/atheism/ - Atheism

>Altruism contradics Evolution. It must be a gift of God. Therefor God exists.

>>12079

When you give them a list of insane bible stories and morally questionable things from the bible,, they say you're cherry picking.

They're the ones with the bowl of rotten fruit, why get made at me for picking out the ones with worms in them.

And you don't believe in god you must lead an empty life.. as if I need a god to make friends, have family, or find fulfilling work.

>>12084

The funny thing is altruism even evolves from pure egotism. Take prisoners dilemma several times. Eventually both parties realize it's in their best interest to shut up.

>>12102

egoism*

>>12079

The best shit argument are parabolic stories.

Like the the 2 unborn babies arguing about the existence of a "mother".

Here is a story where x is true. So that's why in reality y must be true.

>can't explain it

>must be gods

>>12105

Objective morality is the last thing you'll find in Bible..

It contains laws for stoning adulators, murdering unbelievers, and killing people for picking up twigs on a Sunday..

All things a modern Christian would condemn but say were okay under the "old covenant".

God changes his mind apparently.

The bible drips with the moral relativism they condemn.. new covenant.. new rules..

Confront them with this whenever possible.

>>12079

"You're thinking of it in human terms."

How is it possible to think in any other way?

>>12079

>unmoved mover or prime mover

>Nothing moves without being moved by something. But there has to be a beginning. That's why god has to exist because he is the exception from that rule.

>do you really wanna risk eternal damnation?

>>12211

Good old Pascal's Wager.

Christians don't realize that it's also likely there is a god that sends good christians to hell. The chances aren't better than ours.

>>12130

The biggest problem with "objective morality" is ironically, its meaningless. It just a pair of words. Why should I care if God calls something objectively good or not. If God declared it was moral to beat the crap out of random kids than I would claim it would be better to be immoral than moral if thats what it means to be moral. Now if God sends people to hell for disobeying his commands thats another story but I follow any command because that have the arbitrary label of "moral" on it.

My least favorite is Kalaam, because it's phrased in such a way that refuting it properly is like untying the Gordian knot.

>>12232

Use a sword.

>>12079

I feel like answering them

>do you really think this all came by complete accident?

>if you are an atheist that means you claim to KNOW my claims are false

Strawman. By not believing your claims are true I am simply acknowledging your lack of evidence, not claiming to know that the contrary is true.

>either created by god or accident

false dichotomy

>>12084

>implying actual selfless volitive behaviour exists

>implying acting without considering your own vision of good and benefit is different from acting randomly. Moreover, implying pure altruism isn't outright immoral

>>12105

>>Objective morality requires God

if moral values are contingent upon god's will then by definition they are not objective.

if god commanded us to murder, like he does on the bible several times, would that make murder moral?

>>12217 this

>>12125

this. most apologetics arguments are guilty of a fallacy from ignorance, including the cosmological ones and the arguments from design like OP's.

>>12210

>That's why god has to exist because he is the exception from that rule.

>>12137

>How is it possible to think in any other way?

exactly

>>12211

>>12216

not to mention that even if the Christian god were the right one, if he punishes atheists for being honest about the lack of justifications that would lead to acknowledging the validity of Christianity one could also expect that he is so wicked and unethical that he might as well send some or all good Christians to hell; or on the other hand if he is real and moral then he will send atheists to heaven for their honesty and everyone else goes to hell.

And this is assuming I would actually like to go to fucking celestial North Korea.

>>12232

Lame Craig is a twat. The Kalaam version of the cosmological argument is superfluous and bug-ridden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1c_GlAjvy4

>>12242

What? I can't trust my brain so I have to trust god? Why can't he just be a mistake of my brain? My brain tries to make sense of everything but some things are just random. So my brain creates an artificial purpose for those things and I call it god.

>>12242

>how can i trust my own thinking to be true

>therefore god

protip: you shouldn't trust your thinking, that much you are right

>>12242

The brain is basically an organ to protect an organism by managing sensory input and the body itself. Sometimes it's wrong in how it senses, as is the case with schizophrenics and others with sensory illusions. "God" or "gods" are basically, imo, what we come up with to justify a deeply rooted intuition on things like morality, how to treat each other and best go about this world. The brain should never be seen as infallible and I think that's one of the problems with the line of thought by CS Lewis. He seems to be using his brain to argue for theism just as he accuses atheists. I have no issue with theists other than the assuredness to which some argue and theists probably feel the same about some atheists.

He basically tries to use logic to say you can't use logic to believe in gods. When actually, when I was a christian, it was always 'this makes sense' line of reasoning for believing. I don't know anyone who would believe purple rocks created us because it's frankly retarded. All religions use some line of logic to lead people into believing them and their gods. If a religion or god doesn't seem logical, that's the first warning sign to me that it's a false god, not that I've known any "true" gods. But there is some kernel, some BIOS, in us that makes us feel assuredness in our moral code that at times I'd think was from a god but to me, it's just that, a primal system that need not have anything to do with supernatural entities.

There are infinite universes. If in only one of them god exists then he must exist in every universe because he isn't limited by dimensions.

"why are the Muslims taking over?" A fundamental problem here is that you are not understanding what Islam is. You are taking the statements and actions of a few thousand Middle Eastern mujahideen as representative of all of Islam.

This is about as accurate as thinking that a congregation of Kentucky snake handlers represents all of Christianity.

There are a billion plus Moslems from every ethnic group living on every continent on earth. The notion that the members of this vast global community are "at war" with us is a western fantasy. The doctrines of the handful of isolated fanatics who dream of a New Caliphate because of intolerable conditions unique to their Middle Eastern homelands mean nothing to the hundreds of millions of Moslems who don't live there. There is no commonality based on religion any more than the local religious customs and festivals of Malaysian or Australian Christians preoccupy Christians in the United States. There is no central Vatican-like Islamic authority, radical or otherwise, imposing its dictates on the global community.

None of them has ever sent invincible mighty armies onto our lands to take our natural resources or mock our traditions or seduce our children into the lifestyle of callous greed. You might raise your political consciousness by learning about how twentieth century western imperialism turned the world upside down for those who live in the world's oil producing regions.

Lest you misunderstand, I am a secular humanist atheist. I despise Islam as much as I despise the Judaism and Christianity that are this bastard superstition's disgusting parents. I despise the arrogant stupidity of nationalist patriotism just as fervently, which is frustrating as hell when you live in the United States. I'd like to dream of a day when humanity finally grows up enough to face life on life's terms without the delusion of the supernatural, but I accept that our brains come with a wiring defect in them that ensures that this happy day will never come.

>>12278

Hindus have many gods and did less crimes than atheists. Check mate.

>>12277

>humanist

I'll hold my tongue for now, because you seem sincere, but let me say this much.

Coming from a guy who grew up in a pretty chill muslim family, it's this kind of thinking that allows radicalism to fester. Now, you're right in that we need to judge people on an individual level and the crimes of one person of a particular group do not carry over to other members. However, we do need to call out the community when something like this happens. Not because they are all responsible as a group, but because the community needs to do something to weed out extremism from their ranks. I feel this is what is wrong with many of the more easygoing muslims. Sure they're alright people but they don't do enough to weed out extremism.

I want to see all people grow as well, including the muslims who are my family members. I also despise collectivism in all forms. But if your vision of a greater humanity is to happen, we cannot set aside criticism. We need to call out the community when this happens, as they need to more to ensure such a thing does not happen again.

This applies to all religions and their extreme sects, not just muslims.

>>12286

>>12277

I can agree to both of you to some degree.

Muslims get treated like a homogenous group but they aren't. But they have to take criticism seriously. Yes, sometimes it's just poorly disguised xenophobia but it's important to say that muslims have to do some homework. Even many moderate muslims have a "had it comming" attitude towards the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

Anyway this is the wrong thread. This thread is about shitty argument for the existence of god(s) and you probably can derail it with this discussion. Go to another thread or make a new one.

Wade davis and royals winning the world series is no accident

>>12329

You're right. It was meme magic courtesy of /sp/.

>You can't disprove the existence gods

>That's why god is real

>>12369

Essentially all of Christian apologetics. They don't have any actually deceiving of God so they resort to philosophical word games. If there was a God we wouldn't need Kalam, or the primer mover, or whatever argument is your personal favorite

*in a sarcastic voice*

>let there be light

"God is so great, he just made light up. And he didn't have to say it, he could have just thought it, but he did."

"…Which means that he created the heaven and the Earth in the dark. How good is that?! Let's create a little light so we can see what we are doing…"

"…god comes along and he sees this and he's furious. Why are you wearing clothes in the garden of Eden?. I was looking at them! I made them big so I could see them from heaven…"

"The punishment he gives to the snake was 'Ye shall crawl on your belly all its days. Not really a punishment for a snake.'

"Ow. This is rubbish, I wish I could fly like normal.'"

>>12079

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

Therefore embrace my sky wizard blindly and follow our shit before someone else tricks you into their cult.

>>12391

>nothing has intrinsic value

>so i might as well die

non-sequitur. you don't need meaning.

>>12394

A little dark there. Do you need a hug?

We can create meaning and just because our existence ends doesn't mean it's meaningless.

>>12395

we don't need meaning, you can be happy without meaning. that's all i was getting at.

>>12391

Can't be 100% proven, therefore pet deities, walking on water, parting seas, impregnation by gods, magic, miracles, angels, demons, devils, world flood survived by man on boat he built with millions of animals, etc and all manner of silliness must be true.

Yeah, let's just throw all logic out the door because I want to justify my pet deity.

>>12391

Just because your brain is flawed doesn't mean is worthless. A sketched map is better than no map.

>>12242

>atheism makes no sense

>supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe

stopped reading there.

Lewis is attacking a strawman version of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Atheism makes no fucking claims at all. No claims about the origin of the universe, no claims about the nature of the mind, no metaphysical claims.

He is also short-sighted about the plethora of possibilities behind the beginning of the universe, which in turn isn't a given either.

>mfw C.S. Lewis was "if mirrors aren't real then why are my eyes real"-retarded

>>12391

Attacking a strawman (materialism =/= atheism. For instance, Einstein was a materialist and he believed in some sort of god which was also material)

Also fallacy from ignorance.

>there's no perfect epistemology

>therefore all claims are equally credible

>therefore my god

>but the other bullshit is false and I know it.

Did you not read the thread retard? I thought we were being too libellous on theist thinking but you showed that our characterisation is just correct.

>>12392

>"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

I stand for truth, that's why I don't fall for that crap

>>12391

>love is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals, and therefore no intrinsic value in this material universe

I hate it when Christians and even many angsty atheist do this. Whats wrong with life being chemical? What make "spiritual" life better? How would that even look like? Chemical based life is pretty fucking sick though.

It gives us everything from the humans, to dinosaurs, to sharks.

>>12420

>If we aren't possessed by a magical ghost nothing we do has any meaning and consciousness doesn't exist.

Actual theist argument.

>>12421

To be fair. The idea that our consciousness works different than we think can be scary. Brain scans can "see" some decitions we make 2-3 seconds before we know we will do it. Imagine to see a video of you where your decitions getting predicted.

We have a naive idea how our brain works. Another example: You have a stroke and your pesonality changes but you think you are as always. How can you know that you changed?

For most people is the self,the soul or mind is a unique unit.

Our brain which is basicly a committee that tricks us into believing it's only one thing.

Hypothetical question: There is a way of teleportation where ALL of your information get teleported to a different place in the solar system and you get destroyed some meat dummy becomes you(100% you,same brain,cells, thoughts,everything). It only takes (distance/lightspeed )s and you don't feel anything but you are in a different place. Would you do that?

It should be a no-brainer but for most people it feels wrong.

>>12079

A similar argument to the OP:

>Every creation has a creator.

>The Earth is clearly a creation, so it must have had a creator.

How do you know it's a creation?

>Because it clearly must have had a creator.

How do you know it must have had a creator?

>Because it's clearly a creation.

How do you know it's a creation?

>Because it clearly must have had a creator.

Ad infinitum. It basically boils down to "Assume what I'm saying is true and it will all make sense."

>>12426

Indeed, a creation does necessitate a creator. In order for the argument to work, they would have to prove that the Earth is a creation. Thus saying "Creations have creators" is a meaningless argument because they still haven't proven the Earth is one. It's completely dodging the issue.

>>12421

To be fair I've seen a lot of atheist edgelords say the same thing.

>>12424

It feels wrong because without a doubt if you're the original you're being executed and letting an exact copy continue in your place. It's just that the copy is so exact he think's he's the original, because he has all of your memories, and identity is mostly based on continuity in the mind.

>>12432

Shit, I meant to reply to the ben carson video.

>>12433

For what it's worth, anything Ben Carson says belongs in this thread.

>>12430

reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

>>12463

>>12421

>if the Earth isn't the center of the solar system nothing we do has any meaning and consciousness doesn't exist

Theist argument circa 1500

More fallacies from ignorance.

>>12430

>identity is mostly based on continuity in the mind

the point is that you wouldn't feel a discontinuity in that scenario.

wouldn't you allow your mind to be transferred to a new body after your old one dies? To me this is a good enough version of immortality.

>>12429

>if something is true but makes me uncomfortable I would rather not believe in it

>>12440

haha. thanks

>>12463

>I can imagine something

>therefore it exists

I love the ontological fallacies.

>how can you be an atheist if you need God to even formulate the concept of atheism?

>>12440

also reminds me of the stupid Alvin Platinga arguments

Real talk: Are there good arguments?

The closest thing to a good argument I've seen is that you can't say god works on a different, incomprehensible scale of morality and logic compared to humans. And therefore attempting to understand him using logic and morals is impossible. Though this is moreso a counterargument than proof.

>>12658

That's more of a deflection. It doesn't give us any useful information, or a way to find any.

Not an argument but

>god is immaterial, timeless and space less.

What the fly fuck does it mean exist but be nowhere, no-when and not be made of anything?

>>12658

That's the Abrahamic damage repair mode. When you say something they can't argue with logically, they say their god doesn't work by logic yet they try to use logic to rope you in like the alien, bigfoot believer types. It starts by posing a logical question and dashing the answers with a bit of logic but then when you keep questioning you'll see just how illogical it is until they finally go into repair mode and say 'lolidunno he works mysteriously'.

http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/post/111561484839/re-atheism

To be an atheist one must negate that God exists. That presupposes god existed. Therefore atheists are really theists that disavow god.

>>12719

For Einstein it's not even true. But I would counter this with examples of some old times geniuses that believed in pseudo science like alchemy or astrology or had a low opinion on women or other races.

>>12721

It's hard too believe that anyone can buy this weak argument.

>>12452

The insurmountable problem with the "free will" theory is understanding why (and for that matter, how) an allegedly all-good deity would install in his humans the ability and the desire to do evil. By definition "all good" means "no bad", so ipso facto it would be beyond the ability of your god to perform such an evil act as to program his creations this way. What is the reason to endow them with the ability to reject "his will for them", which, since they are made in his own image and likeness, is to do good, and, since he's all-knowing, he already knows exactly what mischief they are going to do with this ability. But, oops, since god is also all-powerful, does that mean there is nothing he can't do, including being evil and good at the same time?? How about making a square circle too, or the proverbial rock so heavy he can't lift it?

The point of this is the intellectual dishonesty of Christian theology. The reality of the innate human love of cruelty and selfishness completely voids the concept of a supreme being-creator who is both all-good and all-powerful. And sorry “God works in mysterious ways” just doesn’t cut it. Unless of course you can cite the argument which proves that faith is superior to reason as a means of obtaining accurate information.

>>12452

The insurmountable problem with the "free will" theory is understanding why (and for that matter, how) an allegedly all-good deity would install in his humans the ability and the desire to do evil. By definition "all good" means "no bad", so ipso facto it would be beyond the ability of your god to perform such an evil act as to program his creations this way. What is the reason to endow them with the ability to reject "his will for them", which, since they are made in his own image and likeness, is to do good, and, since he's all-knowing, he already knows exactly what mischief they are going to do with this ability. But, oops, since god is also all-powerful, does that mean there is nothing he can't do, including being evil and good at the same time??

The point of this is the intellectual dishonesty of Christian theology. The reality of the innate human love of cruelty and selfishness completely voids the concept of a supreme being-creator who is both all-good and all-powerful. And sorry “God works in mysterious ways” just doesn’t cut it. Unless of course you can cite the argument which proves that faith is superior to reason as a means of obtaining accurate information.

>>12452

>>12726

This just brings up the question, what about animal suffering? Why should animals have to face the harshness of nature and even crueler human captivity for the sake one species, they don't even have the chance to get into heaven and billions have and will face extreme suffering. Anthropism is the central fallacy organized religion.

>>12728

Thats why Buddhism is a better family of religions. Animals are that way because of bad karma from past lives, but they wont stay that way.

>>12728

I don't get why things have to be so extreme at times. The punishment for eating from that tree was death but that doesn't mean half the shit that goes on in nature is necessary. Animals can't still only eat plants (which I guess creationists think aren't living things) and still die as well? They have to start eating each other? Why?

Why does there need to be worms that find home in people's eyes? Why do natural disasters have to now exist? Why does any of this actually happen when none of it is truly necessary to ensure death.

>>12762

Morality is objectively subjective

You lose, christcuck

>>12762

Subjective morality is founded on the premise that morality is subjective. The premise that morals are objective is false so it follows any moral derived from that belief is objectively false if valid.

*sips mtn dew

>>12762

The opposite of relative isn't objective. "Morals are relative"means that morals depends on the circumstances. Subjective is the opposite of objective. Nobody says that morals are completely subjective or objective.

>>12767

Love being entirely a natural phenomenon can thus be tested. Certain things occur in the brain when someone is in love vs someone who is not.

Thus is one can test a person for those changes, it would mean it is actually possible to prove if someone's in love or not.

>>12780

Wait, you actually posted that pic unironically?

That mean you don't even get why it's bullshit?

>>12762

Religious values aren't any more wrong than many other moral values. Following them only because it's allegedly the message of an omnipotent being rather than deciding for yourself what is right is dumb. Though I suppose it's only fair to mention that there are religious people who like the values of their religion independent of the spiritual beliefs.

>>12784

>Posting strawman after strawman

>Pointing at a post that wasn't one

>>12816

>The posterboy for atheism according to theists who can't debate and need to spam dank memes is actually a theist

Somehow I'm not surprised