funny how athiests crow over that when in fact it's an agnostic statement

This sucks, I was living my life trying to intentionally piss God off. If there's no God, then I'm not going to stop worrying, I'm just going to stop having fun :(

>>2785967

Funny how BAWWWWW LEAVE MY GOD ALONE

NO I AM GONNA RAGE ABOUT IT AND IN DOING SO TOTALLY PROVE YOU RIGHT RRRUUGGGHHHHRRRRJESUS

But if there's no God, then who's going to protect me from the demons?

I'm Agnostic. Feels good man.

>>2785967

Most atheists are agnostic. Hence "agnostic atheism". Google the "spectrum of theistic probability".

The more you know.

The "probably" is courtesy of the British government.

I prefer to not ride on preachy buses though, no matter what they're preaching.

>>2785967
Well, they can't really put an ad up that says "There's No God". I wonder if they could get away with a "There's Most Certainly No God" ad.

>>2785986
NO JOHN YOU MUST FIGHT THE DEMONS

Alt version:
The existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified or disproven. Belief in God's presence or absence is a personal matter.

>>2785975
> funny how BAWWWW IMMA BUTTHURT ATHIEST BAWWW

fix'd for you, you silly tart

>>2785942

But I AM enjoying my life. If anything, it's you who needs to stop worrying.

>>2785994

Then why do they start arguments like "Agnostics are all big pussies, just pick a side already"

>>2786035

Bahahaha, awesome butthurt.

I mean you, not the quoted one.

>>2786031

But it can. Just, to a scientific standard, i.e. a probabilistic standard of disproof. Theists like to play bait and switch with the philosophical, i.e. absolutist standard of disproof, which can never be met with any amount/quality of evidence, even in principle.

Originally god had all sorts of testable properties that Christians thought were beyond the reach of science to disprove. Things like the genesis account of creationism, biblical cosmology and so on. As science advanced however it became able to disprove such claims and so Christians moved the goalposts, changing the definition of god so that it was once again beyond the reach of science, at least for a little longer.

When you have to change the definition of our god a bunch of times until it can no longer be disproven, it doesn't mean your god is impossible to disprove, it means he has been lots of times, you've just cheated in order to evade it.

>>2786087
more delicious samefag butthurt. you guys are just too easy <3.

>>2786070

Because every single strict agnostic is an overweight Linux-evangelizing neckbeard who voted Ron Paul.

In descending order of shitness.
1. People who don't believe in god, but are aware of the possibility.
2. People who believe in God, but not at the cost of their doubt.
3. People who say there is no God.
4. People who say God does everything.

>>2786098
Nothing is impossible until it is proved to be. To reject something without evidence is unscientific.

>>2786098
But isn't that also how Science works? And don't say it's not 'cause it is.

>>2786121

This man speaks with wisdom and truth

>>2786144

I never said god was impossible. My entire position is that the probability that god exists is very very small. That leaves a small possibility that there is one, but the only reason you'd choose that over the more probable scenario is wishful thinking and fear of death.

Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. All currently available evidence points to a purely natural universe with no gods. Hence, that is what I believe until new evidence suggests otherwise.

If there was no God I'd be worried, and most importantly, everyone else in the immediate area should be worried. I'm not worried because there IS a God.

>>2785968

you must hate your father huh?

>>2786121
postin in agreement of this little tidbit

>>2786170
many people who don't believe in god aren't worried, and many people who do are worried, theory destroyed better luck next time

>>2786170

No, there isn't. Don't be silly.

>>2786165
I believe there is a God, despite the unlikeliness of there being power beyond the physical.

>My entire position is that the probability that god exists is very very small.

We can get along fine.

>>2786121
Fine but how would you rate the following two people:
-People who are aesthetically offended by the concept of God.
-People who are aesthetically offended by the concept of no God.

>>2786184
I guess that is just them, I'm satisfied with life and happy I know that God exists.

>>2786204
Pretty low, but not bottom. Religious beliefs affect the believer or non-believer mainly, and I think it's pathetic that people would be offended by someone's private beliefs.

And yeah, I know there's noisy annoying Christians out there

>>2786165
OK, tell me by what means you come to give a distribution to the likeliness of there existing a God. The best you're going to be able to do is give me a probability that the existence of any unknown force is unnecessary to the modeling of the natural system. And science is many centuries from working with those efficiencies.

Doesn't matter to me if there is a god. If he does exist he obviously doesn't give a fuck so why should I?

I used to be worried about where my life was going.

Then I realized that there is definitely a higher power.

Now I am content with life, and I am using the energy that used to go towards worrying, into productivity.

God = happiness

>>2786218

But you don't know that god exists, because there isn't one. The Judeo-Christian god has a name you know, Yahweh/Elohim/Yehovah/Allah...No more real than Apollo, Osiris, Vishnu or any other deity. It's a primitive, backwards thing to believe in.

>>2786227
You misunderstood my question. I meant only with regards to personal beliefs, not anything to do with tolerance of other peoples' beliefs. The way Einstein was aesthetically offended by the idea that the universe had a beginning.

>>2786237

...Except that no, there isn't a god.

This is the best religious discussion /r9k/ has ever had!
I think we're growing up.

Some points (a sort of summary):
*The existence of a God is not impossible, but it is without evidence.
*Hostility towards belief or non belief is immature and fuels division and ignorance.
*We still have a very basic understanding of our universe, though it is advancing quickly. Even in the 20th century, ideas that were once impossible are now pivotal.

>>2786228

Actually no, you're limiting yourself to considering sciences like biology, astronomy and so forth. What about anthropology, and the study of how and why gods are invented and the common telltale themes in all religions? What of cognitive neurobiology and evidence that we're inclined to be superstitious because of evolved properties of our temporal lobes and perceptive faculties?

There are lots of angles to come at this from, and this book is a great start: >>2786098

>>2786257

ORLY? YADONSAY

>>2786247
This isn't relevant. A valid criticism would be that you cannot "know" God exists, only believe that he does.

>>2786256
Oh right, sorry.

Those people would be around the middle I think.

>>2786277
None of those things effect the possibility of their being a God. All they say is that the fact that we believe in God is not adequate proof or evidence of the existence of God.

>>2786287
>>2786237
''Some of you say religion makes people happy. So does laughing gas. So does whiskey...''

Clarence Darrow

OK kids, time to prove that God HAS to exist:

Everything in this universe moves. I think we can all agree on that statement, everything has motion and energy. But, where did all this energy come from? Whether it was the big bang, or some other phenomena, SOMETHING must have started all of this commotion in this world, correct? Whatever that SOMETHING is, that is what we call God.

So whether you're a sciencefag or not, God HAS to exist.

lrn2thomasaquinas

I love people that know some history, and know a few names, and have spent a year on /r9k/ and are now confident that there is no God, simply because their life has not turned out the way they wanted.

>>2786320
Laughing Gas and Whiskey are excellent.

Laughing Gas was an important medical advancement. Even the idea of laughing gas should make people happy.

>>2786322
I guess lrn2infiniteregress

>>2786247
There are very few things we know that are absolute, and it has been stated here that you cannot DISPROVE God exists. So, I choose to believe he does.

I'm a Christian, /r9k/, but you wouldn't really mind me because I want to say we're not all as strict as those kinds that run around in your face, and I'm sorry about them, as I know you are likewise bothered by the atheists that run around treating Dawkins like their own god and yelling at religious types. They're making everyone look bad, both sides have extremists.

I'm really laid back, and notice nowhere in the Bible where it forbids many things that are assumed wrong and bad by a lot of people for some reason. I don't really participate in these religion threads because I know arguing, internet, Special Olympics etc and this never achieves anything for everyone to rage all the time, I'm not a big fan of rage anymore, I gave up on that a while ago.

There isn't really a point being said here that I can remember, I'm installing the game for the thread at >>2786044 and will be stepping off to play that shortly. So just ah, we're not all angry people or going to start shit storming arguments because it's stupid, no need to worry over it.

>>2786329
Choosing not to believe in god is not something people should be critical about. (Goes both ways)

>>2786322
Can you prove this? No. I'm an agnostic not atheist, but what you have there my friend is faith not proof.

>>2786322
All Acquinas managed to do is repeat what Aristotle said only 'probing' the possibility that he was wrong by saying that it's impossible.

>>2786322
>>2786322
0/10

For a better argument see Pascal's Wager or read St. Augustine's work, Aquino was a n00b

why am i the only one rating this troll?

>>2786320
K, and Christians drink whisky and.. actually no one does laughing gas as a drug really... I'm >>2786350 and just to point out, I've done/will do e and am trying to find some weed, that sure isn't in the bible as a sin.

>>2786322
that's not proof of god you dolt it's proof of a first cause WHICH COULD BE A FUCKING PARTICLE FOR ALL WE KNOW. DON'T JUMP CONCLUSIONS FROM -SOMETHING CAN'T COME FRON NOTHING TTO -THEREFORE AN INVISIBLE INTANGIBLE BEING DID IT

>>2786322
I think most religions define god as a little more than just 'whatever caused the universe to exist'

Note also that the universe doesn't have to have had a beginning, our brains just haven't evolved with the ability to comprehend infinity

>>2786369

"Better argument"? "Pascal's Wager"?

Seriously?

Nothing can be known, existence is meaningless. The only thing we can do is make assumptions based on our 5 senses.

Why do we have these threads again?

>>2786350
burden of proof lies on the person making the positive assertion.

Most of the christians I know have been really chill dudes, even if we disagreed on religion, so I don't want to bash you.

Just saying that the atheist has no logical necessity to disprove the existence of God, but the theist has one to prove its existence.

>>2786035
>>2785975
>>2785967
funny how just shut the fuck up, both of you

>>2786385

You can't make this argument on the internet, using a computer, without instantly invalidating yourself.

>>2786329
funny thing it's the poor ignorant people, whose God has failed them, the ones that keep believing in it, your argument is invalid

>>2786374
Actually, by his argument, that particle would be god, which is not the definition of god according to any
Religion I know of

OK, lets wind up this thread. OP, will you be so kind as to delete this thread if it turns into the same argument we've seen here many times?

There may be a God.

A person may choose to believe in a God, or choose not to believe. This choice is entirely personal.

Tolerance, open-mindedness and doubt are qualities of a mature mind. Other people's private beliefs are not your concern, as long as those beliefs remain private.

>>2786369
Pascal's Wager is even more bogus than Aquinas, and that's saying a lot.

Considering the sheer number of gods that have come and gone there's nothing that makes your specific god more likely than Zeus.

In fact it's even less sensible when you factor in the fact that you're commanded to live by pretty strict rules of conduct to get into heaven, but what if the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Norse Pagans were right? You get fucked, bro, and you've sacrificed all your life just to go to whatever hell there is because you didn't believe in the right god.

>>2786357

Can you disprove it? What I'm saying is that there was something that started the universe and life as we know it. I don't know if that thing is sentient or not, but whatever the fuck it is, that's God.

"Proving" things is pointless, I could ask you to prove that there isn't a God, and you really couldn't give me a perfect answer, so don't be asking it. There really aren't any facts in this subject matter, because we don't know; there's just philosophy.

>>2786422
We're not talking about religions, we're talking about belief in God

>>2786386
Burden of proof lies on ANY assertions, not just ones that don't have the word "no" in it. You'd be able to do a lot of very wrong mathematical things, if you accepted negativity as a valid reason of use.

>>2786409

LOL

God has done a lot for me in the past couple of years. Dad got a raise, got accepted into a good college, make a bunch of close friends, got a damn good job. Now I'm in school and making stellar grades and I have internships and job offers from high-ranking engineering institutions.

Life is good :)

>>2786383
easily disproved but less simplistic than Aquino's view, i never said it was a good argument

>>2786430
I have no need to prove a negative. A negative is the truth until proven otherwise (not necessarily conclusively).

That's how it works, homebro. When I make the existential assertion that there's an Invisible Pink Unicorn you are correct in not believing it until I've put forward sufficient proof.

>>2786449
A negative is just a contrapositive positive. I'm hereby giving you a 1 topic radius restraining order from logic. You are not able to post within one topic of any topic that uses logic.

There probably is a god. There probably is an afterlife.

The mindfuckingly astronomical odds that the lives you and I are living are purely the result of cosmic chance and that our consciousness will be simply snuffed out like a candle when we die are just as good as there being a place where our essence goes in death, and there being a creator there to greet us.

>>2786441
and you assumed i was talking about you because...

you just proved you are full of yourself, vanity is the worst of capital vices

>>2786436
You say there is a god, and I say "prove it" and I won't believe it until you do.

That is the position of anyone who isn't a militant atheist.

Evidence points to the existence of a god being unlikely, however, I accept that it's entirely possible but I won't believe it until the evidence weighs in its favor.

Why would I not worry if God doesn't exist? You think it's hard to not sin or something?

>>2786472
And I won't believe that there's no God until the evidence weighs in its favor. I'm not holding out for the scales to tilt either way in my lifetime. (In my death, on the other hand...)

>>2786466

The universe being created by something has nothing to do with whether or not there is an afterlife, brotagnon.

>>2786490
That's actually pretty sobering. What if there is a god who created the universe and looks after it, but looks at us as nothing more than a set of chemical reactions that will terminate in the blink of his cosmic eye?

I believe there isn't a god. I don't have to justify it to you or anyone else. No, I don't know how the universe was created, but the Big Bang sounds like a good idea. I'm not an existentialist or a physicist or any kind of scientist, so I don't know exactly how we came to be, or why.

>>2786404
How can you know I'm on the computer, or using the internet? What if my earlier post was never actually posted, it was just your defunct brain deceiving your senses? Can you prove it wasn't?

>>2786461
Brotip: Contrapositives require an If-Then statement.

God exists is a single propositional phrase, it can't be operated on like that.

>>2786485
>Evidence weighs in its favor
YEAH BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROVE SOMETHING'S NONEXISTENCE.
PROVE THERE ARE NO ELVES AND WE'LL TALK.

>>2786485
Then I guess there's an impasse there. :D

>>2786513
You're assuming that there was nothing before the Universe. Actually, let me make that more clear and to the point: you assume that there was time before the universe. If you accept that time, or in other words change, only exist within the universe, you would understand how your reasoning is not valid.

NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN

/THREAD

>>2786549
Well, if you doubt that you can prove that something doesn't exist, what makes you think that you can prove that it does? I'm talking simple logic here. God isn't an object, so you don't have to worry about him possibly being a single thing inside an infinite array of things which you can individually prove exist as soon as you see them, God exists external to the system. If you think there's more obligation to prove that he does exist than that he doesn't exist, then you're simply being illogical.

>>2786322

Actually, you know, there *is* a scientific explanation for what catalyzed the big bang. You're just apparently not very well versed in the relevant science.

What you've done here is to assume that if *you* don't know the scientific explanation, neither does science, and that we must all therefore fall back on the religious explanation which of course isn't really an explanation so much as a bare assertion since it has no supporting evidence.

Do you see what an ignorant, silly thing you've done? Aren't you ashamed?

>>2786540
When you add the concept of evidence to the equation, then you got yourself an If->Then.

>>2786567
sorry

but that won't keep mankind from trying

>>2786564
I'm not even talking about proving the existence of God, I'm saying that even if you assume God exists, then that doesn't mean atheists aren't right about death.

>>2786517
>>2786517
>>2786517
>>2786517
Mind has been boggled.....
Commencing suicide...3....2.....1....>>2786517

>>2786013
i think they probably could

the christfags get away with stating unprovable claims on similar ads

'god loves you', 'jesus died for your sins'

>>2786573

What I'm saying is: whatever was the original source of everything in the universe is God. Maybe God was that singularity.

What are they telling us to "enjoy"? It can only be theft, rape and murder.

How come godfags accept "god made himself" or "god has always existed"? Maybe this energy was just always there and our universe is just a stage in an everlasting cycle.

>>2786587
Not really, homebro.

Like I said, I just want proof. Prove it and I'll be happy to believe in it.

But until then I won't believe it.

This is what the negative is.

Certainly, I could say that you're wrong, but I don't know that you're wrong. I just don't have any proof that you're right. I'm justified in my absence of belief.

I'm not saying that God doesn't exist.

>>2786567
>>2786517
Thank you kind sirs
Will everyone else in this thread please look at these posts, and then stop posting retarded shit.

Wow, I really like discussion as it pertains to the existence of a god; however, everyone here is a gigantic faggot. I'm gonna go fap to that incest thread now. I hope that all of you atheists burn in hell, and all of you theists' gods don't exist.

>>2786604
life and death are misguiding concepts, there's just existence and non-existence, when you die the biological processes that sustain conscience cease, resulting in the lose of sentience, that's it, further speculation is metaphysical bs

>>2786567
>>2786517
>>2786612
>>2786679
i'm amassed at the amount of samefaggotry ITT

inb4 more samefag

>>2786664
::checks up the lists of quotes::
Nope, you're not >>2786386, so I got no beef with you saying that even though I find the wording in >>2786449 a little iffy. So long as you aren't holding others to a higher standard than yourself, then I got no problem with any kind of belief; least of all the lack of belief.

hey atheistfags. Its on a bus it must be true.

>>2786689
This is the problem with most arguments in favor of atheism, that everything is grounded solely in what humans perceive and understand.

We are one type of organism in a nearly infinite universe, why does everything out there have to conform to what we already know or have seen? The possibilities are endless, so saying "there is no god" as a concrete statement makes you as closed-minded and pretentious as any christfag extremist.

>>2786689
Life and death aren't all that grand. They're simply relations of existence/non-existence with regards to time. Death is the act of going from existence to non-existence and life is the act of existing when you at one point in the past didn't exist. They're not misguided concepts, they are just concepts from the perspective of the existing object.

>>2786745

You argue that we are limited by our perception, by human contrivances. But God is a human contrivance too, not something beyond our understanding. How could he be when we created him?

>>2786640
i like to call things by their name, energy and matter are nothing more than that, if you use broad and unclear definitions for undefined concepts such as god you are taking debate nowhere

>>2786681
i lol'd

>>2786466
Yeah, everything appears to be orderly, and since we don't know the answers to every question yet, the best thing we can come up with is: Magic man done it!

>>2786517

You still lose, though, because you are. Science works, solipsism is just for contrarian 14 year old faggots.

>>2786769
I'm saying a being like god could exist, not that we created him or vice-versa. An afterlife could exist as well, I'm not saying it does, just that it could.

Saying this or that doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, simply because it doesn't interact with us in a manner we notice or understand, is pretentious.

>>2786745
reality is nothing, (human) perception is everything

your needs for transcendence are not my concern, keep dreaming until death wakes you up

>>2786803

Asserting that it does is ridiculous though. If god's immaterial and there can be no evidence for god then how did we come to know about him? What origin is left, other than human fabrication?

>>2786792
I think you mean circular logic is for 14 year old faggots.
Also, solipsism implies knowledge of ones own mind and existence, which is not what I was getting across. Nothing can be known, period. Prove me otherwise and we'll continue the discussion.

I hope some sandnigger sues this thing for hate speech when it comes to Toronto, that way leftards will finally realize what bullshit speech laws are (or maybe they'll sympathize with them who knows).

>>2786855
Not "does", "could".

>>2786772

I think you're still seeing "God" as an old guy in a white robe with an awesome beard and supercool lightning fingers. The whole argument I'm making is that maybe God isn't some dude sitting on the clouds, but is simply something beyond our understanding, something that created everything in existence. God is the thing that science says created all matter, the big bang, and all that stuff. God may just be energy and matter, but we just don't know. And that's why I think we can argue about this forever, because there are truly no facts, science doesn't know where everything came from, and religion doesn't know that God really exists. Interesting thread though, I like seeing more intellectual topics in /r9k/.

>>2786860
skeptics are fags

contextualist out.

Also, these are my posts.
>>2786860
>>2786517
I firmly reject that I posted
>>2786679 or >>2786612

>>2786756
that's is from an individual perspective, when you die your body decomposes but the matter that composes it does not cease existing (first law of thermodynamics)

life and death are just two different stages of matter at a given time (defined from a third perspective)

>>There's probabIy no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

>>112 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>2786681
Calm and happy Christian from earlier in the thread.

link to the incest thread plz.

>>2786878
>God is the thing that science says created all matter, the big bang, and all that stuff.
Science does not affirm the big bang was created. The concept of cause is inapplicable to the universe, because, by definition, there's nothing outside of it that can act as a cause

> God may just be energy and matter, but we just don't know
Again, i like to call things by their name, i think energy and matter are better names for those two concepts than calling them god

>science doesn't know where everything came from, and religion doesn't know that God really exists.
It's because we are not born knowing that science exists, luckily for us scientific progress is not bound by your willingness to remain ignorant. And, again, you are assuming something had to came into existence

Religion, on the other hand, affirms not only that god exists, but that it has a name and we should praise him in a specific manner.

I think your concepts of atheism, science, religion and god are, at best, clouded by the fear of finding yourself along in a godless universe, and at worst, mixed up by your sheer stupidity

The greatest trick God ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist.

>>2787325
if only witty phrases could sustain an argument this debate would have been over millenniums ago

Well, if my homebrew turns out awesome, and I feel grateful that everything exists and that alcohol is possible, who do I thank if there is no God?

When I play music and it feels awesome to be alive, and be who I am, and enjoy playing music, who do I thank if there is no God?

When good things happen in my life, due to a combination of my own hard work, and everything else falling into place, who do I thank if there is no God?

When my infant son dies from a complication that no one could have foreseen or prevented, who do I curse if there is no God?

When a natural disaster wipes out hundreds of thousands of people for no apparent reason, who do I curse if there is no God?

Now, speaking literally of how the universe operates, there is no cosmic rule-breaking invisible sky magician. But in cases like above, I find that sometimes, you just want to say "Thank God", or "God damn it". Because that is the best way to express the sentiment.

See, Dawkins has taken the first steps towards making Atheism a religion. Which somewhat nullifies the very idea.

>>2789925

this is easily the stupidest statement yet.
good work sir

>>2787713

You forgot one.

>When I read posts like this full of faggotry how can I scream OH MY FUCKING GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT if there is no god?

>>2787713
That's more a habit of language than a direct need for god. "Oh god" can often be replaced by something like "oh fuck" or "oh shit" or "oh yeah" or "woooooh" or "fuck yes" or etc etc etc.

mankind will never know whether there is a god or not. not at least in our lifetime. atheism is still a belief.

inb4:"OMG thats like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby!"

>>2787713
it all really depends on how much ritual you need to feel comfortable with life. if you want to believe in something which statisticaly is extremely improbable than knock yourself out....

>Well, if my homebrew turns out awesome, and I feel grateful that everything exists and that alcohol is possible, who do I thank if there is no God?
thank yourself. because you made it

>When I play music and it feels awesome to be alive, and be who I am, and enjoy playing music, who do I thank if there is no God?
thank the musician who composed it

>When good things happen in my life, due to a combination of my own hard work, and everything else falling into place, who do I thank if there is no God?
thank yourself for working hard

>When my infant son dies from a complication that no one could have foreseen or prevented, who do I curse if there is no God?
curse yourself for being in the statistical minority, or the fact you don't live in Denmark (lowest cot death per head)

>>2789950
Exactly! Way to read the post, sir!

Suggests that believing in a god stops people from enjoying life. Entirely retarded advert.

>>2789984
yep, but it's one backed up with evidence

>>2789981
meh, I hate it when atheists avoid saying 'oh god' or something like that. If he doesn't exist, then why are you so worried about saying 'god' in vain?

>>2790007
There's no evidence with regards to the existence of God. Just hunches and fundamentalist faith.

>>2790002
if you had to live life according to the rule of law dictated by a person in the sky who doesn't exist, you wouldn't enjoy life either

There's probably a God. Now stop worring and enjoy your life.

>>2790002

devotion to something that doesn't exist is a bit of a waste of time dont you think?

I think thats the point he's trying to get across.

>>2790024
I do. It's pretty swell, brah. Entire statement stinks of superciliousness.

>>2790018
read again, atheisim is a belief, but it's the one that according to the current evidence is most likely

>There's probably no God.

But you cannot prove that there is no god. Atheists love to spout stupid shit like this but cannot prove it. You cannot prove nor disprove that there is no god.

>>2790035
only 'superciliousness' in the eyes of a believer, to a rational person i would imagine it's fine

>>2790032
Mootblox
>devotion to something that doesn't exist
>devotion to something that probably doesn't exist

Here's your problem. And religious figures suggesting it promotes debate are idiots. The entire statement's worded to throw out debate in favor of the ranting of Richard Dawkins.

>>2790048
Superciliousness again.

Why must all outspoken atheists be holier-than-thou?

>>2790044
thats why we say there's *probably* no god.
can't absolutely disprove it, but it's highly unlikely that god exists

there's probably no unicorns either, but no one seems to dispute that

>>2790066

Read it fast and didn't see the "probably" but still.

>>2790064
No one is being holier-than-thou. The irony of calling an atheist holier-than-thou can't be lost on you, can it?

>>2790081
you read, quoted, and then replied without seeing the *probably* bit?

>>2790066
i love how 99 percent of the athiests compare god with unicorns. no one believes in unicorns nowadays you moron.

>>2790097
Nice try, but still a bit too obvious. Better luck next time, troll.

>>2790097
the unicorn argument is para-phrased from dawkins.

Religious types say you can't disprove that god exists, the implication being that god must exist. But the fact that the same logic can be applied to unicorns, fairys and other mystical beings just highlights this leap of faith.

oh hey guys, a relevant link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

>>2790118
the existence of unicorns or fairies has no effect on any circumstance. no one cares about it.

whether someone believes in leprechauns, magical flying spaghetti, thats a personal belief.

>>2790136

yes, it's a personal belief that is likely to be untrue, just like the belief of god. whats your point?

>>2790136
the existence of god has no effect on any circumstance. no one cares about it.

whether someone believes in leprechauns, magical flying spaghetti, thats a personal belief.

OP's pic is in bus ads in Spain. I bet it is some viral market from a big company.

Just wait anon, just wait.

>>2790136
Those who believe in unicorns or leprechauns might spend their whole life searching for one. Would you tell them there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or do you let them continue with their delusion, knowing that all the time they spend will be wasted?

>>2790176
the ad campaign in london sponsored by an atheist group, i imagine it's the same in Spain

>>2790144
>likely to be untrue, just like the belief of god.
well, thats your opinion.its not a fact.learn to be open-minded.

>>2790186
it's just an opinion based on hundreds of years of scientific research and the advancement of humanity.
I am being open-minded; god may exist, just like unicorns and fairys may exist.

i really like the advert, i think it gets the message across fairly clearly

The comparison of a transcendant being that cannot be empirically proven to a physical being is retarded.

An invisible unicorn, however...

>>2790442
the comparison is made because the proof for both is a book of (likely fictional) text.

>>2790064
Go to bed, boy.

Enjoy your lack of moral high ground and complete hypocrisy for trying to push your ideals on others, atheists.

That is all.

inb4 justifications, only moronic Dawkins fanbois and extremists will try and justify this paid-for point-blank attempt to convert people.

>>2790496
>lack of moral high-ground

As soon as I turned atheist, I killed my mother, ate her flesh and made a tent out of her bones and skin.

>complete hypocrisy for trying to push your ideals on others, atheists.

Yes, it is complete hypocrisy. One of the great qualities of atheism is that we push everything on you. We don't tell you why, we just push everything on religious people. Religious people are the most persecuted, after all.

We atheist love to perpetrate violence and anarchy and we also like to SHOVE our beliefs down people's throats.

Little Known Fact: The adverts had to be changed from "There's No God" to "There's Probably No God" because the Advertisting Standards Authority could not be shown definitive proof that God does not exist, and as such forced the ruling to be changed so that it wouldn't come under the illegal practice of false advertising.

Which, atheist though I am, I find hilarious.

>>2790496
What does religion have to do with morals? Religion has been adapting itself to the morals of society for a while now. People pick the passages of the bible they want to follow and ignore the rest. How the fuck does religion provide a moral high ground, you idiot?

>>2790471
Except that much of the New Testament is historical, brosef. Whereas books about unicorns were made for the purpose of being fiction.

>>2790478
Maybe you wouldn't be so angry if you wern't so hung up about hating people who don't share your beliefs. Boy.

DICK DICK DICK DICK DICK DICKS DICKS DICKS DICKS

DICKS!

You've all lost, go home.

>>2790528
The New Testament is as historical as The Lord of The Rings, except LTR contradicts itself less and it's much better written. Well, to be honest that giant eagle saving Frodo part was bullshit since fucking Gandalf could've just sent Frodo on its back. But yeah, still makes more sense than the New Testament.

I hate it when Christians complain about atheists forcing their belief on them. Making gay marriage illegal is forcing your beliefs, criticising religion (or atheism, for that matter) is philosophical debate. If you're really that sensitive, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet anyway.

>>2790528
You think I'm angry because I'm hung up on the fact that not everyone is an atheist?

You might want to reconsider that and not make vague assumptions, especially if that assumption is trying to trump me and my beliefs.

>>2790540
>Well, to be honest that giant eagle saving Frodo part was bullshit since fucking Gandalf could've just sent Frodo on its back.

Maybe the eagles could only fly in after Mordor's defences had been neutralised? There were those big flappy black things around, after all.

>>2790544

>If you're really that sensitive, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet anyway

Yeah, using the Internet to express your irritation with people? Communicating your views, ON THE INTERNET? USING THE ONE PLACE ON EARTH WHERE YOU'RE FREE TO SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY SAY WHAT YOU WANT? Ridiculous.

>>2790554
hurr durr

I wasn't saying you were wrong to express your feelings, I was saying you were wrong to be offended by mere debate.

The point of believing in God is not having to worry.

>>2790574

Yeah I know, I was just being a dick for no reason. Although you shot yourself in the foot by starting with "I hate it when Christians complain...".

>>2790540
Maybe you should analyse the Bible. It'd be a good start if you intend to criticise it.

>>2790550
Premuteblock
>You might want to reconsider that and not make vague assumptions
>>2790478
>boy

Lol.

>>2790623
I have. I went to a Catholic middle school and shit. I had exams on the bible and of course I read the whole damn thing. Reading the bible is one of the things that made me an atheist. It really makes no sense and it contradicts itself all the damn time.

>>2790636
Being forced to learn it in school is not Biblical anlysis.

>>2785989
Agnosticism is the only religion I do not tolerate.

Either there is a god or there isn't, you can't sit on the fence and wait till death arrives just so you can go to heaven.

>>2790703
I BELIEVE IN A DEITY SO I CAN GO TO HEAVEN.

you idiot.

>>2790671
We analyzed the bible and so did I by myself. Have you ever read the whole bible to begin with?

>>2790703
Agnosticism: The only thing in this thread that ISN'T a religion.

>>2790749
You need faith for a religion. There is no faith in atheism. Atheism is not a religion.

>>2790754
You have faith that there is nothing beyond what you currently know.

>>2790754
Atheism is a religion, agnosticism is not.

>>2790749
agnosticism is faith in uncertainty, it's probably more of a religion than anything in this thread

Atheism is not a religion, anti-theism is really close to being a religion, many of those who call themselves atheists, are actually anti-theists.
When you start converting people and preaching on how your ideology is better than the others you are actually doing some of the worst things religion is nowadays guilty of. That is why I am a proud atheist and despise Stephen Hawkins.

>>2790754
yes there is most definitely faith in atheism. maybe you mean agnosticism or maybe u r low qual troll

Even Dawkins is not totally atheist. I've forgotten his scale in the book but I think it's out of 8 and he ranks himself as a 7, as you cannot possibly know there's no god for sure, but it's not very likely.

When the atheists say that there is no god, they are not talking about your vague, metaphysical concept that is constantly being redefined.

They are talking about the intelligent, actor god who plays a role in this universe, which definitely does not exist.

You use the same word to describe your "idea", but you're really talking about something completely, entirely different. You should probably come up with a new word for it now, though.

Apatheism ftw.

>>2790796
there is "faith" in everything if by "faith" you mean the same thing as "thinking that something is true". all "faiths" are not created equal, however.

look
words

>>2790879
lack of evidence + certainty = faith

athesim may be a faith, but it's a faith based on overwhelming evidence that god (in any form) does not exist. Dawkins is agnostic, but recognises the fact that the actual chances of there being a god is similar to the chances that unicorns and pixies are real.

>>2791193
People thought the giant squid and the coelacanth were mythical too

>>2791200
Of course, unicorns and pixies are at least somewhat tangible entities, so they have a much higher chance of existing than a non-physical non-detectable as-close-as-you-can-get-to-not-existing-as-is-possible existence.

>>2791200
mythical until proven otherwise. God is yet to be proven because it's likely God does not exist.

>>2791228

So God is a cryptid?

To wikipedia!

>>2791257
lol, from the cryptid wiki article:
"Evidence for the existence of cryptids is typically limited to ***anecdotal*** evidence or other forms of evidence insufficient to withstand normal scientific scrutiny by the general zoological community."

doesnt matter how close you think you are to the truth, you have no proof. there are many improbable truths. as the shirt says "probably" obviously the copywriter knows this. anybody thinking that this constitutes proof needs to lrn2science or lrn2logic.

>>2791281
i love how not being able to *absolutely* disprove god somehow infers that god exists. that is a leap of logic, the statement on the t-shirt is true.

>>2791295
no it doesnt. it just doesnt prove god doesnt exist. like i said, lrn2logic.

>>2791301
i believe that god probably does not exist. Because of the overwhelming evidence suggesting that god does not exist.
Where is the leap of logic either in the original statement or what i just said?

well you are using the word probably. so there is none.

>>2791336
exactly, and i have done since the start of this stupid topic. and it's also what the t-shirt says... so what is your problem with it?

>>2791347
no problem, whats yours?

So what if there is no God? life still sucks

>>2791374
your hideous double negative in an earlier posting