as a label for atheists to avoid persecution

>>510648555
>atheists to avoid persecution
Persecution from?

>>510648264
>my source is a screenie of an article that doesn't show its sources.
Oh ok, I stand corrected.

>>510648555
>“agnostic” is absolutely meaningless in practical terms
Not really. It's how you get people who say their spiritual but don't believe in a set God or religion. It's also how you get people who don't know with certainty that God or Gods are real but still remain unconvinced

>>510648248
If you say so. I still find it funny that your belief system isn't even possible without concepts conceived by people who sought something beyond nature and conceived of it specifically in contrast to nature in many aspects.

>>510648199
lol it is funny that the way religious people attack science is to say it's like a religion. so religion is bad, I guess?
>>510648466
idk it seems like it's a claim about knowledge. and I've heard people say that "I don't know but I don't believe" etc. but whatever. you're right, I don't care.
>>510648555
I think this is probably right. a lot of the debate is about the burden of proof, and nobody wants to be caught holding the "support your clam" bag

>>510648633
Two More Weeks and the consequences of atheism will reverse themselves and become positive. :^)

>>510648596
Should atheists be allowed to hold high office? Adopt children? Teach in public school?

>>510648807
>Should atheists be allowed to hold high office? Adopt children? Teach in public school?
Obviously not.

>>510648766
>idk it seems like it's a claim about knowledge
Gnostic is yes. Agnostic is without knowledge

>>510648802
>I called atheism bad. That that, unbeliever!
Oh wow you got me, bro.

>>510648807
>Should atheists be allowed to hold high office? Adopt children? Teach in public school?
I don't see why not.

>>510648939
Well, that's persecution.

>>510648964
Dilate.

>>510649019
This anon speaks from experience

>>510648997
>Well, that's persecution.
Why is it bad to "persecute" socially destructive degenerates? What entitles you to positions of power and influence?

>>510649019
k

>>510648957
Being a “Gnostic Atheist” would require omniscience which is what makes the entire division just social rhetoric

>>510649087
>I should be able to persecute degenerates.
>Anyone I don't like is a degenerate.

>>510649166
A gnostic atheist is a man who knows he's a woman born in the wrong body.

>>510648596
>persecution from?
This guy:
>>510648939

>>510649166
>Being a “Gnostic Atheist” would require omniscience
Not really. It means I don't know but remain unconvinced until evidence changes my mind. Simple as

>>510649213
If the public decides you're a degenerate, then you're a degenerate. Which it will, if not directly on account of your insane ideology by only all of its correlates. What entitles you to positions of power and influence?

>>510649301
Why should I be worried about that guy?

>>510649355
then only by all of its correlates*

>>510649348
Sorry that's agnostic atheist. Gnostic atheist claims with certainty there isn't a god or gods.

Just as a gnostic theist claims with certainty God or gods exist

>>510649355
>If the public decides you're a degenerate, then you're a degenerate. Which it will
Not really

>>510649355
>your insane ideology
What's my ideology? This should be good for a laugh.

>>510649480
Your gay little atheist movement circa 2010 chart is completely made up and abuses terminology.

>>510649355
>What entitles you to positions of power and influence?
They aren't entitlements. They are earned

>>510649579
Atheism. What entitles you to positions of power and influence?

>>510649623
>chart is completely made up and abuses terminology.
Incorrect. This is you being emotional without any actual argument

>>510649665
>What entitles you to positions of power and influence?
See
>>510649636

>>510649675
Gnosticism and agnosticism have been well-defined concepts in their own right long before your retarded chart surfaced and popularized retarded amalgamations of terms banana sodomites don't understand.

>>510649665
Atheism isn't an ideology. And I'm not entited to positions of power, and never claimed that I was. I simply shouldn't be barred from office for a lack of belief. Stop being dishonest.

>>510649821
>Gnosticism and agnosticism have been well-defined concepts i
Yup. And are branches in both theism and atheism

>>510649480
If I ask you what 2+2 is would you say “eeeeh an agnostic 4” because technically you could be insane or the laws of reality could have changed without you knowing?

>>510649897
>Stop being dishonest
That's all you'll get from that anon.

>>510622339 (OP)
>more atheism
Where? All I see is endless cults and religions. Feminism, Communism, cults of personality around retards like Trump and Elon, Pisslam. None of these are based on reason.

>>510649956
>If I ask you what 2+2 is would you say
4. Gnostic has nothing to do with it. It's true regardless

>>510622339 (OP)
No. Is forcing everyone to be Christian going to work? No.
I think its just very hard right now for people to actually believe in God and the Bible, i tried pretending to believe it too but i simply cant. I cant sincerly believe those things, its fantasy.
I wish i could honestly believe in those bible stories, my life would be infinitely better if i did, i just cant and pretending to is lying and lying is a sin.

>>510622339 (OP)
Atheism should never have been presented as a replacement for religion because atheists don't even try to replace all the societal positions religions previously occupied.

>>510649933
Both gnosticism and agnosticism are standalone positions regarding the divine without any addendums. Poorly educated American banana sodomites made up the amalgamations in your chart because they thought using Greek words makes them sound less like the rural inbreds that they were and more intellectuals.

>>510650058
Uhh no. It’s 4 dude

>>510650007
>All I see is endless cults and religions. Feminism, Communism, cults of personality around retards like Trump and Elon
Yes, that's called atheism.

>>510649897
>Atheism isn't an ideology
Lying kike.

>I'm not entited to positions of power,
Then why do you cry "persecution" when you're denied something you were never entitled to?

>>510649970
You know that part in Mein Kampf when Hitler talks about what it's like to argue with jews?

>>510624934
You don't? retard

>>510646438
>but I also can’t make any claims about its hypothetical nature if it did exist either.
yes you can. why don't you try hypothesizing?

>>510650307
No it isn't. Atheism is a specific answer to a specific question. "Do you believe in a god?" "No." Atheist. Stop lying.

>>510650150
>Both gnosticism and agnosticism are standalone positions
That have branches in theism and atheism

An agnostic theist doesn't doubt or claim with certainty that God exist. While an agnostic atheist doesn't doubt or claim with certainty that God doesn't exist but still lacks the belief regardless

A gnostic theist will claim they know with certainty God or gods exist. While the gnostic atheist claims they know with certainty God or gods don't exist.

I hope this helps :^)

>>510650192
Just like I said :^)

>>510650310
Yup

>>510650489
>>510649897
>atheism is just the heckin' lack of a belief
Lying kike.


>I'm not entited to positions of power,
Then why do you cry "persecution" when you're denied something you were never entitled to?

>>510650492
>I hope this helps :^)
>Narrator voice: It won't.

>>510650233
Atheist vote overwhelmingly for Trump?

>>510650472
It enjoys vanilla ice cream and tortures you for eternity after you die unless you shove a banana up your ass on camera

>>510650492
Ok, it's clear that you have an actual mental illness that prevents you from any kind of critical self-regulation. ID goes to the filter. Sorry for bullying a cripple.

>>510650610
Kek exactly

>>510650657
And back to ad homs because you have no real rebuttal or arguments.

>>510650609
You can scream all day, but it's not an ideology. Seethe.
>Then why do you cry "persecution" when you're denied something you were never entitled to?
I don't, stop lying.

>>510650307
Because being denied the opportunity to run for office based entirely on a lack of belief in something is persecution. I know Moldova isn't exactly blessed with an intelligent population, but even for you, having to explain all this is just an embarrassment.

>>510650534
>huurrr I’ll type 5 and then edit my post to 4
Gb2 Gaia

>>510650769
What are you talking about bro?
>>510650058
>>If I ask you what 2+2 is would you say
>4.
Are you stupid on purpose or is it natural?

>>510650736
>I don't
Then you concede barring your likes from such positions of power is not "persecution". Having criteria for such positions and denying you something you are not entitled to is not an injustice.

>>510650740
>being denied the opportunity to run for office based entirely on a lack of belief in something is persecution
Persecution implies an injustice. What injustice is being committed by denying jewish liars like you access to positions of power? You're not entitled to them.

>>510646333
>God is man made so
quantum mechanics is man-made, but it works out pretty well.

>Do you have an actual argument?
god created the universe. it is perfectly fine-tuned to a degree that it simply would not exist if it wasn't. qualities of forces that make it so are astronomically unlikely to have formed by chance.
you can randomly put together 5 pieces of wood, but if they were put together in such a way that it resulted in a perfect level surface balanced perfectly on top of four legs placed perfectly distant from each other to allow the perfect balance on that perfectly level surface, it would indicate some intelligence to it's assembly. Of course if you threw those pieces of wood in the air, there is an infinitesimal chance they could fall and arrange themselves in that way, but it is far more likely that there was intervention to create the arrangement by an intelligent being.

>>510650906
>Then you concede barring your likes from such positions of power is not "persecution".
It's discrimination >>510650906
>you are not entitled to
No one is entitled to them. They are earned. Boy you are a very dumb person

>>510650906
See
>>510650740
Stop being dishonest.

>>510650973
>Persecution implies an injustice
Which is what discrimination is.

>>510650987
>quantum mechanics is man-made, but it works out pretty well.
Yeah. It's amazing what actually demonstration can do. Lol

>>510650987
>>Do you have an actual argument?
>my opinion about god created the universe
And why should I believe in your personal feelings and opinions?

>>510650879
Judging from the context I’d say in our previous universe you could edit 4chan posts but it was changed when everything was remade 3 minutes ago

>>510650973
We're not saying we're entited, we're saying we should have the same opportunity to earn it. Stop being dishonest.

>>510651158
>We're not saying we're entited
Then what injustice is being committed by denying you something to which you are not entitled?

>>510648286
>>510648286
>pist

>>510651147
Except you can't edit 4chan posts. At least not that I am aware of. I'm also on mobile so maybe that's why.

Either way you don't have an honest argument

>>510651236
>Then what injustice is being committed
Discrimination

>>510651236
>>510651158

>>510622339 (OP)
Whole world is shaken up with christkike reaction in the west, which leaves us with even more niggers flooding in. Bit yeah it is atheism's fault.

>>510627233
A God who is the named God isn't the real God. A path which is named path isn't the real path. Human mind cannot comprehend God. So stop trying to make your small human mind decide what is God.

>>510651389
Notice how you are unable to explain what injustice is being committed against you by denying you that to which you are not entitled.

>>510651495
This idiot doesn't understand what discrimination means

I know you're still reading my replies too :^)

>>510651325
You can’t edit them now but you must have been able to before the universe was remade. Can you have absolute certainty the universe wasn’t remade 6 ish minutes ago?

>>510651495
>>510651376

>>510651621
"Discrimination" is not an injustice any sane society recognizes. It's a judeo-atheistic ideological construct used to justify importing hordes of brown child rapists.

>>510651612
>You can’t edit them
Right. Anyway, have a nice day :^)

>>510651747
>"Discrimination" is not an injustice any sane society
Incorrect. As there is unlawful discrimination, and here in the US. I can't be held from positions based solely on me being an atheist.

>>510651747
>It's a judeo-christian ideological construct used to justify importing hordes of brown child rapists.
ftfy

>>510651747
>I've decided discrimination is fake.
Lol ok. Now wish yourself a spaceship so you can fly to Jesus and he'll take you out for ice cream.

>>510622339 (OP)
Please just read Plato

>>510652027
Humanity has been around for ~200,000 years, for 199,900 of which nobody recognized your judeo-atheist "discrimination" accusation as legitimate.

>>510652147
>bb..but the past!
Lol, this idiot

>>510652147
The concept of discrimination as "bad" or unjust emerged gradually, tied to philosophical and religious ideas about human equality. Ancient texts like the Bible or the Quran emphasized fairness and justice, but systemic discrimination (e.g., based on caste, class, or ethnicity) was often normalized in early societies. For example, slavery was widely accepted in ancient Greece, Rome, and many other cultures until challenged much later.

The modern view of discrimination as wrong began to take shape during the Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries), with thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocating for individual rights and equality. However, legal prohibitions on discrimination are more recent

>mentally ill retard keeps (You)ing me and posting AI slop unironically

>>510652485
>gets dunked on over and over
You lost bud

>>510652147
And? We didn't have flush toilets for a large part of history, too.

>>510652530
Chess with a pigeon, man.

>>510652677
Yup, 100%

>>510652589
>And?
And given that its adoption coincides with descent into your insane ideology, rather than a high regard for justice, it can be dismissed as the judeo-atheist defense mechanism that it is. Just like Rajesh, Jawad and Mgubu use "we should have the same opportunity to earn it" as an argument to invade white societies, so do your likes use it to invade white institutions and (e.g.) brainwash children with such ideas. Therefore it's necessary to bar you from these positions, to which you are not entitled in any case.

>>510652887
Not an ideology. Not judeo. Already explained this. Stop being dishonest.

>>510652887
Get a load of this retards false equivalency lol.

>>510653025
That's all he can do. He's been defeated so much that he has to cling to his lies for any self validation

>>510652589
>And?
And given that its adoption coincides with descent into your insane ideology, rather than a high regard for justice, it can be dismissed as the judeo-atheist defense mechanism that it is. Just like Rajesh, Jawad and Mgubu use "we should have the same opportunity to earn it" as an argument to invade white societies, so do your likes use it to invade white institutions and (e.g.) brainwash children with such ideas. Therefore it's necessary to bar you from these positions, to which you are not entitled in any case.

>i-i-i-i-it's not an ideology
>it just randomly happens to coincide with an entire constellation of ideological points (like muh anti-discrimination)

>>510653181
This NPC is broken lol

>>510653181
Well you're just lying and strawmaning, so fuck off. Go pray for forgiveness from your unproven god for being such a hopelessly dishonest piece of crap.
And thanks for showing me believers are liars and manipulators.

>>510652589
>And?
And given that its adoption coincides with descent into your insane ideology, rather than a high regard for justice, it can be dismissed as the judeo-atheist defense mechanism that it is. Just like Rajesh, Jawad and Mgubu use "we should have the same opportunity to earn it" as an argument to invade white societies, so do your likes use it to invade white institutions and (e.g.) brainwash children with such ideas. Therefore it's necessary to bar you from these positions, to which you are not entitled in any case.

>i-i-i-i-it's not an ideology
>it just randomly happens to coincide with an entire constellation of ideological points (like muh anti-discrimination)

You lost, kike. Thread closed.

>>510653181
>to which you are not entitled in any case.
And no one is claining entitlement either

>>510651116
>And why should I believe in your personal feelings and opinions?
I wrote about the actual facts of the matter. Not my opinion.

>>510653482
>broken NPC
That's why you keep arguing from lies

>>510653543
>about the actual facts of the matter
Nah, just your personal feelings and opinions

>i'm not saying i'm entitled to invade white countries
>it's just saying we should have the same opportunity like whites
>stop discriminating
Seethe more, kike.

>>510653482
>Shits on the chess board and acts like he won.

>>510653603
>keeps lying
Haha

>>510650655
that's not a hypothesis
>A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, often stated as a testable prediction, that requires further investigation to verify or prove. In essence, it's an educated guess or a tentative assumption that attempts to explain certain observations or facts. A good hypothesis is carefully written, testable, and ideally, falsifiable

>>510653678
Just like Rajesh, Jawad and Mgubu use "we should have the same opportunity to earn it" as an argument to invade white societies, so do your likes use it to invade white institutions and (e.g.) brainwash children with such ideas. Therefore it's necessary to bar you from these positions, to which you are not entitled in any case.

>i-i-i-i-it's not an ideology
>it just randomly happens to coincide with an entire constellation of ideological points (like muh anti-discrimination)

You lost, kike. Thread closed.

>>510653603
I'm white lol. Now you're just desperate.

>>510653697
Universal statements are untestable so a hypothesis is impossible

>>510653699
>>510653678

>>510653699
>false equivalency
Kek dumb NPC

>>510653766
Just like Rajesh, Jawad and Mgubu use "we should have the same opportunity to earn it" as an argument to invade white societies, so do your likes use it to invade white institutions and (e.g.) brainwash children with such ideas. Therefore it's necessary to bar you from these positions, to which you are not entitled in any case.

>i-i-i-i-it's not an ideology
>it just randomly happens to coincide with an entire constellation of ideological points (like muh anti-discrimination)

You lost, kike. Thread closed.

>>510653825
>>510653678

>>510653825
>>false equivalency
>Kek dumb NPC

>>510653601
no, these facts are well-established.
>The universe exhibits a remarkable balance of physical forces and constants that seem finely tuned for the existence of life, leading some to propose that it's fine-tuned for habitability. This apparent balance, particularly in the initial conditions of the universe, is a subject of ongoing scientific inquiry and philosophical debate.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Fine-tuning:

Many fundamental constants, such as the strength of gravity and the masses of particles, appear to have values that are just right for the formation of stars, galaxies, and ultimately, life.

For example, if the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, hydrogen would be the only element that could exist, preventing the formation of heavier elements necessary for life.
Similarly, if the cosmological constant (which governs the expansion rate of the universe) were significantly different, the universe would either collapse on itself or expand too rapidly to allow for the formation of structures.

Possible Explanations:

Anthropic Principle:
This principle suggests that the universe must have properties that allow for the existence of observers, like us, to be present.

Multiple Universes:
The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is just one of many, each with different physical laws. Our universe is habitable, and we happen to exist in it.
Unexplained Physics:
It's possible that our understanding of physics is incomplete, and there are underlying principles that dictate the observed balance of forces and constants.

Balance in the Universe:

Energy and Expansion:
The universe's expansion rate and the energy density are finely balanced, allowing for the formation of structures over billions of years.

>>510653791
>Universal statements are untestable so a hypothesis is impossible
You're a total retard. All it takes is one counter-example.

>>510653859
Just like Rajesh, Jawad and Mgubu use "we should have the same opportunity to earn it" as an argument to invade white societies, so do your likes use it to invade white institutions and (e.g.) brainwash children with such ideas. Therefore it's necessary to bar you from these positions, to which you are not entitled in any case.

>i-i-i-i-it's not an ideology
>it just randomly happens to coincide with an entire constellation of ideological points (like muh anti-discrimination)

You lost, kike. Thread closed.

>>510653601
>>510653884
... continued.

Matter and Antimatter:
While matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts at the Big Bang, regular matter dominates, preventing complete annihilation.
Forces:
The four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) are balanced in a way that allows for the formation of atoms, molecules, and ultimately, complex structures.

Conclusion:
The apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life is a fascinating puzzle that continues to be explored by scientists and philosophers. While the reasons for this balance remain a topic of debate, the implications of this balance are profound, shaping our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

>>510653884
>no, these facts are well-established
Not really it's a presupposition based on personal feelings

>>510653965
>>510653678