/atheism/ - Atheism

>>10064

You'd be surprised how many creation myths begin with God cumming all of existence into being.

Damn, the gods be crazy.

>>10034

Are there any more gods analog to the Abrahamic god?

>>14544

"Horus, what is this new salad dressing? It is delicious!"

>>13734

>quickmeme.com

>facebook.com/atheistmemebase

>www.atheistmemebase.com

Uhh…

>>13735

404 too.

>>14117

Arent they the same thing :^)

>>14111

>people are less religious now because truth defeats mythology and freedom is greater than ideological imprisonment.

Oh I wish bro. If that were the case religion would be ridiculed out of existence but instead we have enforced religious tolerance. Globally religion is still on the rise. And in the West people are as dogmatic about bullshit as ever like zealously defending other people's religion.

>>14118

boom

>>14119

Because they think they'll get virgins, a reward for being convinced to believe, nirvana, and all kinds of shit for doing as told. Many do it out of fear of a god doing bad things to them for not being convinced, many think they'll get positive stuff when they die, they don't always truly believe it and I don't think I've met a religious person who didn't doubt the bullshit.

Masturbation has traditionally led to hysteria in the west too. Doctors were pathetically gullible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#History_and_society

>>14547

It's obvious.

At some level most people belives this:

Your childhood = that's how the world is supposed to be and it always was.

Todays europeans don't give a fuck about the pagan faith. It's more foreign than Islam to them.

>>14551

>this man would do a hell of a lot for real Europeans than its current leaders.

I do agree with you but it might be better coming from someone who doesn't believe in ancient ayyliens and autistics being genetically superior.

>>14560

>Todays europeans don't give a fuck about the pagan faith

No shit, why are you posting here?

>>14561

Actually, I don't know a whole lot about him but he does make some good points the little I've read. I just used him to incite a bit more conversation.

>>14564

Yeah. I may agree with /pol/ on a few things but generally not to the extent to which they believe. To have disdain for others is fine and rational, to have hate is something which can easily turn on you and your own. It's all fun and games until we become the monster we fight.

>>7837

Here's a better question. Why does it matter if sometimes people have unusual experiences as long as these can be partially explained? At least some of the gravity and difficulties people have is due to lack of knowledge about how these feelings came to be.

>>7837

Here's a better question. Why does it matter if sometimes people have unusual experiences as long as these can be partially explained? At least some of the gravity and difficulties people have is due to lack of knowledge about how these feelings came to be.

fix 8chan Hotwheels

>>7933

>Would you be so kind as to show me this proof that God does not exist?

Can God remove his omnipotence? If he can't he is not omnipotent and if he can he isn't omnipotent either.

No one can know unknown-unknowns. There is always the possibility of this set and you can't know whats in it. Therefore omniscience is impossible.

God is omnipotent, witch means he could a wide variety of potentially evil things. Yet he is omnibenevolent, witch means he can't do all these things because that would mean he is potentially evil and thus no all good. If he is all good then he can't do evil but then he is no omnipotent.

God is supposedly divinely simple. Yet he has multiple distinct traits(omniscience, loving, jealous, etc ) but this should be impossible if he is perfectly simple. We also know that intelligence can only arise from complex systems. A single atom can't have thought so why should a single God substance should?

God also has access to unlimited knowledge yet has nothing to store that knowledge in.

God is also a timeless, space less, immaterial being. But this is non-sense what does it mean to exist but be non where, no when and not made of anything. In fact this what people usually mean when they say something doesn't exist. If I say Bigfoot doesn't exist what I am saying is that no where in the world was there at any point of clump of matter/energy witch matches the characteristics of the idea we call bigfoot.

There is the problem of evil witch has never had a good answer, but that only works if you believe in a good God. But a even better argument is the argument from disbelief witch destroys any Christian God.

>>7933

>Why shouldn't I believe in God?

because you don't have a convincing case.

>>14516

Science requires a few basic assumptions in order to work. For example, in order to make sense of the universe, we have to assume that we exist, that the laws of the universe remain consistent, etc. These assumptions are the foundations of human knowledge, and nobody will dispute that.

The difference between atheists and theists is that on top of these necessary assumptions, theists add the extra, unnecessary assumption that God exists. If we follow Occam's razor, we can discard the theistic hypothesis entirely on the basis of this unnecessary assumption.

Now fuck off, Sye Ten.

>can't 100% disprove it, therefore gods, angels, demons, serpents, men parting seas, miracle healing, virgin births, zombie magic men, women from ribs, etc is true.

>>14516

Not 100 percent sure doesn't mean 50/50 or 70/30 or 90/10.

You can't be sure there isn't a planet filled with nougat that doesn't mean it's likely or plausible.

>>14516

Actually I'm scared of taking this gamble, sure there might be something more but we have no evidence for it so I'm not willing to risk my existence over some promise.

>>14516

you don't seem to understand the difference between not believing something is true and believing something is false.

Here's an exercise for you, spot the difference:

"I do not believe I'm immortal"

"I believe I'm not immortal"

Good day

>>14527

You missed the mark - I don't believe it was divinely inspired in any form, and was hoping to treat the bible like literature and hunt for dramatic tropes in the bible. Tropes (which are literary cliches) when amassed are strong evidence that a story was constructed by uncreative/unsophisticated people, and is probably fiction. Once you can shown the writer had a less than stellar imagination, it would be easier to use guilt by association to make the case to a Theist that the message is equally cliche filled, short-sighted and limiting.

>>14528

Yes, I know what a trope is but it looked like a thinly veiled /christian/ spam thread. They have a habit of making hit and run threads, not bothering to stay here and stand up for their beliefs the minute you give them any hard questions.

I don't know if I would call them "tropes", but I took a class once where the professor broke down the basic composition of Biblical stories in the NT, with some features being somewhat exclusive and specific to the Levant (pointless genealogies) while other where the stock and trade or new religious movements (miracle stories, riddles, ascension into the sky, etc).

Is this what you meant?

>>14525

Dunno if it's a trope but the people who are chosen by God can act like assholes and still get what they want and their enemies get punished for just being in their way.

It's almost alwas bad.

>fake deepness with bible quotes

>jesus style self sacrifice

>praying actually works

>super unlikely event that implies :God helped them. Main character starts believing again

>the bible is the most important book for some reason

>bible name dropping to imply the story has more to it than it seems.

>>14256

Worst examples out of my head:

Signs

The book of Eli

Phenomenon

>>14365

Phenomenon was hillarious scientology propaganda, complete with a magical tumor that caused ESP, evil government scientists, and a persecution complex. Sad thing is I liked it and Signs when I was a Theist.

"Field of dreams"

Guy builds baseball field in his cornfield after hearing voice. "If you build it he will come."

He doesn't ask for an explanation, just builds it on faith. And who comes? The ghost of his dad for one last game of baseball, as if that made the expenditure worth it. Would have been hilariously realistic if the movie ended with him losing the farm from the loan he took to build it, and nothing supernatural whatsoever.

as someone whos major kink is hypnosis, it only works if you want it to, which is not to say it doesn't work, it just only works if you allow it to.

Its all just placebo. If youre a skeptic its kinda hard to use cause you have to turn off that part of your brain to get into it, but if you can it can be a trip (especially on drugs and or for masturbatory purposes). if you like it for the latter reason I can recommend cannabis or acid to enhance the experience.

>>14494

yeah, it only works if you can get immersed in it, kinda like a video game. took me three years to actually have an experience when I go "under", but the only reason I committed that long was cause it turned me on so… . I guess its kinda like a skill being able to trick yourself that much.

>>14487

seconded

>>14487

>>14502

Sure. It's not very interesting though.

>Christian all my life

>Decide I'm open to being wrong and constantly say this

>Go to seminary and start realising I don't love god as much as these people who cry when they hear the name Jesus

>Starting to worry so I look into my faith and study HARDCORE about belief, varying religions, Gnosticism, 'What if Lucifer was right?', 'What if…' etc etc

>Go on mission, realise most people there aren't there to just help the kids but earn 'god points'

>Keep going on mission trips to build houses etc, same shit. All the same. They just want god points. They don't actually care.

>Studying…Studying…

>Watch a lot of atheist videos and find they don't change my view

>Realize though a lot of the writers are write I just don't want them to be write

>Realize life is better when it doesn't matter

>Happiest I've ever been

I still go on mission quite a lot (currently in papas)

>>14504

typos galore.

Sorry hung over (extremely)

>>14464

Lamarck's retarded younger brother.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A13-19

The bible classifies bats as birds, not mammals.

>>14472

Then we classified them wrong.

>>14421

If I was Pope, I'd take the money and run… Sell off everything, close up shop, and live out the rest of my life on beach somewhere nice.

1. Encourage all christian nations to open borders (Finally!)

2. Give away all the money of the church to refugees and survivors of religious intollerance

3. Release a new bible that takes away mention of gender and bigotry (no racism, sexism etc)

4. be a bad ass pope and take out Frumpy Trump and the 1%

5. Condemn the western world as a failure and encourage the destruction of all borders

Imagine all the people, living in harmonyyy

>>14463

Since I thought of some more

6. Use Catholic Assassin's to take out Westboro

7. Officially endorse the burn

8. Watch as xtians panic as their bigotry burns while I blast vid related

>>14463

It's not enough to destroy the Catholic Church.. you have to take down all of Western Civilization with it?

>fedora

>can't crosslink

here's your reply

This board's not gay enough to care about shilling like /pol/. Also shit's not deleted here, you can say what you want unlike your "hugbox". Besides, atheism has nothing to do with politics. Go be offended somewhere else.

>>14481

>MUH SAFESPACE

>MUH /POL/

>>14404

It's great to see you have an ideology against ideologies and found a way to feel superior about it.

As Nietzsche would say, careful you don't become the monster you fight. Just give it up. There's plenty of people who may ideologies of kindness. They're no harm, there's no reason to be against them. No everyone who holds an ideology is bad and not every ideology is bad.

The same can be said with masculists, feminists, atheists, theists, etc. You're trying to paint a stripe with a brush wide as the world.

>>14404

>a non ideological person can have any opinion economically or socially, and can change or have any combination of these opinions without having them be supported on any central unchanging underling principle or having them rely on each other.

Sounds like a recipe for inconsistency & hypocrisy. What you're saying is "If I come up with my own system of beliefs and wrote a book on economics and political thought that I clung to, that's fine and not dogmatic. Yet, if I happen to subscribe tightly to the same beliefs held by someone else then I'm an "idealogue" and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I also think you've oversimplified Marxism.

>>14405

"It's great to see you have an ideology against ideologies and found a way to feel superior about it." nope, an ideology is a system of ideals and ideas. my one ideal against ideologys is not a system nor is it reliant on any other of my ideas so by definition you are wrong.

"As Nietzsche would say, careful you don't become the monster you fight. Just give it up. There's plenty of people who may ideologies of kindness. They're no harm, there's no reason to be against them. No everyone who holds an ideology is bad and not every ideology is bad." so apparently because there are good nazis who dont advocate for killing people and just want to talk about their nazism, I shouldn't dislike nazism. Now, because there are good Islamists that dont go and blow up buildings with their children, I shouldn't dislike Islamists. hey guys, Islam is a religion of peace you know? thats why they're constantly blowing themselves up and going holy crusades, but its kindness and peace so you shouldn't argue against Islam. and apparently because I argue against certain systems of belief and the idea of systems of belief in general I am now as automatically as bad as the thing as im arguing for no defined reason. wow solid arguments created by other people, really solid and not at all bankrupt and lacking in substance

you can sit there and quote people smarter than you all day rather than have an argument, but it doesn't make them or you right. you actually have to have substance to your arguments for them to be valid.

"The same can be said with masculists, feminists, atheists, theists, etc." Congratulations, you have turned ideology into a meaningless word. theism, and atheism by DEFINITION are not ideologys, they are singular stances on a singular subject. they are not reliant nor do they rely on any other belief a person holds. The only thing you know about a person when they say they are atheist is thier position on religion in general. You dont know what they think of spiritualism, you dont know anything about thier political leanings, you dont know jack shit about any other aspect of that person other than thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>14406

"Sounds like a recipe for inconsistency & hypocrisy" and believing in a system of principles/beliefs dogmatically so the rest of the system doesn't fall apart doesn't lead to hypocrisy? real intelligent argument there buddy.

"What you're saying is 'If I come up with my own system of beliefs and wrote a book on economics and political thought that I clung to, that's fine and not dogmatic." no, the definition of dogmatic is inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. So by clinging to a system of beliefs, regardless of if they are yours or someone elses is ideological. If each idea is reliant on another idea in the system, then you have created an ideology. an ideology is almost impossible to modify without the aid of the authority of said ideology.

for instance, unless the pope comes out and says that god is ok with gay people and adultery, arguing with a catholic about it is like arguing with a brick wall, because they must hold that belief or they are not being a good catholic. them being good in the eyes of god relies on them believing all the words of god. You can argue with a feminist all day about the faulty studies that support their wage gap theory, they will not budge regardless of how much evidence you provide or how good your arguments are, because they must believe that otherwise a huge talking point of feminism falls apart and they will not be a good feminist in the eyes of other feminists. This is the main reason im against ideology, because it promotes believing ideas regardless of if they are actually supported solely on the basis that they are required to support the rest of the system.

ideologues, should be taken very seriously and argued against on public forums whenever the opportunity presents itself. The only way to stop the spread of an ideology, is to point out how fucking stupid it is to the people not already indoctrinated.

"I also think you've oversimplified Marxism" I wasn't trying to explain Marxism, I was explaining a central tenant of Marxism that must be believed for the rest of thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.