Thread 512496271

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

>>512496271 (OP)
Chicken or egg?

>>512496271 (OP)
Nigger or watermelon?

>>512496304
Single cell organism.

why dont you believe in god?

>>512496271 (OP)
Steel Man my position that homosexuality is a net negative based on crime statistics

>>512496271 (OP)
Thread belongs on /pol/ or not

>>512496271 (OP)
Why is the moon white?

>>512496363
You're supposed to pick one you dumb cunt.

>>512496363
how did the first cell wall form?

>>512496271 (OP)
Youve never seen a vagina yet they exist. Response?

>>512496271 (OP)
What flavor of atheism are you?

>>512496271 (OP)
baby killer

>>512496271 (OP)
Trump is a pedo

>>512496363
Already wrong. Cells were not the first thing that came.

>>512496271 (OP)
>1pbtid
I Already won
Herbs and report off topic spam

Prove the existence of numbers.

>>512496271 (OP)
Atheists always baffle me, there's infinite number of post death scenarios possible, and atheists choose a single one. The probability you're correct is 1/infinity ->0

>>512496271 (OP)
>I am an atheist. Debate me. You will lose.
you already dead but you dont know it yet

>>512496429
Protochicken

>>512496573
>Atheists are sooo illogical! Now go come on down on your knees repeat prewritten poetry to try to apease an invisible jew

>>512496394
I love when these dorks post the.most obvious shit lol

>>512496573
two big problems here.
1. You misstate atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in gods; it doesn’t commit to a specific “post-death scenario,” and many atheists are agnostic about an afterlife (SEP: “Atheism and Agnosticism”; Wikipedia: “Atheism”).
2. Your probability move is nonsense. You can’t assign a uniform prior over “infinitely many” mutually exclusive afterlives—there’s no well-defined 1/∞ here. And even where infinity is used (continuous probabilities), probability 0 ≠ impossible (e.g., hitting exactly 0.5 when throwing a dart at [0,1]) (SEP: “Probability”; Wikipedia: “Almost surely”).

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

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

>>512496563
Physical quantities

>>512496750
>My magic sky jew is real because gravity exists
Hahaha wow

>>512496271 (OP)
How did the first atom come to exist.

>>512496893
What does this have to do with atheism?

>>512496863
can you explain to me why gravity exists?

>>512496948
Because you touch yourself at night.

>>512496271 (OP)
Debating an atheist is like debating a giraffe, you're subhuman unironically, the niggers who made cave paintings 80 000 years ago are more human than any atheist, a spiritual experience is only accessible to humans not to animals

>>512496271 (OP)
Sure, I use to be an atheist so I will give it a go. Do you think you are capable of knowing for a certainty how life originated on this planet? You weren't there and there is absolutely no evidence of how it originated. There has been less than a handful of lab experiments that prove it is theoretically possible that it was random but that is it.

>>512496893
condensed out of quarks when shit cooled down enough?

>>512496750
“fine-tuning” isn’t the slam dunk you think.
1. You claim the odds are “astronomically low,” but we don’t have a valid probability measure over possible constants or any reason to treat them as independent. Without a prior, “1 in N” talk is meaningless (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Fine-Tuning”; Colyvan, Garfield & Priest 2005).
2. The life-permitting region isn’t a knife-edge once multiple parameters vary together; trade-offs widen the space that allows long-lived stars and chemistry (Barnes 2012, PASA 29:529). The “1 in 10^120” line about Λ is a naturalness ratio, not a probability (Carroll 2013).
3. “Design” has no predictive distribution for the constants, so P(data|Design) is undefined; by Bayes it doesn’t raise the likelihood of our exact values over non-design hypotheses (Draper 1989; Ikeda & Jefferys 2006).
4. The multiverse isn’t a bare ad hoc dodge. Eternal inflation and the string landscape generically yield domains with different low-energy constants; while unproven, they’re live research programs (Guth 2007; Susskind 2003). Anthropic reasoning in such a setting even predicted a small, nonzero cosmological constant near the galaxy-formation bound before the 1998 discovery (Weinberg 1987; Martel, Shapiro & Weinberg 1998).
5. Calling this “grounded in observable science” smuggles in the philosophy at the end: the observation is just “these constants allow life.” Whether the best explanation is design, deeper physics, or selection effects is a philosophical inference, and design doesn’t currently add testable content (SEP “Fine-Tuning”).

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

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

>>512496797
Wow what a retard

>>512496948
Gravity exists because mass distorts spacetime

>>512496271 (OP)
My argument is that you are still a Christian.

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

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

>>512497175
>My argument is a big strawman
Ftfy

>>512497022
How did quarks form then

>>512496463
magic jew god wished into existence ofcourse

>>512496797
Atheism doesn’t mean the same thing as agnosticism, dumbass.

>>512496304
the seed (and feed)

>>512497169
your mass distorts spacetime, yankee

>>512497169
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why
>but why
but why

>>512496563
Numbers don't exist the same way love doesn't exist, these are simply concepts not actual physical objects

>>512496750
I really dislike the fine tuning argument. It makes a large assumption that the "universal" constants are actually true properties of the universe when its likely they are instead just artifacts of the math we invented to approximately describe the universe.

>>512497011
I don’t know. But if you want to attribute it to another being, you then have to ask where that being came from.
>muh timeless immaterial God doesn’t need to obey causality
If he can effect the material world then he isn’t immaterial, and if you can get your head around him existing forever then the universe existing forever is equally valid

>>512496797
>Atheism is simply not believing in gods
atheism isn't "simply" anything, there's many different atheisms, like strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism, negative atheism, explicit atheism, implicit atheism, practical atheism, theoretical atheism, philosophical atheism, scientific atheism, militant atheism, humanistic atheism, nu-atheism, existential atheism, skeptical atheism, gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, marxist atheism, secular atheism, spiritual atheism, empirical atheism, nihilistic atheism, post-theistic atheism, cultural atheism, psychological atheism, methodological atheism, ethical atheism, political atheism, naturalistic atheism, dogmatic atheism, progressive atheism, critical atheism, quiet atheism, minimal atheism, maximal atheism, meta-atheism, etc

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

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

>>512497305
Kek

>>512496797
1. Whether or not you believe there is or isn't a God, Gods, or god(s) it doesn't change what is or isn't. Your belief in atheism is no different from the belief of a theist, just the other side of the coin.
2. Probably argument stands because agnosticism is the most scientific and rational position to take. You can however attempt to prepare for a post-death scenario as you believe is true. I personally believe we are some kind of simulation/reincarnation cycle we repeat to improve our souls. As to why, I have no idea beyond potentially exiting the cycle. This of course does not negate the possibility of God(s), or being tasked with system administration and maintenance.

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

>>512496271 (OP)
>The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago.

Where did this matter originally come from?

>>512497387
Probability* fucking phone

>>512496271 (OP)
Sure. Do you believe that we should change our laws that are mostly based upon christian morals?

>>512496271 (OP)
is the universe sentient and created itself?

>>512497278
i think as of now quarks are considered the first particles, but that they existed in a plasma state just after the big bang

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

>>512497405
Uranus

>>512496271 (OP)
Okay what would you like to talk about?

>>512496271 (OP)
What do you think of my take? Christianity is nonsense. Christians believe that a middle easterner from 2000 years ago will reappear one day, bring the dead back to life, and set up a utopian heaven-on-earth for a period of time. There might be problems with other religions, but they don't believe anything as retarded as that.

I think you should attack Christians for what they believe.

>>512496271 (OP)
Regardless of your existential beliefs, you will ride the journey of life. You will age, and die, like everyone else. Whatever thought pattern you adopt to carry you through this experience is really irrelevant, but ideally, it should make life more enjoyable. You however, as an atheist, are seeking attention on /pol/. Happy people don’t do that. This very post alone is enough to declare that atheism is a failed belief, insofar as you are concerned.

Best of luck

>>512497289
You’re half-right and still missing the point. Atheism ≠ agnosticism, but they’re orthogonal.
• Atheism: a stance about belief—not believing any gods exist (weak/“lack of belief”) or believing no gods exist (strong). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Atheism and Agnosticism”; Britannica “atheism”).
• Agnosticism: a stance about knowledge/justification—not claiming to know whether gods exist (Huxley coined it as an epistemic position, 1869; Britannica “agnosticism”).

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

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

>>512497169
thats what gravity does, but why does it do it? and why is it so weak compared to the other forces?

>>512496271 (OP)
>I am an atheist. Debate me. You will lose.
dont care, you thrive on attention.
one of the smartest people to ever walk the earth was john von neumann. because of the synagogue of satan people dont know history for shit - much of the modern world is possible based on the things that he did for computer science and mathematics. von neumann was humorous, smart, had a family and kids and was one of the greatest minds ever to walk the earth - gauss / tesla tier. von neumann knew more about the natural world and how it worked that stem graduates today despite all the tools von neumann helped create at your disposal.
john von neumann:
"there probably is a god. many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't."
since you arent a john von neumann, or even 1% as smart as him, i literally dont give a flying fuck what your hylics ass has to say

>>512496271 (OP)
Do you have 100% proof of anything?

nigga I don't give a fuck about facts

>>512497053
I don't get it, are you denying intelligent design?

>>512497619
Great questions..the same internet you used to ask that can also be used to answer that.

Good luck

>>512497691
the answer is: "we dont know why"

>>512497598
So you are an atheist by faith?