/sci/ - Science & Math

No evidence of any kind = no god.
(inb4 hurr durr bible)
agnosticism = i'm scared of death, hope i get into heaven for being uncertain.

I heard that you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. Agnostics are unsure if there is a god, and atheists do not believe there is a god. If you think there is probably no god but you do not know for sure, them you are both.

>>3152301

Strictly Speaking

Theism-KNOWING There is a God
Atheism-KNOWING there ISN'T A GOD
Agnosticism-NOT KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT there is a good.

Terms cause generalization in the English language.

Technically, everyone is agnostic...because no one really "knows" (Old Man Hanging Paradox)

Belief is seperate from knowledge

I don't *know* there is no god, but based on the evidence (or lack thereof) provided, I have no reason to believe that there is one. If sufficient evidence came forth promoting the idea of a god, I would accept it.

agnosticism is not the middle ground between atheism and theism.

One can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

FTFY

>>3152301
>agnosticism = i'm scared of death, hope i get into heaven for being uncertain.
ehhh no. agnosticism = absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

You can be agnostic and either theist or atheist.

If I live on the other side of the world, never post here, and you never have evidence of me existing does that mean I don't exist?

And Agnostics aren't always like that. Apathetic Agnostics don't care one way or the other.

I mean to me, it seems like saying there is no god because there's no evidence is the same as saying there's a God because there's no evidence against it. I mean does either side have any logic here?

Apatheistic masterrace reporting in.

>>3152304
win.

>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/
>>>/b/

>When you want to feel superior to both sides of a debate, take the mushy middle ground

Works with any controversial issue.

>>3152311
>is the same as saying there's a God because there's no evidence against it.

You sir, are completely retarded.
Kindly gtfo.

"I know for sure there isn't a God, so I don't believe in god" = Gnostic atheist.
"I'm not sure whether or not there is a God, so I don't believe in God." = Agnostic atheist.
"I'm sure there is a God, so I believe in God." = Gnostic theist
"I'm not sure whether or not there is a God, but I believe in him anyway." = Agnostic theist

>>3152314
How is a random board better suited for religious debate rather than a science board?
faggot.

>>3152295
>become agnostic because you are tired of the christain vs atheism arguments and you want to distance yourself from that
>claim that you are superior

You just went full retard.
Never go full retard

Atheist to any god in particular, agnostic to any god at all.

You can -know- that the gods described by the various holy books, or in the various pantheons, do not exist. They are said to do certain things that they don't do, they are said to have done certain things that they did not do, and they are said to describe the world in a certain way, which it is not. So those who do believe in these gods are wrong. I don't feel like this is a strong statement, it is evident that these gods simply do not exist.

You can't -know- that no god at all exists, somewhere outside the universe, before the big bang, or even just without interference in our affairs. These gods can barely be described, never mind demonstrated or disproved. You don't know, I don't know, and nobody knows. If someone says they do know, they are wrong. And the most you can do with this kind of god is explain how they could exist, not ascribe any traits to them whatsoever.

Either a god is in the first category or the second.

>>3152322
>"I'm sure there is a God, so I believe in God"
lol'd.

>>3152328

>random topics about anything
>board specifically dedicated to science
>religion

One of these things are not like the other.

>>3152328
It's the correct board for this
Not science

>>3152295
>implying atheists claim to KNOW there's not a god
>also implying that gnosticism and theism are the same thing.

>>3152335
>You can't -know- that no god at all exists
Yes, you can.
If you new anything about physics, you would know too.

Someone post that image of "agonistics - reasonable up to a point"

>>3152305
Wrong.

atheist
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun

a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:

>http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist

Agnostics are atheists whether they like it or not.

>>3152335
what an excellent fashion of appearing intelligent whilst speaking as a fool

>>3152340
>implying atheists claim to KNOW there's not a god
The modern Atheists actually do KNOW there is no god.
Which makes them just as retarded as Theists.

If you believe in science you don't know anything 100% for sure.

>>3152349
That definition of atheism just proved you wrong.

>>3152344

We can't say anything about what exists outside our universe. This is where apologists place minimum god in order to establish, in principle, that a god COULD exist. There is nothing to suggest that such a being does exist, no positive evidence in any direction in fact.

It should not be controversial to just say, 'sure, a god COULD exist outside the universe', but it's an unknown variable with an unknown probability. And it does not change that any of the gods that are actually described by any religion are patently non-existent.

>>3152352

Which parts do you disagree with?

AGNOSTICISM IS NOT COMPARABLE TO ATHEISM OR THEISM GOD FUCKING DAMMIT

THIEST = BELIEF IN A GOD

ATHIEST = LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD

GNOSTIC = KNOWING

AGNOSTIC = UNKNOWING

GNOSTIC THEIST = I KNOW THERE IS A GOD THEREFORE I BELEIVE IN HIM (FULLRETARD)

GNOSTIC ATHEIST = I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD, SO I DONT BELIEVE IN HIM (FULL RETARD)

AGNOSTIC THEIST = I DONT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD, BUT I BELIEVE IN ONE

AGNOSTIC ATHEIST = I DONT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD, BUT I DONT BELIEVE THERE IS

YOU CANT JUST BE AGNOSTIC GOD FUCKING DAMMIT MAD

>>3152359
>doesn't realise not knowing = not believing
>can't reading comprehension
>is probably a creationtard

>>3152353
You realize that's a strawman and you're telling me what i know and don't know?

Theism - believing in a god or gods.
Atheism - not believing in a god or gods.
Gnosticism - knowing there is or knowing there is not a god or gods.
Agnosticism - not knowing there is or not knowing there is not a god or gods.

If i ask anyone "Do you believe in god" And they say anything other than 'yes,' including 'i don't know,' then they're an atheist.

If i ask them "does god exist" and they say "I don't know" then they're an agnostic.

I'm an Atheist because i don't believe in god, and i'm an agnostic because i don't claim to know for certain there's not a god (though i'm pretty damn sure).

>>3152379
>gnostic atheist
>full retard
Are you afraid of the christians or what?

>>3152362
Not only that, but there's no reason to believe the force that brought the universe into existence was even sentient. It could have been any number of multiple non sentient forces.

Also a sentient god presupposes the existence of logic, so if there was a sentient god, it's god would be logic itself.

>>3152379
>AGNOSTIC THEIST = I DONT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD, BUT I BELIEVE IN ONE

Um, what? How can you believe in a god if you don't even know if it exists? You can't. That's what agnostic = atheist.

Agnosticism is self-defeating. You don't make such an exception for other ridiculous ideas, why treat "god" differently?

>>3152379
>>3152379
>>3152379
THIS

Every person who says they are an atheist almost always means agnostic atheist. The only reason agnostics think atheists are full of themselves is because they're too stupid to realise that atheism doesn't have to mean gnostic atheism.

Also, almost all agnostics believe exactly the same as atheists (= agnostic atheists). They just don't understand language well enough so they think there's something wrong with the atheists.

>>3152379
What if I don't know if I believe there is a god or not? Would that make me an agnostic agnostic?

>>3152417
closed-minded child detected

>>3152417
>>3152417
the whole point of religion is that they don't KNOW if God is there, they don't need proof, they jsut beleive

>>3152426
You'd be an agnostic atheist. I'm pretty sure that if you had a belief in God, you would know it. Whereas you could be an atheist without ever having heard of the idea of God.

>>3152417
Sure you can. You are not sure if he exist but you pray and go to church in the hopes he would be real. You believe in him but don't know if he actually exists.

You can easily believe in stuff you are uncertain off.

>>3152295
The common atheist knows that there is no detectable god based on the evidence, and is militant agnostic about the rest of the gods - I don't know, and you don't know either.

This idea that atheists are certain that there are no gods of any kind is a strawman.

>>3152435
>agnostic atheist
Please stop that shit. That's not what the words mean.

>>3152447
Shut up, you pompous cunt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism#History

>>3152447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

all your faces when you realise that you are, in fact, athiests, agnostics??

It isn't as if you actually believe in a deity, now is it?

>>3152472
>>3152475
And I'm trying to fight back against this butchering of language. That's not what the terms originally meant. That's not what the terms mean by self identifiers of those terms. And your usage of the terms is nonsensical. Everyone is agnostic in the sense that they don't have certain knowledge. Everyone is willing to change their mind given sufficient evidence or sufficient argument.

So seriously, knock that shit off.

What if I can't decide whether I believe in a god or not because i don't know there is one?

>>3152312
>meaning is found in the world

How can you answer that as a no without lying to yourself? That's the stupidest claim in the history of claims, refutable with the simple question:

What is the meaning of meaning?
If the answer is: "I don't know.", then how could you answer the first question in the first place?
If the answer is anything else, then you know of at least the meaning of meaning.

I believe nihilism's answer to meaning is "Eh" or "Blwaaa" or "\0" instead of "No", otherwise every nihilist who ever lived is a stupid faggot.

>>3152493
>butchering of language
Language has always changed over the course of history. People like you disgust me.

>>3152476
>>3152476
>>3152476
>>3152476
>>3152476
>>3152476

This is what I was trying to say earlier. If you don't know if a god exists, then it's nonsense to say you believe that one exists. Having faith that something exists != believing that something actually exists.

What kind of retarded person tells themself that god may or may not exist, but they will believe in one anyway? It's impossible, you can't force yourself to just "believe" something, you have to internally accept it as true. And once you do that you are a theist.

Hence the term "agnostic theist" is just fucking retarded word games. There are NO people like this who exist. You would have to have brain damage to have this type of thinking.

>>3152493
What?

>Everyone is agnostic in the sense that they don't have certain knowledge. Everyone is willing to change their mind given sufficient evidence or sufficient argument.

This is just straigh up lie. There are many gnostic theists, and probably many gnostic atheists.
Have you ever talked to a creationists. He claims that he has spoken to god and knows that god exists. There is nothing you can do to change his mind. He goes as far as to claim that scientific theories are wrong beause god exists.

>>3152516
And that doesn't mean we should encourage slang and ignorance, which is precisely what this abuse is doing. It makes people think that there are lots of atheists out there who believe their position as a matter of dogma, and are immune to argument.

Basically every atheist out there would change his mind given sufficient evidence. The same for basically all theists. The idea of "perfect knowledge" or "absolute certainty" is a thing that does not exist in this world, and this is a demonstrable fact.

>>3152364
>You can -know- that the gods described by the various holy books, or in the various pantheons, do not exist.
Jesus exists.
>They are said to do certain things that they don't do, they are said to have done certain things that they did not do, and they are said to describe the world in a certain way, which it is not.
None of that is true as to Jesus.

>So those who do believe in these gods are wrong.
Those who believe in Jesus are right.

>I don't feel like this is a strong statement, it is evident that these gods simply do not exist.
Jesus exists.

>You can't -know- that no god at all exists, somewhere outside the universe, before the big bang, or even just without interference in our affairs. These gods can barely be described, never mind demonstrated or disproved. You don't know, I don't know, and nobody knows. If someone says they do know, they are wrong. And the most you can do with this kind of god is explain how they could exist, not ascribe any traits to them whatsoever.
Such a God could, would, and did reveal Himself.

>Either a god is in the first category or the second.
false dichotomy; false either-or; and neither of your conditions are mutually exclusive to God. a man can know that God exists, and another man can say in his heart that there is no God.

one is right, and one is wrong.

>>3152531
And if he was raptured up into heaven, and god says "Oh yeah, the Bible? It's shit."

Everyone is open to change their mind given sufficient evidence. Some are just more hardheaded than others.

>>3152498
Agnostic atheist (probably)

You can be theist only if you believe, otherwise you are atheist

You can be gnostic only if you are sure, otherwise you are agnostic

>>3152498
This is called ignorance. It's a perfectly fine state to be in. I'm ignorant about a lot of things.

>>3152493
>And I'm trying to fight back against this butchering of language.
Yeah, that's cute and all, but since you don't have any real arguments for your position, you might as well stop bothering.

>That's not what the terms originally meant.
Genetic fallacy. Try again. Or rather don't. I'm getting a bit sick of you throwing a pretentious, self-important fit over this shit in every damn thread.

>That's not what the terms mean by self identifiers of those terms.
It's precisely what the term as a whole means to self-identified agnostic atheists.

>Everyone is agnostic in the sense that they don't have certain knowledge.
No, some people do indeed claim to possess actual knowledge of god's (non)existence.

>So seriously, knock that shit off.
Blah. Language evolves. "Agnostic atheism" has become a common colloquialism whether you cry yourself to sleep over it or not.

>>3152493
what odd bedfellows we are; i'm trying to stop the butchering of the word "scientist" as it has been changed in the last few decades to mean a man who seeks only natural explanations for, well, life, the universe, and everything.
inb442

From Wikipedia:
>Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
Rejection of belief.

What is the official definition btw?

>>3152541
>Everyone is open to change their mind given sufficient evidence.
This doesn't even matter. What matters is their current state. If they claim to know something for sure then they are gnostics. It doesn't matter if their state can be changed

>>3152565
> >Everyone is agnostic in the sense that they don't have certain knowledge.
>No, some people do indeed claim to possess actual knowledge of god's (non)existence.
And demonstrably wrong. For example, if some guy was raptured into heaven, got to talking to god, and god displayed his might, the raptured dude could be convinced that the bible is just a collection of made up stories and he's actually some obscure Norse god. Everyone is open to change their minds given sufficient evidence, despite their claims to the contrary. (As an exception, maybe the actual clinically insane, but let's just ignore that corner case.)

>"Agnostic atheism" has become a common colloquialism whether you cry yourself to sleep over it or not.
Only on 4chan. No respected or influential person modernly ever uses that term, nor has it ever found widespread usage in the past.

>>3152567
In the same line:
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

>>3152536
I know how to troll you, per se.
You see, I don't have to do anything else, because this is enough per se.

>>3152567

Really. I hope atheists can finally present True Atheism (tm) and clear this all up. There seems to be many different ideas of waht atheism is even along atheists.

>>3152566
Science does currently mean the art and process of learning through methodological naturalism to make falsifiable predictions. It has not always meant this, and in other contexts it means just the art or knowledge of some thing.

>>3152574
Ok. I still reject your terms as confused, not in common use, and confusing. I am not beyond all doubt that Jesus is not the son of god, but I'm as sure of that as I am that I have a car in my parking lot, and that I have two hands. The word "agnostic" leads people to a very different kind of picture.

>>3152536

Which is also how atheism is blind. Many, many atheists claim they will only believe if and when there is "absolute knowledge" or "irrefutable evidence".

>>3152578
>Everyone is open to change their minds given sufficient evidence, despite their claims to the contrary.
Doesn't matter
What matters is what they claim

Also:
>And demonstrably wrong.
False, you have no evidence that my god the cfyshu doesn't speak to me. There is absolutely no evidence for or against that claim. You can't prove these things, that is why we have things like "I claim to know" and "Agnostic" and "Atheism" If there would be some good eidence we wouldn't be having these threads

>>3152567
>Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
>As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.
>Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

From Encyclopedia Britannica

It seems like it has two definition however, belief that there is no god or no belief at all.

>>3152587
>I hope atheists can finally present True Atheism (tm) and clear this all up
that's very simple. you just have to isolate one thing that all atheists have in common.
and that is: the lack of belief in gods.

>>3152604
> >And demonstrably wrong.
>False

You need better reading comprehension. I said that it's demonstrable that people will change any of their beliefs given sufficient evidence.

I swear, people in these threads don't even bother reading what other people write, and just act on auto-pilot.

>>3152603
Irrefutable evidence doesn't mean what you think it means. It means the same standard of evidence for any other scientific theory. No atheist demands perfect knowledge. Simple things like people being raptured, or the stars spelling out "I am here" would be a great start.

>>3152590
and by excluding supernatural and/or paranormal truth, how exactly is science serving us better today than it did fifty years ago?

>>3152578
>And demonstrably wrong.
I don't think you know what "demonstrably" means. If I tell you that I -know- God exists, because He came to me in a vision and told me so Himself, then try as you might, you won't be able to actually demonstrate this to be an unwarranted claim to knowledge. It's unfalsifiable.

>Everyone is open to change their minds given sufficient evidence, despite their claims to the contrary.
Huh? Gnosis doesn't imply an inability to change one's mind based on new, possibly contradictory evidence. Why are you even arguing semantics, if your understanding of the terms is so uselessly poor?

>Only on 4chan.
Speaking of "demonstrably wrong", you dumb motherfucker.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="agnostic+atheism"+-"4chan&quot
;

>>3152567
>What is the official definition btw?

There are actually 2 definitions in well known dictionaries like merriam-webster and oxford

1. no belief in god
2. belief that there is no god

Note these are 2 completely different things.

the epytomology of the word comes from the greek , literally "without god" , so it's open to interpretation either way.

I prefer definition 1

>>3152629
I think that you also need better reading comprehension, and need to back off of the autopilot and listen to what the other guy is actually saying.

See:
>>3152615

>>3152621
u like make fallacious argument?

u like think that miracles are proof of god?

>>3152598
Now we can agree.
These things are confusing as hell. That is one reason why i'm in this thread.

I can say that all this is because of faggotry.
When talking about god we start by meantioning if we are theists or atheists. Then the faggotry happens, some "agnostic" comes in, some creationist come in shouting things like "
Atheism-KNOWING there ISN'T A GOD", some hipster comes and notes "Btw I'm agnostic atheist so i'm better than you"
Things like that.

When we actually need terms like agnostic atheist or gnostic theist, is when the level of discussion needs it. As in, the discussion needs a separation between the agnostics and gnostics in some matter.

>>3152637
That doesn't have anything to do with my post. Nice dodge, though.

>>3152621
i lol'd at your description of the rapture as a simple event, when it's a one-off miracle involving the bodily disappearance of tens if not hundreds of millions of people in the twinkling of an eye.

that said, the rapture will still not "prove" God to you, because God Himself has said that He will cause the people on earth to believe in a delusion, and without His supernatural "seal", whatever form that may take, you would be prone to believe in the claims of the antichrist, and completely fail to "believe" in God following the rapture.

it is a dangerous, dangerous game to play chicken with the Almighty.

>>3152628
Science for its entire history, including when it was called natural philosophy, always focused on falsifiable predictions using natural explanations. If you can make a model with falsifiable predictions, then you're good. This is not a new thing of science.

Perhaps the explicit recognization that supernatural is out is new, but it's been implicit from the beginning.

>>3152648
Oh, wait, shit. My bad. I meant:
>You need better reading comprehension. I said that it's demonstrable that people will change any of their beliefs given sufficient evidence.
>I swear, people in these threads don't even bother reading what other people write, and just act on auto-pilot.

Okay, what the fuck are you arguing about, niggers?
Of course, agnostic atheism isn't the epistemic nihilism.

>>3152650
So, you're making the claim that I will either be mind controlled, or not be given sufficient evidence. I think that neither propositions contradict my assertion that I would believe in god's existence given sufficient evidence.

agnostic atheist = there's no way to know if god is real but i don't think he is
gnostic atheist = i know god is not real
agnostic theist = there is no way to know if god is real but i think he is
gnostic theist = i know god is real

>>3152621

A modern day, worldwide miracle may or may not end the discussion. A "rapture" or stars spelling out "don't panic" event *could* just be alien technology.

There is always room for doubt.

>>3152665
>implying that YOUR thoughts when subject to such a miracle will be the same as most OTHERS
>implying that anyone who doesn't react the same as you is CLINICALLY INSANE

bro
i think it's more appropriate to think that you're high as fuck if that happens to you rather than assume it is evidence for a god

>>3152652
i strongly disagree

i think that the scientist that believes that God created the universe in an orderly fashion is more apt to find said orderly fashion than one who states that something came from nothing, avoided heat death, somehow got more complex, and ended up with us.

standing on the word of God, you can see to infinity; standing on "natural" laws, you can only see how things are being run right now.

the giants of science; Newton, Kepler, etc., all had a profound belief in the orderly creation of God, and in their own way, attempted to discover how He made everything, and how He keeps everything spinning.

a desire to know an infinite God is a powerful motivator; the desire to describe the universe as though He did not and does not exist is folly and death.

>>3152666
Unfortunately those definitions are useless.

I know that (an interfering) god is not real based on the evidence, but I am not certain beyond all doubt. I have good reason. Does that make me an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist? I seem to fail both criteria.

That's one of the major reasons I object to such bullshit. It fails to adequately capture the position of most of the self identified atheists.

this isn't science
please take this pathetic earthling argument elsewhere

btw: does anyone else besides me laugh at other people for having such earthbound ideas?

>>3152650
holy crap you are retarded. your whole point is based on what it says in the bible. you need to get your head out of automatically treating everything in the bible as facts which you think you can use to argue against others

Atheism is not KNOWING there is not a God. It is the lack of the assertion that there is a God. If you do not say "there is a god" then you are an Atheist. Agnostic is not a belief option, it is a description of knowledge. The vast majority of Atheists are Agnostic Atheists, i.e. they won't say "I believe there is no God" they woulds ay "I don't believe in God."

>>3152678
If lots of people get raptured into heaven, especially when we take stock and they're all believers of some radical fringe group or a mainstream religion, I think the rest of us would take stock and figure something is up, especially when they don't show up for weeks.

Also, even if that is insufficient, I can still imagine sufficient evidence. I did specifically state that that would be "a good start".

>>3152665
quite the contrary; you have all the evidence you require now to believe that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from His grave on the third day, proving that He was God. you have the eyewitness accounts of His ministry, as well as the hundreds if not thousands of people who saw Him after He rose from the dead. you have the empiracal knowledge regarding how He and His followers changed the world, and how we still worship Him today by the millions.

the only further proof you will need is when you are summoned before Him on His great white throne, to bow your knee and confess that He is indeed Lord, as you are judged for your sins and are found guilty.

don't be the smartest person in Hell.

take the pardon that is being offered you today, because today is the day of salvation.

you can gather all the information about the world and the universe that you want, but if you die in your sins, you offend an eternal God; and an eternal offense requires an eternal punishment.

>>3152694
Atheism has two meanings depending on who you talk to. It means "lack of belief in god", and "active belief against the existence of god".

Almost all people who call themselves atheists use the "active belief against the existence of god" definition, so I'm going to stick with that one.

>>3152617
">No, some people do indeed claim to possess actual knowledge of god's (non)existence.
And demonstrably wrong."
Well this clearly implyes that their claim "I know" is wrong

Also in the same post i already adressed the poin you just repeated. So who is the one ont reading peoples posts.

>Doesn't matter if they change teir mind
>What matters is what they claim now

The thing that matters is what the person claims now, not the change in their opinion they might have.

As in:
"I known Jesus exists and is believe in him"
This person is Gnostic theist
Next Thor appears before him and does magic
Then he goes
"I know THOR exists and i believe in him"
Now he is once again gnostci theist, just towards a different group.

If person claims to know for sure -> Gnostic

>>3152715
Look. It was clear from context that I was arguing that everyone will change their mind on any position given sufficient evidence. Go reread it. If you want to argue about what I did or did not say, whatever. I don't care.

I dont believe in a christian god. Evidence contrary to the stories and definitions in the Bible disproves him.

I am atheist (deistic gods really don't matter)

/thread

>>3152725
~brofist~

>>3152681
You're the one arguing about using terms incorrectly ... but you just said you "know" without being certain.

lol

>>3152693
i find the truth always shines light in the darkness, and that you cannot fight darkness with more darkness

the bible is not a book; it's a library; it's history; it's the past, present, and future of the human race. it's the eyewitness accounts of men who followed Jesus Christ, saw Him killed, and then saw Him after He walked out of His grave three days later.

Put it this way: if you made the universe, you'd be God. He made the universe, so He's God.

again, it's a very dangerous game to play chicken with a holy God. quit believing the bible is a child's story book and read it for what it is, not what you've been told to ridicule it as.

it's excellent reading.

>>3152737
Yes, that's what the word "know" means in common usage. I know that the Earth is round, and that the Earth orbits the Sun. Given sufficient evidence, I would change my mind on both of those propositions. The word "know" does not mean beyond all doubt and argument.

>>3152743
You're an infidel.
The Quran is correct.

>>3152698
ah, but it won't. the same book that predicted the rapture predicted man's hardening of his heart to not turn towards God, but away from Him.

this story has already ended; we are just dancing at the end of time, waiting for the music to stop.

i heartily suggest you find an open seat before it does.

>>3152747
>common usage
so common usage is okay
as demonstrated by the google search,
"agnostic atheist" is fairly common usage
shut the fuck up

>>3152301

you like to assume a lot of shit. assumptions make a fool.

i'm agnostic and i'm scared of nothing. i dont live as a complete cock so if there was a god i dont think i would have much to worry about.

it has a lot more to do with not being arrogant enough to place 100% belief in a claim that has not been proven either way.

>>3152749
You're welcome to go back to your hick city where they apparently failed to teach you proper grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Go and learn a thing or two, and then maybe we might have an adult conversion.

>>3152747
it could be argued that the earth is not perfectly round, and therefore not round, and that it does not orbit the sun, but that both orbit another axis at different rates

you can get lost in semantics and never find the truth, or you can know the truth

>>3152302

thats called de facto atheism. read the god delusion. dawkins outlines a nice spectrum of non religiosity to religiosity

>>3152713
>Almost all people who call themselves atheists use the "active belief against the existence of god" definition

What the hell no they don't.

>>3152723
That is really cute from you but as i have stated many times:

>everyone will change their mind on any position given sufficient evidence

This has nothing to do with gnostics/agnostics divide.
If a person claims to have special knowledge about something and he is sure about it then he is gnostic.

If he changes his mind later it doesn't mean that he wasn't gnostic in the past.

>>3152760
I have no clue what point your trying to make, besides just being contrarian for the point of being contrarian.

>>3152748
odd how the satanic verses pointed out that it indeed is not true, and that "allah" apparently has some trouble predicting the future

which would be completely understandable when you realize that only God knows the future, and did so from the beginning; yes, even before the beginning

>>3152763
I'd be curious if you have any sources. Admittingly, I do not, just anecdotal.

>>3152756
i write this way to distinguish myself without being a tripfag, no offense

i also write this way to emphasize that it is God who is important, not i

and i challenge you today to answer this next question truthfully:

if Someone made Everything, wouldn't you want to meet Him?

Mfw the belief in god is the same if not more logical than the belief in that there isnt one.

>>3152754
That it comes up in google does not mean it's in common usage. I could pull shit out of my ass, and google would find hits.

>>3152765
the point is, the things you "know", you don't know, and you cannot "prove" to someone who will not hear your evidence.

it takes, as it were, a leap of faith

>>3152775
>if Someone made Everything, wouldn't you want to meet Him?
Sure, to kick him in the balls and tell him off.

>>3152784
>yfw
Just be happy you exist.

>>3152755

not the person you responded to but....

If God does exist you're fucked anyway cos you're going to hell.

So you might as well be atheist.

>>3152771
Implicit in mainstream atheism is 'agnostic atheism'. That is, atheistic in refuting the idea that some claim to have have found God while acknowledging gaps in present knowledge. People who do not acknowledge these gaps are not theists, atheists or agnostics. They're idiots.

>>3152778
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

>>3152708
>quite the contrary; you have all the evidence you require now to believe that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from His grave on the third day, proving that He was God. you have the eyewitness accounts of His ministry, as well as the hundreds if not thousands of people who saw Him after He rose from the dead. you have the empiracal knowledge regarding how He and His followers changed the world, and how we still worship Him today by the millions.

lol, you think that's evidence? A few hundred people from thousands of years ago said they saw something? Do you know how many people claim to have seen aliens or elvis still alive? The rest of your garbage reasoning is argumentum ad populum and argument from authority. Try again.

>>3152784
do you think that would be possible? that the Being who hung the Sun in space, and placed the earth on its foundations, would allow you to live in His presence in your current state?

why not try to kick the center of the Sun in the nuts? you'd have exactly the same chances and experience the same outcome

wag your fist at God all you want; He loves you and wants you to live with Him forever in His heaven, where you will get to experience Him first-hand, not through His creation, and not without knowing Him.

He's made all the arrangements; He's offered His only Son as payment for your personal sins; He's extended this time to include you in His grace

and all you have to do is confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved.

>>3152794
Got a point? I presume you're trying to imply something. It helps if you actually explicitly make one.

>>3152799
>He loves you and wants you to live with Him forever in His heaven

[Citation needed]

If there is a god in the observable universe, we can find that out through observations.

If there is no god in the observable universe, it does not matter whether or not a god exists. Nothing from outside the observable universe can influence us, so the whole "does god exist?" question would be irrelevant.

To all the religious people and atheists, where are the observations supporting your point of view?

>>3152797
it's overwhelming historical evidence; not one written scrap of paper to the contrary; the explosion of the Way into pagan society, eventually turning Rome christian; countless millions of people who lived during the time these events happened, and not one single solitary contradiction in the historical record

it's overwhelming. Jesus Christ walked out of His grave three days after He was killed. it's the only conclusion that fits the mountain of evidence that shapes our world even today.

>>3152793
Yes. Almost all people who self identify as atheist say they know there is no (interfering) god just like they know there's no tooth fairy. That is, an active denial of the existence of god. This is my distinction impression from everything I've seen, which is admittingly anecdotal.

And you're still using that meaningless term "agnostic atheist". Knock it off.

That feel when the universe is a vivid dream im having.

>>3152791
>>3152755

i mean, seriously i don't know why agnostics are so hostile to atheists. Both of us would be going to hell if god exists so it doesn't matter how accurate our beliefs or uncertainties are. Agnostics are just too cowardly and misinformed to make a decision. God can be disproved and deist gods... well they just don't matter whether you believe in them or not.

>>3152799

dude you have to be a troll. i live in NY so i might just not live near any of these religious assholes. but do you fucking REALLY... i mean... R E A L L Y believe in that horse shit you just spewed?

NEWSFLASH! This just in:

It seems that the burden of proof is on the claimant, and not the skeptic! Who knew, huh?!

Agnosticism = apologist intellectual cowardice. "He claims something with no proof. I have no evidence to DISprove him, so i'll just sit here on this fence with my chicken-shit friends."

>>3152803
appropriate definitions
"to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty"

"to be cognizant or aware of"

>>3152807
That fact that science is made of assumptions.
The existence of an observable universe is an assumption. We all generally assume it true but wheres the proof. There is none. Same thing as believing in god.

Ok let me break this down easy for you guys
you can't KNOW anything, no nothing, except for MAYBE the rules of mathematics. Does gravity exists? Do we live on the third planet from the sun? Probably, but it's also possible we all live in the matrix, so do I claim that I'm agnostic towards the idea that we all live in the matrix? No, because once the chance of something gets to a certain threshold of likeliness I'll simply use that to form my belief. That's how science works, none of the scientific theories are facts, they're just the best model we have to explain the data, that's all you can ever go on, the most likely explanation based on the observed data. So do I technically KNOW that god doesn't exist? No, but I can say that I'm 99% certain he doesn't, and for that I'll call myself an atheist because it would be hypocritical to claim I"m agnostic when there are other things which I'm only 99% sure of but incorporate into my belief system(like the existence of gravity). I've said this all before and I'm sure it's not going to make any fucking difference as we'll see this exact same thread another 10 times before the week is over but w/e, also sage because not science.

>>3152777
If you were never exposed to religion, god would not be the first conclusion you jump to,

>>3152812
I was just going by that chart that circulates. The bottom line is atheism doesn't need you to make compromises to take into account that which we do not yet know.

>>3152807
I am an atheist. I agree with what you wrote. I reject the existence of interfering gods based on the evidence, and I am militant agnostic about the non-interfering gods - I don't know, and you don't know either. This is the common atheist position.

>>3152812
No, you knock it off. You're trolling at this point if all you have his anecdotal bullshit.

>>3152817
It's worse than that. We do have evidence to disprove any of the popular religious claims. The agnostic claims we do not, contrary to the evidence.

>>3152805
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotton Son, that whosoever should believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>>3152830
Youre right. I would have jumped to solipsism first then god. My belief is philosophical because it makes more sense that way.

>>3152835
So no actual evidence then? As I thought. Have a nice day.

>>3152813

how is that cowardly? because as a scientist i like to see proof or some empirical form of evidence before i jump to an assumption. sorry that makes me cowardly and uninformed.

and second of all, you claim that if there is a god were both fucked. under what religion or notion can you even jump to that assumption? which religion would have the god story correct? which rules would he follow? if there was a god would he even care for us? is he a watchmaker rather than taking part in our lives? if there is a god does that mean that we instantly assume that there is a heaven and a hell?

you call me uninformed. think before you speak or make a decision.

>>3152833
>We do have evidence to disprove any of the popular religious claims.
Disprove heaven.

>>3152812

I know there is no interfering God. I am atheist. I am open to evidence being brought up to change my opinion, but I highly doubt any will ever surface because we've had thousands of years to get some evidence.

I don't know whether there is an uncaring creator of the universe. It doesn't matter. If proof comes up for it then I'm fine with it. If proof comes up against it I'm fine with it. Although there probably isn't one.

/thread

>>3152833
Okay, disprove all major religions with your evidence.

>>3152807

A total absence of verifiable evidence of god, meaning, there is no observations which have been shown to be the result of a divine intervention. This is enough to say that there is no indication that a god exists.

The evidence for god, and claims about god, made by those who claim to have witnessed evidence for god are almost all mutually exclusive. This is enough to say that, at the very least, virtually everyone who says they know something about god is wrong.

I am an atheist, in the sense that, these gods obviously do not exist. I am an agnostic, in the sense that, something I would call god could exist.

Nihilist master race.

>>3152799
>He loves you and wants you to live with Him forever in His heaven, where you will get to experience Him first-hand, not through His creation, and not without knowing Him.

Oh boy! You mean it's like a party that goes on forever and I can never leave?

>>3152807
>To all the religious people and atheists, where are the observations supporting your point of view?

The religious people don't have any, and the atheists don't need any because we're not making any claim.

Agnostics are atheists. If you don't believe in God than you are, by definition, an atheist.

>>3152854
>Untestable/unfalsifiable speculations

What is the point?

>>3152850

Would pointing out factual errors in the founding documents of these religions count? Or would a simple absence of evidence for the supernatural components be enough?

>>3152849
>I know there is no interfering God
I hate people like you who think their logic and reasoning capability are absolute and cant accept that theres are things far beyond are current understanding that occur. Main reason why atheism is bullshit for butthurt teenagers.

>>3152809
fuck. i have been trolled.

>>3152807
God led the hebrews out of Egypt as a column of fire by night and a column of cloud by day. He parted the Red Sea, and then collapsed it on the pursuing Egyptian army. tiny israel then went on a rampage and conquered the entire region, all in His name. Solomon became the richest man in the world with His blessing. Abraham spawned descendants like the sands of the ocean with His promises.

God appeared to Adam and Eve; He appeared to Moses; to Job; to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; to Jacob; to millions of hebrews through His shining glory (schekinah)(sp?); He sent prophets to warn His people to turn back to Him or suffer; finally, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, living a sinless life, killed for claiming He was God; raising from the dead three days later, as He foretold, proving that He was God; and ever since then, doing more things on heaven and earth than could be accounted for in a library the size of the earth.

the evidence is there; it is all around you. see it.

>>3152822

hell yeah scientist. exactly my point of view!

I'd change my view if some amazing evidence were to arise, but seriously everything we have disproves an interfering god.

>>3152815
i'm in LA, and i am betting my eternal soul on it

>>3152866
So you're 'proof' is that it's been written down, read and followed by many?

Oh wow, that means every myth and legend in the history of mankind is true.

>>3152866

dude, PLEASE /wrist.

watch this. all your "evidence" is shit.

http://documentaryheaven.com/the-god-who-wasn%E2%80%99t-there/

>>3152845
taking God at His word is wisdom; discounting Him is as foolish as the flea on the dog who says there is no dog.

don't be that flea

>>3152870
>>3152870

Things beyond our current understanding happen all the time.

Religious people say they do understand it, and it is god. But they provide no explanatory framework beyond 'we don't know but it's god'.

Would it be prudent for, say, Socrates, to take the word of a time-traveler on atomic physics? If this time-traveler was just the average man, he would know enough to explain atomic physics to a basic level, but it would be impossible for him to demonstrate to Socrates that he was correct. And so Socrates should put no more weight on his statements than to any superstition, despite the fact that the time-traveler IS right. This is the situation with religion. If they are right, they must show that they are right, they can't just assert it.

>>3152858
no, it is always "now" in heaven, as there are seasons, apparently, but no time; nothing is decaying, and nothing is dying. your temporal mind has a problem understanding that, naturally; you will have to be transformed into something that can survive the presence of God and live eternally with Him, or you will die the second death, and spend eternity with satan and his angels in a lake of fire.

does that really seem like a good risk to take?

>>3152820
That feel when this is true and atheist ignore the fact that their belief implies a falsifiability.

Most of the Atheists are stupid idiots who still claim that "life" is something worth protecting, even though there is no higher meaning like a holy soul or whatever like they claim.
But still it's better than believing into old books.

>>3152884

uhh socrates would disagree.

wisdom is admitting you know nothing. just the same as an agnostic atheist, or de facto atheist would agree.

its how science operates as well. admitting we know nothing until sufficient evidence is provided that can tell us what to put our trust into.

it is extremely FOOLISH to just make the brash assumption that some ancient book that has plenty of problems in it both historically and in regards to empirical evidence supporting claims is the ONLY thing in history that can be correct in regards to one question.

>>3152853
>>3152853

Well then you can call yourself atheist. I'm also agnostic to deistic non interfering gods. But religious gods which are defined by their religions and holy texts have been disproved by science.

Booya. Or are you saying you don't believe in the empirical data science has to offer?

>>3152874
if you knew the truth, you would know that God "intervenes" on an infinite scale constantly

the things you think are "natural" are still God

the things you think of as "supernatural" are still God

the "glue" that holds the universe together is God

when He lets go His hand, be on His right side, and dwell in glory forever, made righteous by the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ

>>3152897

If life is your only possession, with no soul to confound the moral equations, then life is very important.

http://documentaryheaven.com/the-god-who-wasn%E2%80%99t-there/

this documentary is GREAT!

>>3152902
There is no sufficient evidence. Just enough to make you believe.

>>3152870

No, it's people like you who ignore scientific evidence that completely disproves the religious claims to God. If there was an interfering God we'd definitely have evidence for it. End of story.

>>3152878
name another real man who really lived who really died and who was really raised from the dead.

i'll start that list for you; Lazarus, the centurion's servant, the dude that fell out of the window during a prayer meeting; the young girl with the sickness, and probably the apostle Paul, several times.

Jesus is not a myth; never was, never was meant to be, wouldn't be worth a pinch of salt if He was.

Jesus is real, and is alive today, and is coming soon for His people, who are called by His name.

Soon.

>>3152879
you can blaspheme the bible all you want, but what does it get you?

what's the upside of disregarding something you haven't even read, much less understood?

that matters?

>>3152909
>if you knew the truth, you would know that God "intervenes" on an infinite scale constantly

If that was the truth, there would be observations of those interventions. Where are they?

>>3152919
>If there was an interfering God we'd definitely have evidence for it
This is my point. Cant accept that you might not recognize the evidence if it slapped you in the face. Its pathetic in my opinion. Like a children arguing their understanding is perfect.

>>3152931
Being content with rationality and sound judgement and not being groomed by institutions, following simply because it's the norm.

>>3152918

And if god was evident, everyone would believe.

We know from the example of the angels that even if you're certain god exists, you can still exhibit free will and turn from him.

>>3152909

That goes against biblical stories. According to those god intervenes in amazingly noticeable ways.

And the rest of the stuff you wrote? Well I'm pantheist so that fits with my worldview...

>>3152945
>implying im christian.
Religion=/= god. its just an method to interpret it.

>>3152926
>Soon.
Lols. Reality called - they've been saying this for centuries and it hasn't happened yet. Go read your own book where it says no man shall know when it's coming.

>>3152937
We atheists prefer to make judgments based on the information we have. Consider how folly it would be for the reverse: If there were goblins, there would be observational phenomena, and as we lack those observations, thus no goblins. You would argue "Well, maybe those goblins are really crafty at avoiding detection".

>>3152904

you make ZERO sense in reference to the first comment.

the issue is NOT religious texts dumbfuck, those are not even considered as evidence in any realistic debate about god, and never mind science. the issue is more so with the fact that there is no empirical evidence ANYWHERE of there being a god, however that evidence itself isnt concrete in a way that can determine that there certainly is NO god.

so when assumption is made about ANY god, regardless of how he interacts with us or the universe, concerning his definite existence or non existence then you are blindly (because there is no concrete evidence) jumping to and supporting a claim. it is equally as illogical and UNSCIENTIFIC.


booya? okay cuba gooding jr. what is this 1997?

>>3152926
Prove Jesus or anyone rose from the dead, side from quoting something that a largely ignorant population wrote. Why hasn't their been claims of any one rising from the dead ever since?

>>3152958
and computer =/= electronics. yeah, that makes sense.

>>3152958

Ideally one would imagine that religion is a method for solving disputes over what the nature of god.

Is there a reason you are right about god and the Shintoists are not?

>>3152937

huh? Supernatural things happening on a constant basis, like people opening oceans and pillars of fire and bread and meat raining from the heavens, chariots of fire coming from heaven would be observed. We haven't ever seen anything like that. No evidence for those things ever happening either.

So I don't see where you're going. You're denying logic for pointless fence sitting. You're going to Hell because you don't follow any religion anyway, so you might as well believe the empirical evidence of science.

>>3152931
>>3152931

well you like to jump to assumptions dont you? did i forget to mention that i was forced to go to a catholic school and for 4 years was required to take a religion course. in school. where we disected both the old and new testament and took tests as if it were a history book?

>>3152959
>observational phenomena
People are incapable of observing anything. At best you can only perceive which is full of flaws in are logic pattern. Its only logical to make conclusions to what you perceive because its the only data you have to draw from but its childish to say that its law because the understanding is not there.
All im hearing you say is its impossible for this picture to be spinning counterclock wise because you cant see it.

>>3152983
>>3152983

forgot to add that... its all bullshit.

>>3152961

For most things, an absence of evidence is enough to discount it. And for things like god, we have a centuries long absence of evidence, during which millions of people were earnestly trying to get some.

So when people say they have good reason to believe, we simply ask what it is. And you trace it back to one place, someone had a divine revelation. And people take their word on it.

>>3152961

Are you retarded??? Religious texts give clear indications of these gods' traits and how they interact with the universe. Science disproves all these religions gods!!!!!

Deistic gods are uninterfering undefined gods that cannot be proven or disproven because of their lack of definition! That is why I'm agnostic to this form of god.

Or are you too thick to understand that? By being agnostic to the Abrahamic god for example would be ignoring evidence provided by science.

So FUCKING BOOYA YOU idiot.

>>3152295

Just watch a Richard Dawkins lecture. He says that all atheists are agnostic it's just to what degree he says on a scale of 1-10 he is 8-10 that there is no God. In other words stfu you have no idea what an atheist is.

>>3152984

What percentage of people do you think do have the right idea about god?

>>3152979
>nature of god
Are we debating what god is or its existence. You cant use the interpretation disputes to say something doesnt exist.

>>3153011
Everyone who believes in his existence.

>>3152999

youre right, for most things an absence of evidence is enough to discount it. but this is an issue that surpasses most things. most.. physical and measurable things.

there is no way in which we can concretely even say that we would be capable of measuring or experiencing "god" if there was one. we wouldnt know where to even potentially look to begin with. and since its such a vast concept you cant rely solely on the lack of evidence to immediately assume that is a causal factor for non existence.

now dont take this as me believing in god in ANY way. in actuality would consider myself a de facto atheist, or agnostic atheist. HOWEVER... we cant really jump to the quick assumption that there is no god because of the elusive metaphysical and seemingly unnatural nature of the concept. its a shiesty game the religious play, thats why as hard as anyone tries you'll never change their minds.

Summer summer summer time summer time.

dun dun sit back and unwind

>>3153007

nope, he claims to be a de facto atheist. which says that hes not a full blown atheist, he believes that it is highly unlikely that there is a god however because of the lack of evidence.

>>3153012

You can use it to demonstrate that there is no way, within the paradigm of assuming god does exist, to distinguish between those who really have a divine revelation and those who are just making it up or delusional. If we're arguing against god in general, 'atheists' are all agnostic. There could be a god. If we are arguing against a specific god, then it is up to the theists to show their sources, and show why they believe it and not in another source.

If nobody has any data on god, then the being moves into the area of being the deistic spacegod, and so everyone must remain a strict, and honest, agnosticism towards it.

nope

>>3153041
By your definition, there are no de facto atheists. It's a strawman.

>>3153022

So the Hindu's are just as right as the Mormons? What about when they disagree over what god wants, how do they resolve this? With Hindu teachings or Mormon?

>>3153042
>'atheists' are all agnostic.
Agnostic does not mean "anything besides absolutely certain". Agnostic means "lacking knowledge or belief". Stop abusing the words.

>>3153042
Theist debate their ideas amongst other theist. i dont claim mine is better than yours. I just believe it to be. Talking about interpretation of a book is worthless with someone who doesnt believe the book exist in the first place.

>>3153046

read up. this is directly from the god delusion. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial agnostic. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

>>3153056
Yes, and? Presumably you're trying to contradict me, but I don't see how.

>>3153050

That is what I meant, and what I said.

Atheists lack a knowledge or belief of god. We also believe that the gods as described by theists do not exist. I, at least, affirm this, and not as a statement of faith, but a statement of fact.

>>3153049
Interpretations differ. Just like interpretations differ within then the same religion. But we both know we are trying to interpret the same thing.

>>3153061
Then you are an outlier. Most atheists do have knowledge and belief about god. We know that interfering gods do not exist, just like goblins do not exist.

Agnostic would be a better term for your position.

>>3153054

I think it is a reasonable question. You say you know god exists, so I want to see what kind of evidence you have.

If you don't believe in the bible, then what is your source? If you think some of the bible is divine, then how do you tell which parts are and which parts aren't? If your source is, ultimately, personal revelation, as it would be if you do not hold someone else's revelation to be accurate, then how can you demonstrate that this is different from fiction?

These are valid questions.

>>3152984
Atheist status
[ ]Told
[ ]No Country for Told Men
[x]Lord of the Tellings: The Fellowship of the Told

>>3153077
My belief in god's existence is more philosophical. Religion is just how i choose to interpret his existence.

>>3153079
Please go away functional nihilist. We're trying to have an adult conversation here.

>>3153084
>yfw

>>3153066

I also said I know that an interfering god does not exist, or at least I thought I made it clear. We don't have knowledge or belief about the deistic, extra-universal, non-interfering god. We do have knowledge or belief about the theistic, interfering gods. They don't exist.

I say; atheist to any god in particular, agnostic to any god at all.


Besides, it's all semantics. Atheists, agnostics, and even deists, all hold positions that are far closer to one another than any is to the theist positions.

>>3153059

you claim that there are supposedly no de facto atheists by my definition.

so i as i said... read up. because you clearly have a gap in understanding somewhere

>>3153101
Oh, wait, shit. Yes. I meant to say "no full blown atheists". Total typo. My bad.

A family walks into a talent agency. It's a father, mother, son, daughter and dog. The father says to the talent agent, "We have a really amazing act. You should represent us."
The agent says, "Sorry, I don't represent family acts. They're a little too cute."
The mother says, "Sir, if you just see our act, we know you would want to represent us."
The agent says, "OK. OK. I'll take a look."
alright so our act goes something like this:

>>3153066
>Most atheists do have knowledge and belief about god. We know that interfering gods do not exist

I cannot speak for others, but for myself I can add something to the above.

To me, non-interfering gods do not matter.

Why, you ask? Because they do not interfere. Something that does not interfere with the universe at all might as well not exist.

That leaves only interfering gods as relevant. Of course, there is no evidence for those. I suppose evidence could be found one day, and that could convince me.

>>3153077
Theist dont argue my god is better than your god. Its all the same thing. Its my interpretation is superior to your interpretation. Neither claim theres is perfect so pointing out a flaw in it only means that they have room to grow which they already knew. Saying the interpretation is wrong doesnt disprove the existence of god.

>>3153098
Perhaps personally, but the important difference is whether we're willing to stand up to the theists and say "You are wrong". Atheists are willing to stand up to the theists and say that. Agnostics and deists are not, usually.

>>3153083

So you have a personal revelation, then? It is based on a feeling you get from observing the world, not on what any person has told you about god? Does it bother you that there are people who think god exists, but have incompatible idea's about his nature from you? How would you two settle the argument over what god was really like?

I would love to hear a real description of what you think about god.

>>3153111
>Theist dont argue my god is better than your god.

Where the hell do you live? Of course they do.

the family walk on stage, in the centre is something under a black drape. the drape is removed and a steel box is shown. the mother lays in front of it in labour position. a thumb makes its way out of the mothers ass. vainy and desperate for air pops out the grandmother and straight into the box she goes. the brother and sister stand on the edge whistling the theme to starwars, or rather moaning it. 50 midgits are attracted to the stage rushing straight to the box. they push the hardly ventelated coffin over still with the granmother in. they then start to cum inside the box, they do this so fast and intensly, vains pop and semen turns into blood drowning the grandmother. the midgits sperm volume causes the coffin to swell up and explode.

>>3153108

this makes sense. and you would be considered a de facto atheist.

>>3153111

Um... the reason I'm so interested in religious debate is because of fundamentalists that go out and preach to people that they are wrong and only their god is right.

Your statement is false.

>>3153111

dude you are WAYYYYY off the map. idk if im the first to inform you of this. but muslims... they think their god is superior to all other gods, they think hes perfect in his entirety, and they want to kill all others who dont believe so.

>>3153122

a confessions chair is set up on stage with the spotlight focusing on it. the dad then does the drum roll with spike headed dildos on his bald head as his father (the granddad) comes on the stage in an eggshell, dressed as a showgirl. he is placed on the confessions chair. he starts to sob and finger his ass. he then confesses to not being surcumsised. they all laugh and say "its ok, non of us have" including the little girl.

>>3153113

Oh yes, I certainly am. And deists at least are often willing to oppose the ideological components of religion, as well as argue the superstitious parts as well.

I self-describe as atheist, though only if asked directly, if I am asked what religion I am I just say 'none'; and if pressed I add the caveat of 'nobody knows what happens outside the universe'.

IT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED HUURRR

>>3153131
>>3153132
>>3153120
There are elitist in every society. If its not god then its something else. Its just who they are. Dont try to use them as a reason to dismiss the argument

>>3153149
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

There is no evidence for God being real. If he is real, he's real in such a way that it won't affect your life at all. It doesn't matter whether he's real or not. The only right answer here is not giving a fuck.

>>3153149

your argument holds ZERO validity though because of the claims you stake. you claim "Theist dont argue my god is better than your god. "

muslims = theists
muslims have radicals and there are potentially hundreds of millions of people who believe their god is superior and perfect etc etc etc.

therefore by claiming that theists DONT ARGUE about god... you are incorrect.

>>3153132
>ut muslims... they think their god is superior to all other gods
This is why i dont argue theology with atheist. Childish generalizations everywhere. You cherry pick the generalization you need at that. Its the weakest form of argument you could come up with.
From debates with other muslims, ive found that our interpretations describe the exact same thing amongst the majority religions. The course of action he takes is another thing.

>>3153161
The Earth is not 6000 years old. There was no global flood. Some claims of god, all of the popular ones, are demonstrably false.

>>3153173

/thread

>>3153139
he then screams in pleasure, "but my confession is that i want it" so the father rushes to grab his 3yr old daughter giving her the bluntest needle he could find, blind folds her and sends her stabbing. grandads balls get peirced, this gives him a stiffy, which raises his penis out of harms way, a yellow substance oozed as it was collected and drank by the mother. meanwhile the son and the dog where in 69 position eating eachother.
the father then removed his pants to reveal a 12 foot penis, the son starts to finger his mothers vagina sliding his fist up her, and grabbing the feotus. the father meanwhile catches his penis on a loose nail ripping it in half spraying blood all over the agent. the father grbs the foetus and jams it on his massacred penis. he starts to fuck his daughter with his feotus-cock. he then throws the family in the spike pit and has a shit on them. he feeds the dog a grenade and throws it in aswell.

>>3153167
Youre right. I generalized just as you did. But thats only because there argument doesnt hold worth in my eyes. But thats because its childish and i assumed we were trying to have an intellectual conversation and not discuss the flaws of the followers but the faith itself.

Gnostic Atheist here.

Why?
The law of thermodynamics.

The existence of any omnipotent deity shits all over the basic laws and constants that govern and shape the universe, which in turn makes all of reality a lie, and invalidates the existence of everything.

So, not only does any form of god not exist, it in fact is IMPOSSIBLE to exist in an ordered universe.

Arguments for God, mainly from cosmology and morality, are bullshit for reasons I don't need to go into (they've been covered extensively on /sci/ and no one here is a legitimate theist anyway).

The ontological argument only proves that god exists as an idea and nothing more - evident from the phrases: 'Physics is god-tier' and 'Oh my God!'.

The best argument I've found is from Abbott's Flatland. If God exists, it exists in a higher dimension to our own. Maybe the 4th, or 5th or 13th or ∞th. That's all well and good and can perhaps keep the devout theists content for the time being.

But even this argument is insufficient. For one thing the existence of higher dimensions is completely untestable (never mind placing a God within them whatever that maybe). Also, we don't live in any other dimensional world but 3. the universe is 3 dimensional so anything with further dimensions cannot, by definition, affect it. So even though, the agnostic might contend that it MAY be there - it might as well not be.

The best argument against God (of which there are thousands) is simply the scale of the universe - spatial and perhaps more importantly temporal scale. Why would a cognitive, intentional, conscious creator-God make something and then leave it be for some 14 billions years? And then why, out of all the places to exert influence, would it choose a largely illiterate desert community? I mean if God really is God then he could express his will by shouting down from the heavens towards everyone of his creations (or even speaking directly into their mind so no one gets lost).

Let's assume God, for whatever reason, did all this. Creating the universe initially and leaving it be until a few thousand years ago. Remember that as well as leaving a mix of inanimate elements and gases, planets as well as creatures alone, he also left thousands of human beings. Most of whom died considerably younger than any of us. None of them were even given a chance. Never knowing, never contemplating the God professed by the 3 major Abrahamic religions. God let them suffer and die just so he could tell some desert community what to do and then never have another single thing to say or do ever since.

The followers of religion AND believers in God do all these generations a great diservice. Whole generations of humans and species before them who suffered and died without God so that they could be here to teach us God loves us all. That takes a profound ignorance and arrogance and their argument that entry into heaven is retroactive is a pathetic attempt to dislodge their guilt and distract us all from they are really trying to say.

>>3153173
You cant prove it false. You can say its unlikely but you cant prove it false. Unless you can prove solipsist wrong. Then you can prove it false.

>>3153173

scientist you are awesome

>>3153167
Muslim here. You seem to be mistaking muslims for christians.
Were not the one who carried out the crusades.

>>3153197
Of course, because you can't prove something to be false if it has been constructed to be unfalsifiable/untestable. that means you can't even disprove God IN THEORY. There is no discernible method to go about doing that.

This is regarding God's existence. Of course when it comes to religion, its incredibly easy to prove them false as there are huge gaps in their logic.

>>3153173
You seem to be limiting the power of god which is why you believe you can prove it false. because you need to weaken the concept to disprove it.

>>3153170

Do Christians believe that you must accept Christ to go to heaven?

Do Muslims believe that you must follow the five pillars?

In a discussion between the two, why is it that the most essential parts of the religions are simply ignored? Muslims will go to hell if Christianity is correct, and vice-versa. So how can the correct one demonstrate this to the other?

No, they agree on what they themselves consider the incidental parts of the religion.

>>3153197

actually, you can prove god false still. in this universe, whether its real or not all evidence points to the world not being 6000 years old. It doesn't matter whether its all your imagination or not. The definition of god in this reality is completely disproved. If there is a god then it is a non-interfereing god (and this is supposing solipsism). I've thought about this a fuck lot during my solipsism/brain in a vat psychosis.

>>3153214

But you cannot deny what he said.

>>3153197
I'm going to continue to use the word "proof" as done in common usage. You're welcome to your mental masturbation concerning The Matrix and all other contrived examples.

Also, even if we were in The Matrix, that doesn't change anything. The Matrix world would still be the result of no global floods. That reality isn't what we make it out to be doesn't invalid inductive reasoning. Who cares if we're in The Matrix. We still want to avoid pain, seek pleasure, be good to our fellow man, and so on. And to do that we use science, which says that there was no global flood, and the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, The Matrix or no Matrix.

>>3153223
nope.You're just saying words with no thought for what they mean.

>>3153214

oh but youre the fuckin idiots blowing themselves up in cafes' and shopping malls. flying planes into buildings, and beheading people. also stoning women, denying them of rights and treating them like cattle.

maybe i'm mistaken.

christians are crazy as fuck... but theres none of that today in america.

also ass clown, the crusades were 2 sides fighting for the same thing, christian europe, and muslim middle east/asia

>>3153219
>you can't prove something to be false if it has been constructed to be unfalsifiable/untestable. that means you can't even disprove God IN THEORY.

If god cannot be disproven in theory, that would mean god's existence (or not) has no influence on the outcome of the experiments that are supposed to (dis)prove god's existance.

In other words, you are arguing that god is irrelevant. A curious position to take for a theist.

>>3153226
>Do Christians believe that you must accept Christ to go to heaven?
>Do Muslims believe that you must follow the five pillars?
In my debates with the two i have never come across anyone who believes those of other faiths are condemned to hell. I know they are there but talking about them is pointless just as talking about my actions is pointless. Disputing the followers does is not disputing the faith. What you are trying to dispute here.

>>3153243
I'm not a theist.

>>3153235

scientist, are you sure you aren't my twin brother? Seriously our points of view are exactly the same....

>>3153235
>which says that there was no global flood
Science does not say that. It says based on our current understanding and knowledge there was no global flood.
Mathematics is the only thing you can use to claim something false. You cant use science to prove anything. That definition is just general consensus. Not good enough to claim an absolute.

>>3153248

So Christians do not hold as their central tenet the acceptance of Christ? Seriously? And ditto with the pillars and Islam? They have their own sets of rules, and following one set disqualifies you from following the other.

You say that theists have no major disagreements. They do, every theistic faith is mutually incompatible. They can't all be true. How do you propose one would go about determining which one actually is true?

>>3153170
>our interpretations describe the exact same thing amongst the majority religions
can you say "confirmation bias" ?

>>3153263
It's just the basic position of the "new atheists", aka "the four horsemen" Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett.

>>3153248
bible has some nice examples of how you're supposed to deal with people of different religion.

>>3153272
A creator.

Last I checked atheism is also split into positive and negative atheists. Positive atheists have a belief that god(s) do not exist. Negative atheists do not have a belief. Negative atheists cannot be Gnostic. When people call themselves agnostic they mean agnostic negative atheists, unless they specify that they are theist or atheist. Atheists are generally understood as positive atheists.

Furthermore lack of evidence may not be enough, because God could be seen as an answer to questions. Therefore to disprove God you must prove an alternative.

>>3153286
>Therefore to disprove God you must prove an alternative.
No. That's not how science and rationality work. You can dismiss absurd ideas without proposing alternatives. Sometimes ignorance is the correct stance.

>>3153268
>You say that theists have no major disagreements
No i said we have no major disagreements in his existence. What he is, his actions and the what actions we should take accordingly, i have never claimed are the compatible.

>>3153294
Impressive feat of linguistic amaze. Allow me to parody your claim:

>All people who have a belief system in which there is a higher power all believe in the existence of a higher power.

So, what do I win?

>>3153267
>Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH status
[ ]Told
[ ]The Man with the Tolden Gun
[x]Cash4TOLD

>>3153267

yes, and if there was a global flood we would've found evidence for it ages ago. If our current evidence is ever proved wrong it definitely won't be because there's evidence for a global flood suddenly popping up. Geologists originally set out to find evidence for the bible and found things were to the contrary.

thus, the bible still remains false. god is disproved.

>>3153304
Nothing. Im pointing out that disputing the interpretations doesnt not dispute the existence of whats being interpreted. Argue religion to disprove god.

>>3153294

You agree that something exists, which you all call god, but you all disagree over what it is and what it wants from you.

So within the theistic community, there are people who are just as convinced they are right as everyone else, who are also convinced everyone else is wrong. And there is no way to tell the actually correct from the earnestly deluded, no way to settle this matter and no way to tell which god actually exists or what that god is actually like. So, even assuming there is a god, none of them know anything about it, or at least none of them know anything about it that they can show anyone else.

It is difficult for me to understand this kind of system.

>>3153319
>if there was a global flood we would've found evidence for it ages ago
You apparently have forgotten my previous post. Allow me to redirect you attention to >>3152984

And what you said is completely wrong by the way. Just yesterday we were finding evidence that the earth was the center of the universe until suddenly...

>264 posts and 17 image replies omitted
why

>>3153280
a tendency to personify animals and inanimate things is common in humans.
we invent conscious creators as an attempt to personify universe.

that tells you a lot about humans, but it's not an argument for existence of god. just because we would very much like to have a god, doesn't mean he/she/it really exists.

>>3152910
it is indeed then worthless

>>3153333
I see no reason to continue discussion with a functional nihilist. Please use a trip so that I may ignore anything further you say.

>>3153331
Someone posted this before so im going to use this model.
We are at a light. I see the light as green. You see it as red. Accident occurs. We are arguing over what color the light is but then someone comes along and says there is no light by arguing that the light couldve been green or red.
This is what atheist are doing when they try to use the interpretations of god to say it disprove his existence.

>>3153351

Except that the light can be empirically proven to be there.

>>3153347
I honestly dont see reason to discuss anything with someone who cant accept that their understanding is limited but i hope that by pointing out the flaws in your logic. But i might be overestimating you

>>3153351
>We are at a light
some people claim they see the light, some don't. you have no way to determine which of those are right.

>>3153173
the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. there was a global flood that annhiliated almost all of humanity about 4,500 years ago. a man claiming to be God, and the Son of God, and equal to God, rose from the dead about 2,000 years ago.

these things are true

the lies you have been fed are delusions keeping you from knowing the truth.

global flood leads to global silt leads to global mudslides leads to global packed layers of sediment leads to global layers of sedimentary rock leads to the obvious conclusion that there was a global flood.

digging to the bottom of a 4,500 year old mudslide and proclaiming that everything dug therein is 50,000,000 years old is foolishness and the result of faulty and circular reasoning done by godless men at the behest of the father of lies

>>3153351
No no. Atheists don't do that. My personal favorite arguments are:

Demonstrably, there is no good evidence of miracles. Moreover, there is good evidence that there are no miracles, except for the very small or ones which are crafted to be beyond detection by a capricious god. No miracles -> no interfering god.

All of the theists feel very strongly about their god, but it's all hopelessly inconsistent. Thus, most theists are simply wrong. Why are they wrong? We can examine how they came to these beliefs, and we find the meme theory of religion. This model does quite well at explaining all aspects of religion, and not just "most", but all, which gives good credence to the idea that all beliefs of a higher power are simply wrong and unfounded.