/atheism/ - Atheism

Bumping so newcomers know we've already debunked statuefag on miracles and he refused to listen to the counter-arguments and just kept repeating himself. You might as well save your breath on his newer troll threads, like the one on "Most scientists are not atheists"

>>6116
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
YOU'RE STILL HERE?

Whenever an Anon here would call someone "the statuefag" I thought it was just a joke. Like when a religious person goes full retard they get called "statuefag" as a reference to this thread. Just to remind people just how fucking crazy religious people can be sometimes. But no, it's not a joke. You're still here, still posting… actively by looks of it.

This thread is about 3 months old. Anon bumps it to remind us of the statuefag. Then you, THE infamous statuefag, replies him only like half an hour later. I can barely believe it. Holy fuck.

>>6122
>yfw statuefag tried for 3 months to get banned by being a spamming, insulting and retarded faggot to prove that /atheism/ would censor him
>he is still active and achieved nothing
but at least
>he got labeled as statue fag because of how much of a faggot he was

Alright statuefag, I want to get to the bottom of this. So, I have some questions for you.

1. How old are you?

2. What country are you from?

3. What is your highest form of education?

4. Do you know what your IQ is? If so, what is it?

5. Do you have any sort of mental disorders? How about any emotional and behavioral disorders?

6. Were you raised Christian? If not, when did you convert?

>>1511
>95%
>Literally all buddhists, shintoists, confucianists and eastern Asians in general don't believe in any kind of god whatsoever
>Nontheism is widely popular in many populous European countries
95% sounds like a very unrealistic upper bound. It makes you look very careless about your claims

>doesn't popularity imply something is true
no. Geocentrism wasn't true just because nearly every single human man before the 16th century firmly believed it was true. History keeps moving on.

If anything we can conclude that the probability that a religion is true is exceedingly low because there are too many, they are indistinguishable from mere cultural constructions that grow at very specific times and places, like languages, and unlike educated competing hypothesis; none of them is substantially more plausible or testable than the rest, many of them have been completely abandoned despite having millions of firm believers in the past, they are highly incompatible with one another, they have been scientifically proven wrong at many important claims about the nature of things and therefore have had to adapt their beliefs in spite claiming to be absolute truths, none of them has ever reached the point of gathering half the human population, etc.

>How can you discount God just because you dont experience him when the vast majority of humanity does.
false aggregation. It turns out most of them think you are plain wrong about your religions beliefs, they think your peculiar view is stupid, and then you all will continue slaughtering one another like you have been doing since the dawn of civilization because you are aware that your worldviews are contradictory. Eventually you take a break and bash on atheists together because they are truly off your category of insanity.

>Numerous recorded and attested miracles have occured in the 20th century
if you were really interested in discovering the truth you would know that serious studies (not the kind of sensationalist and corruptible pseudo-scientific, economically interested shows you see on TV) show that all religious denominations on Earth claim about the same amount of miracles, of which about the same tiny percentage (less than 1%) can't be conclusively proven false, which is not to say they have been proven true as you delusional superanatural people like to think.

/atheism/: remember to SAGE shitty threads

>>1578
>being inanimate cant cry
so you accept that it didn't happen?

>>1809
>adopt buddhism while rejecting the gods, cosmology and everything else that makes it buddhist
the fact that Buddhism derived from Hinduism doesn't mean Buddhism posits that Hindu mythology is metaphysically true, and the fact that Eastern religions are full of superstitious doesn't mean Easterns are generally theist.
Gautama himself taught about rejecting the existence of deities, moreover, he wasn't even a soft atheist but a positive one who claimed that no gods existed whatsoever.

>stick to the dictionary definition of religion
no gods involved. I don't know what shitty dictionary you got that from, but it's quite a biased and schismatic definition of religion

Hey guys I found instructions on how to make a weeping statue on the internet. Do you think I could make one with an anime figurine I worship, and convince Catholics I have a legitimate region?

Btw here is a list of a bunch of copycat fake weeping statues that were so obvious the Catholic church rejected them. Guess they only wanted there to be one weeping statue to leave room for doubt. If they kept admiting weeping statues as miracles they would definitely be caught by a whistleblower someday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_statue#List_of_weeping_statues

>>6234
Seriously guys, I think a bleeding statue would make a grand paperweight for my desk in the office. I would need to make at least two anime statues, so I would have one more than Catholics and be able to convert them. Then I'd just need to find a scientist (any scientist would do, even a Paleontologist friend) to verify blood dripped out. I just need to find a way to make the plastic porous, but hollowing out the head should be simple.

In fact if I ever run a night club I'm going to commission an water fountain with a nymph that menstruates and then dye the water red. Maybe Catholics would stop being so stuck up about having sex if there were more miraculous sculptures that were completely lewd.

>>6278
>I have repeatedly said this is not the point of the thread,

You're out of new counter points to discuss, which haven't been repeatedly refuted, so perhaps you should follow our lead now.

>I was trying to prove that there is a rational basis for believing in the existence of God.

And you failed to prove anything except how dense you are. I'm sorry your parents abused you with Christianity bro. You might have become a very smart man by now.

> New covenant Christianity is based on love not on a set of rules…

Show us the love you preach of statuefag. Practice your tolerance by tolerating our dissenting opinions in your mind.

>….thou shall not kill has been repeatedly disregarded as well as the graven images commandment.

1) if thou shall not kill is repeatedly disregarded, it sounds like there was more love under the old covenant

2) why did God need to make a new covenant in the first place if he's so perfect? (Why don't you pause for a moment to about it……………………?)

Did you think of a reason?

Does what you were told not make sense?

Are you lost?

We can help you if you'll open your mind.

(Hint: Christianity is not divinely inspired and you could stand to do more research from secular historians and non-Christian sources. Christianity began as one of many ancient cults. It hijacked an older religion and it's leaders replaced the old covenant to make it easier to asser their own power by invalidating the power of existing priests. This thereby gave themselves even more power influence over the lives of the gullible sheep, who would leave their mother and father to follow the apostles, while donating all they had to his ministry.)

3) Catholics make graven images to Mary, Jesus, the saints, and their churches have made over a dozen fake bleeding statues after Akita. You don't call this a violation of this commandment because you're suffering under Catholic delusions, but the Protestants saw the problem and removed those statues to Mary and the saints. Iconlogy is false worship of things other than God, and was thrown out according toa more literal interpretation of the bible.

> Read about new vs old covenant theology in Christianity.

No sense in implying we don't even know the basic premises of Christianity any less than you do. You can't live in a Christian majority country without learning a lot about it, and most Atheists here probably were former Christians. Just because you have a weaker education, and attach great significance to the little you know about your own faith from diluted sources, doesn't mean there aren't (many) Atheists who are more rigorous about their beliefs than you, and who have taken more time to read more about the things that matter than you've bothered to do.