Athiesm doesn't work

Intelligent people, including scientists and philosophers, have reasoned for the existence of God.  While it's easy to see their self-justification and rationalization (Aquinas, Chesterton, Sartre, Kant, Pascal), they really are basing their views on belief and faith.  The same with all followers of theistic religions.  Even if one can affirm that no God or afterlife or supernatural exists, there is the sense of emptiness and lacking in a life with no written purpose or directed goal from some superior all-knowing being.  Thus people feel that "it can't hurt" to believe in something anyway, in hopes that that belief will lead to a better afterlife (Pascal's wager).  Many people feel an intrinsic need to be looked after by something greater or have some absolute laws that are unquestionable, putting faith in this authority like a dog would to his owner.  Without a master, humans are lost, empty, and find no purpose.  So religion just "feels good" even if it becomes  proven as illogical.  Besides, what else can prayer, hymns, cathedrals, and complicated ceremonies with special titles and clothing dedicated to a higher glory or state of being be used for, when nothing is there?  Humans hate to worship humanity for its own sake.  Even believing that we create our own laws and morals implies that nothing is absolutely right, as long as we are just simple biological creatures on a life supporting rock for a limited period of time.  Humans have a hard time accepting their uncontrolled, unmonitored position, and put faith in something even if there is proof it doesn't exist, in order to justify that their spiritual bases will be covered "just in case it exists."  It's easy to say God doesn't exist.  It's harder for most people to believe it.     

WALL OF TEXT'D GTFO CHRISTIAN FAGGET!!!1!!11

y the fuck does any of this even matter.  Some people will believe in God/gods/ect and some won't.  Both of you need to get your heads out of eachothers asses, and those of the rest of us as well.  Damn this argument is nothing but a total waste of energy.

umm only >>2 has his head in his ass and >>1 is just stating something that many people feel and is fairly well reasoned. He's not screaming hellfire and brimstone, hes just putting it out there.

It would be far better if people simply believed in themselves and eachother.

But how

>>4
>>1
same person

That being said, I read all of it, and it is a load of crap. Nothing in here is factual, but rather how the OP feels about it. I am 100% atheist and don't have any of these problems that you describe, and I am not alone. When writing about people you don't understand, don't take the word of a completely different group of people.

The trick is that there's no reason we should treat this thing called "god" any different than leprechauns and unicorns.  For rational people, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, for such mythical creatures.  No one claims that the burden of proof is to show that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist.  It is assumed that they do not in the absence of evidence.  But because "god" is such an ingrained meme in our culture, we feel compelled to treat it differently.

The default position is that this thing called "god" does not exist.  It's up to theists to prove otherwise.

religious people: die

i am atheist. does that make me a walking impossibility?
does the fact that i believe in myself and am totally realistic make me any less inferior to religious people? if you wish to believe in something that you said yourself is unaffirmed just so that you could "feel better about yourself", go right ahead, but don't go accusing my belief systems and suggesting that yours "work".

What if you don't believe there's something and you don't believe there is nothing?

What if you don't want your mind polluted from either side huh fags?

>For rational people, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

obviously rational people aren't logical

"Even if one can affirm that no God or afterlife or supernatural exists, there is the sense of emptiness and lacking in a life with no written purpose or directed goal from some superior all-knowing being."

It is important to distingush between how a religious person might feel in absense of god vs what a non-religious person feels.  While you may feel god is the center of your universe and your whole life would collapse should god disappear, others will feel much differently.  Others might try to achieve a worthwhile personal goal like becoming wealth, winning a sports match, or finding a cure to cancer. 

Don't try to proselytize on this board, I doubt many people will be so weakminded to fall for your week arguments for god.

>For rational people, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Not always. Take aliens for example. While we have no evidence that they exist, they still very well may exist in parts of the universe that we haven't discovered due to a lack of technology required to get there or scout. There are other planets besides the ones in our solar system, and if this one can support intelligent life then it's possible that others can, too.

>>7 hey fuck tard im 4 and i didnt start this thread so go fuck yourself

>>14
also many thought that the coelacanth (a fish that disappeared from the fossil records millions of years ago) was extinct and had ceased to exist until it was recently rediscovered. So did that fishs' sudden absence of evidence of existing prove it did'nt?? no

>>15
i'd hide my baby ass if i were you

>>17 wtf are you talking about

>>11

Then you are retarded, because it is impossible to not believe a claim and not believe its total opposite.  There is no middle ground.

>>14

There's evidence that aliens exist; it's too damn improbable that our planet is the only one that supports life in the entire universe.

>>16

You are completely correct.  My point is about what it is rational to believe.  For a long time, we had no evidence that the coelacanth existed.  During that period, it was rational to believe that the coelacanth did not exist any more.  Then, we found a coelacanth; we suddenly had overwhelming evidence for the existence of the coelacanth.  After that, it was rational to believe that the coelacanth existed.  In science, there's no shame in being wrong, assuming you acted on the evidence you had at the time.  You simply modify your views as new evidence appears.

During that period, it was rational to believe that the coelacanth probably did not exist any more.

fixd

Welcome invisible pink unicorn.

>>1
Kant never mentionned whether he believed in god or not, he encouraged clergymen to use his works to rectify errors and guide the public and he defined metaphysics completely differently from what you seem to believe he has done. You also don't seem to have defined how you formed your opinion, which I believe the subject gives insights to.

It is apparent that all thoughts stem from physical sensations, including messages from the instinctive parts of our mind which are seperate from the thinking part and thus sensations. So for instance the good feeling you get seeing a naked woman is a sensation even though it is developped by a part of your brain.

The thinking part of your brain processes these sensations and long story short, there are base principles that arise purely through experience and from these there are the myriad of thoughts and ideas that can be generated. For instance mathematics, from the observation of apples on a tree the concept of frequency arises, this is called an a posteriori thought, if you were then to think about the different amounts of apples on different trees and try to think of ways to find the total amounts of appls you would generate ideas about counting, then numbers, then addition and so on. These are a priori thoughts. The languaged definition of a posteriori thoughts are a priori, the actual concept of sensations and observations are the a posteriori thoughts. For instance noticing the difference between the brown, green and red colours of the apple tree and it's apples. The concept that these are all colours, they are different colours and there are several red apples on the tree is an a posteriori thought.

All of this is practical thought, based on observations and sensations, however the mind is capable of creating a priori thoughts which are very loosely based on observations to the point where they cannot be conclusively proved. This is the result of flawed reasonning in the development of a priori ideas.

Whatever you think, for situations like this dogmas are eventually created to correct the situation. Since you cannot discover whether dogmas are true or not, they can only be criticised and their effects noted. For instance if a person believes in god and is a very kind loving person, this doesn't prove the existence of god, but it does add to the validity of the dogma through the same principles which allow reasonning to exist.

I think you were trying to put across the premise that science is based on the faith that you need evidence to prove things. Unfortunately you left it at that instead of continuing the examination, which would lead you to the conclusion, that it is a dogma, but it is effective. It is in this same way that god is a dogmatic concept and can only be judged by it's assumption or use as an approximation.

So, metaphysics is based on the reasonning generated by our interaction with the physical world which allow us to generate a priori principles, these are pure thoughts to a certain degree, the framework of how we compose and judge ideas. Science explains the physical world excellently, constructive empiricism is perhaps the only method of discoverring truths which can be considerred absolute concerning the physical world. However there are things which are apparently not part of the physical world which science cannot explain, which Kant oulined as the big 3, god, freedom and immortality.

I prefer to simply refer to it as 1, sentience. I exist, I think, I percieve are absolutely true, yet they have no evidence, and if we are to use reasonning we are forced to work from these answers down in order to look for their evidence, which goes absolutely goes against science which declares answers can only be found from the evidence. To a certain extent it seems we are organic super computers, if you tamper with someone's brain they lose some ability to think, they lose emotions or other effects, but even if in the future someone creates a sentient computer and knows exactly how it works, why it allows sentience to occur would still be a mystery. Since the science cannot yield any answers, the issue must either be examined to the point where a particular solution can be induced or we must try and test dogmas and place them under criticism to evaluate them in the hope of validating them or validating elements of their nature. It is here that god exists.

This can be applied to Pascal's wager and several of your ideas. However it appears god can never be anything more than an assumption, which many atheists have already displayed in that typical rude 4chan manner. I assume god exists sometimes, or that there is at least something that will look at my actions and decide I should live after death, though apparently this will not be the case. I am in effect an agnostic who assumes god doesn't exist, but recognises the fact that sentience is an unanswerred question.

Religion is stupid. 

"Religion is stupid"

Damn fucking right! Religion is enslaving mankind. Some motherfucker had the idea and other morons followed this
one! WAF!!

SAGE IS DEAD - LONG LIVES SAGE KILLER

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newnew/1150007779/1-40

People may believe whatever the fuck they want to believe just leave others alone in your quest for immortallity.

You retards !!! All is one. You fail to realize that all of you are all that it exists experiencing itself from different perspectives. There is nobody to serve, no rules to obey(besides the ones you simply can not obey - those that are the are a part of this universe here). So relax, enjoy and feel, my fellow retards.

Is the Christian mind capable of processing simple logic?

no more than the atheist

>>27

True. Some christians are just as good as atheists at processing simple logic. However, no christian is better at processing simple logic than an atheist... ever.

>>28
Incorrect. Atheists can be some of the most irrational people in the world. I mean, they're the ones who came up with communism, for God's sake. I've seen fundies more rational that commies.

Maybe generalizing a group of people as wholly intelligent or ignorant doesn\'t work. Some Athiests and some Christians can be extremely intelligent. But then again, some Athiests and some Christians can be extremely ignorant.

TL;DR: Not every christian/athiest is idiotic. Stop overgeneralising, you faggots.

>>1
Indeed atheism(and blind trust to current science) is religion of fools, but so is any religion. Agnostism is the way to go. We can't deny that god exists, but we can't prove it either.

>>31
Atheism is not a religion. A religion is a system of god-worship, and atheists by definition don't believe in gods.

And it's possible that there's someone on this rock that can prove God does or doesn't exist and that they just haven't done so, or they have but the person or people they proved it to stuck their fingers in their ears and went "La la la, I can't hear you!" You know how some people are.

>>32
Atheism is religion cause they BELIEVE there are no gods. Real science doesn't deal in such absolutisms.

>>33
That makes it nothing more than a belief. Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of one or more gods. Since atheists don't believe in gods they certainly don't worship one, so atheism isn't a religion.

>>29
lol. Proof that christians fail at processing simple logic.

>>29

...Communism was invented by British, silly

>>33


So basically.. not giving a shit.. is a religion..interesting..

I must contemplate my next move in my athiest temple. thank you earthling.

atheism is not a religion. i wish christians would stop being faggots

>>36
Oh yes, because Carl Marcston invented Marxism, not Karl Marx

>>1

If you think there is no purpose in life other than that which is given to you by god, maybe you should read some philosophy? I suggest Ayn Rand.  Start with Atlas Shrugged.

http//www.amazon.com/...

To any piece of shit who says athiests are irrational, unscientific, whatever...

If you are rational, your thought system, and what you know to be true is based in reason.  Since there is simply no fucking reason for you to believe in a god, to do so would be irrational.

There is clearly no room for agnosticism in a rational person.  If there is no reason to think god is there, it would never even cross a rational person's mind, and thus he does not believe in the existence of a god.  Since he does not believe in a god, he is an athiest, period. 

Stop calling atheism a religion.  Religions are based in faith.  Atheism is based in reason. 

>>1 and >>4 are the same people.

Materialism ftw.  Fuck religion, give me life's material pleasures. 

Can you honestly say you'd rather have your religion than a hot girlfriend, a sports car, some cool firearms, a multi-billion dollar business, video games, porn, etc?  Seriously...

Materialism ftl

fixed

Consumer goods don't fall in your lap, you know? You have to run, run, run after the almighty dollar.

I don't care if a person is an atheist, but there's something inherently pathetic about a person who thinks happiness is just a few green pieces of paper away.

>>41
It is also reasonable that no man ia a completely rational being. Does that mean true atheism is impossible?

>>43

Materialism is a philosophical stance about the nature of the universe. Materialism != Consumerism.

Major religions have gone too far to be rational. There are questions of sentience, like >>21 said, so fuck you any 100% science cunts who think we don't have free will and are all undead robots, but also fuck you 100% religion fucktards who arrogantly claim to know everything about the universe and hate anyone who points out there is no rational basis for most of their bullshit and they are just using these claims to fuck with people.

>>45
Touche. :o

re·li·gion   Audio pronunciation of "Religion" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

   1.
         1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
         2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
   2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
   3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
   4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.



a·the·ism   Audio pronunciation of "Atheism" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-zm)
n.

   1.
         1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
         2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

>>46
Questions of sentience are irrelevant to atheism and/or materialism being true. For all we know, all matter might be sentient, there could be different levels of sentience, from individual subatomic particles upto the universe as a whole and everything in between, there is no fucking way to make sure. Free will, however, is a nonsensical up concept. We are all subjec to the laws of the universe(or whatever exists beyond the universe, if you have some sort of metaphysical/supernatural beliefs) and make decisions based on the information we get from it - our "will" cannot be free, it doesn't matter if we have some sort of souls that operate on some higher level than the universe or not. And if some process is indeterminate, doesn't mean it's free, it's just unpredictable.

Science is the new religion, but with it we lost the ability to imagine, such as >>49's stance.

>>50

Science isn't religion. 

>>43

It's not the green pieces of paper, it's what you can get with them.  (Pretty much anything you want...from sex, to a sports car, and everything in between).

If we had commodity backed money like we used to have in the United States, those "green pieces of paper" would represent something of actual worth. 

Materialism rules.  Capitalism rules.  Nobody gives a shit about their religion anymore, except for a few fundamentalists.  People want life's material pleasures. 

Even if the process is slow, people are starting to care less and less about their religion (in the USA at least).  They may hold some of the tenets of their religion close, such as being anti-gay or some such crap, but pointedly, they are less and less militantly religious as time goes on...and it's a good thing.

>>52
>Even if the process is slow, people are starting to care less and less about their religion (in the USA at least)

I am not sure about that. Especially about the USA part. It's seems that there is a whole lot of religious brainwashing going on and the fundies are reproducing at an alarming rate. Clearly, abstinence is not working as birth control.

>>53
They get married and have children, you fucking retard.

>>54

No, they get children and then the girl and her family blackmail the guy into marrying her.

>>55

And live in poverty poorly ever after.

>>53

I don't agree.  It seems like many modern people just casually go along with things, rather than being vehemently foam-at-the-mouth religious.  People are letting their spirituality slide in light of material pleasure.  Over time, I think this will lead to a more materialist, less spiritual society. 

>>31
>>32
I've seen an atheist make a good point before. He said that since God (note the capital "G") can do anything by definition (all-powerful), he can't exist because there's no such thing as a being that can do anything since in order to be able to it'd have to be able to create something that even it can't destroy. If it can then there is something it can't do, namely destroy the creation in question, and if it can't then there is still something it can't do -- create it in the first place.

>>51
Technically it isn't, but there are some scientist who zealously belief in some theories. Most notably human evolution. That's bit unscientific, as theories should be regarded as just theories, unless proven right or wrong.

>>58
God can create logic and destroy that too

It's not the green pieces of paper, it's what you can get with them.

Yes, and that's the problem. Some people think that you can buy happiness. They spend their entire lives chasing money so they can buy things. Buy this, that, and the other. Whoo hoo.

However, in reality, it turns out that once you have the basics of life (food, shelter, safety, etc), there is very little variation in happiness. The mega rich are exactly as happy as your standard middle-class person.

Where am I going with this? Well, you need money for the basics. Once you have that, thinking that more will make you happier is outright stupid. If you spend your life trying to get richer, you're wasting your life, because it won't make you happier.

There are better things to do with the few seconds you spend in this mortal coil.

>>61

"There are better things to do with the few seconds you spend in this mortal coil."

Like pray to fictitious deities?  Meditating like one of those monks, concentrating on the veins of a leaf?

Nah, I'd rather earn some money, buy a sports car or something.  Thx.

>>62
I realise that this is a thread about religion, but I'm bitching about consumerist mentality in general.

Not chasing money doesn't imply praying. There's more to life than either. I won't stop you from trapping yourself in such a silly false dichotomy though.

>>59
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

>>59
In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis. That is, it:
is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense;
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct;
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory;
is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several criteria, or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

tl;dr version of >>65 to >>59

STFU n00b !!! You have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context.

>>21

Is correct. Be there an overguideing 'principle' or Logos, and attempt to even define its parameters with our weak 'objectivity' will fail.

So therefore, what we conceieve to be god fails.

Dont give me all that shit about archetypes and whatever too, Ontological crap and whatever else you guys like.

Predisposed Belief illustrates intrinsic need more so than intrinsic need validates a metaphysical almighty benevolent deity

Stupid Christians *Sighs*

>>1
This is mostly an emotional appeal, it doesn't argue for or against the existence of a God. Even someone who believes there is no god may agree that there is comfort in the belief in a higher power.

I think both atheists and christians should read three books.

The first two you probably already have somewhere in your house, if not they're online, that's the old testament and the new testament. It might be interesting for atheist and christian to read the annotations on http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The other book is Atheism: The Case Against God it's available on amazon it has many of the arguments for the existence of God and refutes them. Atheists should know these arguments and theists should know which ones have been refuted and how.

>>67 (Without spaces)
Is correct. Be there an overguideing 'principle' or Logos, and attempt to even define its parameters with our weak 'objectivity' will fail.
So therefore, what we conceieve to be god fails.
Dont give me all that shit about archetypes and whatever too, Ontological crap and whatever else you guys like.
Predisposed Belief illustrates intrinsic need more so than intrinsic need validates a metaphysical almighty benevolent deity
Stupid Christians *Sighs*

>>66

Shut the fuck up dumbass.  They are right about theories.  You don't know jack shit.

>>68

Ooh I saw that book before, but didn't get it.. I was thinking about it though.  Is it REALLY worth reading? The guy I was with said it probly wasn't. 

>>61
I'd be happier with a Cadillac than an Oldsmobile.  I'd be happier with a Corvette than a lesser sports car.  All these things cost money, and most people can't afford them all.  I'd be happier if I had a bigger T.V.  I'd be happier if my computer was faster.  I'd be happier if I had new clothes all the time.  I'd be happier if I had money to go on vacations.  I'd be happier if I had my own private jet/helicopter.  I'd be happier if I had a personal limo and driver. 

The point being, there is an almost infinite, neverending supply of things for you to work for, and earn.  Would you rather go live in a fucking cave than have all the above stuff? Face it, there are finer and better things in life than living in simple drudgery.  There IS materialistic happiness. 

>>60
No, because the laws of logic are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

>>70
"Is it REALLY worth reading?"

Probably not if you already know the arguments for and against the existence of a christian style god.

>>67
You forget scripture is divine revelation, and therefore does not admit to be a conception of any man.

>>72
I don't see how this matters.

>>49
Interesting you brought that up, but what about sentience of free will?

I don't see how this matters.
The laws of logic, like all scientific laws and the rules of math, are nothing more than observations.

Law: 12a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/L0073000.html

People often get confused with the other meanings of the word and incorrectly assume that a scientific law somehow causes something to do something. It doesn't. It simply -- and often mathematically -- describes what we observe to be true. That's what I mean when I say that these laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Likewise, when we say that something obeys a scientific law we're referring to it being consistent with the predictions of the law, not that the law is a thing causing it to behave that way.

If in the future we observed a planet that didn't obey the law of gravity, it's not because the law was not prescribed to it. The law is simply an observation. Obviously we'd have to revise the law to keep it consistent with our new observations of reality.

In the case of the rules of logic, let's look at the principle of non-contradiction. A contradiction is defined as either of two propositions related in such a way that it is impossible for both to be true or both to be false. http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/C0606500.html This is a completely human and completely arbitrary definition widely accepted by long term usage.

When you say that "God can create the object" and "God can not create the object," the word "not" is used in this context to indicate the contradiction of the first sentence. Once again, this is a completely human and completely arbitrary definition widely accepted by long term usage.

So if God could both create the object and not create the object it would not be contradictory by definition.

>>76
"People often get confused with the other meanings of the word and incorrectly assume that a scientific law somehow causes something to do something."
Someone would have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that.

Pascal's Wager:

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

   In other words:
    * You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
    * You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
    * You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
    * You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

     so statistically you have a chances of winning with believeing in god are 1/2 and with disbelief 1/2.  However, although the chances of win and loss are equal on both sides, the ammount of potential loss to potential gain is infinately greater on the side of the believer.

                     God exists (G)       God does not exist (~G)
Belief in God (B)     +∞ (heaven)            0
Non-belief in God (~B)     −∞ (hell)            0

>>78

When you take into account that there are MANY GODS, and if you believe in the wrong one you're fucked, suddenly Pascal's wager doesn't seem so inviting.

Plus, a god would presumably know that the only reason you believe is to go to heaven. I don't think he'd like that.

Believe in god, but don't waste your time following him. According the christians giving all your money and efforts to charity is not as important as believing in god in order to get into heaven, so you can just believe in god and do whatever the fuck you want and you get into heaven. Isn't that great!

>>79
That's true, but it dodges the fact that the real reason not to believe in god is simply because there is no reason to. 

FUCK YOU Atheist MOTHERFUCKERS

DIE YOU FUCKERS DO THE WORLD A FAV AND FUCKING DIE

YOUR THE ROOT OF EVIL AND WARS look at the facts who start the fights the unbeleavers

In before "hahaha shitty troll try again" comment.

FUCK YOU

Sure. Bend over.

>>37

Not giving a shit is agnosticism or irreligion. Atheism is defined as having the positive belief that God does not exist, which is logically unsupported- it's a belief like any other.
 If you just don't think the evidence warrants a decision either way, like me, you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
 Why is saying God doesn't exist logically unsupported? Because the theory is untestable. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, it just means we don't have the resources to test the hypothesis.

Proof that god doesn't exist:

"god" is by definition omnipotent... but can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift?

1) if he can't, then he isn't omnipotent because we've found a thing he can't do
2) if he can, then he isn't omnipotent because he can't lift the rock

since the concept of god is logically inconsistent and logically inconsistent things don't exist, we conclude by modus ponens that god doesn't exist

atheism is thus a fully justified positivist philosophy

>>86
You see, if there isn't a reason for something to be there, then you assume it isn't.  If I am looking at a boulder, and I see no reason to think there is a little green martian sitting behind it about to zap me with his ray gun... well yeah. 

Agnostics:  "WELL WE ARENT SURE THERE ISN'T A MARTIAN THERE LOL!"

Religious fags:  "don't think, believe!"

Athiests:  "Since I don't see a reason that it would be there, there is no reason to believe it, and I won't even consider the notion until I do."

For a reasonable person, things must be proven or given reason to be there before they are considered.  Until you can prove that there IS a god, or show that there is a REASON that god is there, it's not even worth consideration. 

You see, for a rational person, you don't need proof that something isn't there, you just need a situation in which there is no reason to think that it IS there.  Unless there is a REASON for something to exist, it's ruled out by default. 

Cause and effect.  It's simple shit.  If you don't see a reason, or a cause, why would you even consider it, as many other things associated with god (or certain religions) have been proven to be false so far?

But there is a reason, mankind is so fucking pathetic, emo and alone that it needed something much greater than itself to beleive in. It needed religion. Now though, we are starting to understand everything around us, and we dont need religion to explain it. Thus the main purpose of religion, to fill an empty spot of understanding is now filled by science, which actually can be proven. But there are still people who stick to the religion because their parents told them about god when they where little and they can;t get that freaking idea out of their heads....

I love it when chatholix think evolution and creationism are equal because they are both theories. Except one has proof, and one has a book.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Really. One scientist skews his carbon dating experiment to match the bible and chatholics go "ZOMG!-that lines up with our idealogy, all other experiments must be LIEZ"
Same thing with prayer. Pray 1000 times, and then the one time a prayer is "answered" - "PROOF GOD"

Exiastance of the soul is the biggest load of crap in Chatolic Dogma. The soul is somthing that is not energy, is not matter, but controlls who you are and what your personality is. To do this, a soul would have to contain data. However, data cannot exist without a catalyst/container/medium. Therefore the soul is not contained within our quark/sub-quark defined exiatance.
Your personality is a product of social evolution.
Scene(environment) --> Gene(Body language race etc.)-->Meme(self-replicating thought/information contained within the brain(a medium)

*camps for "no conclusive proof quarks exist"*
Re: "no conclusive proof god exists"

Without information supporting the FACT - not "the possibility" - that God exists, I will not beleive it/he/she exists.

I love it when chatholix think evolution and creationism are equal because they are both theories. Except one has proof, and one has a book.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Really. One scientist skews his carbon dating experiment to match the bible and chatholics go "ZOMG!-that lines up with our idealogy, all other experiments must be LIEZ"
Same thing with prayer. Pray 1000 times, and then the one time a prayer is "answered" - "PROOF GOD"

Exiastance of the soul is the biggest load of crap in Chatolic Dogma. The soul is somthing that is not energy, is not matter, but controlls who you are and what your personality is. To do this, a soul would have to contain data. However, data cannot exist without a catalyst/container/medium. Therefore the soul is not contained within our quark/sub-quark defined exiatance.
Your personality is a product of social evolution.
Scene(environment) --> Gene(Body language race etc.)-->Meme(self-replicating thought/information contained within the brain(a medium)

*camps for "no conclusive proof quarks exist"*
Re: "no conclusive proof god exists"

Without information supporting the FACT - not "the possibility" - that God exists, I will not beleive it/he/she exists.

>>91
Well if I am a computer, I am still sentient so I am not just a computer, but still a computer.

God spelled backwards is dog...

yeah think about it...

regardless of the "answer", I'm pretty certain that the metaphysical existence of a "god" is completely irrelevant at this  point. this "god" ha]d no intrested in interceding in human affairs and we should act as such. I'm coming from a point in my life where I'm not sure if there's a god or not but regardless I'm certian that he (if he exists) wishes for us to sort out our own problems and messes. his track record for officail interference in human affiars is poor, at best.

Religious people are emo for god's/gods' attention?

>>1 What is this "atheism" you speak of. We all make typos because typos are xtreme kewl, but typos in the subject header is so not xtreme kewl.

>>87

That argument is dependent on the definition of "omnipotent."  If by omnipotent one means "able do do absolutely everything," then it works.  If, however, it means "able to do all that is possible," then it doesn't work.

And then there is the idea that God=the totality of the energy in the universe.  If this is the case, then God would be all-powerful in the sense that God=all the power in the universe.  It also explains omniscience, omnivorence, and omnibenevolence.  Also has the byproduct that God is omnimalevolent, too.

>>97 God works in, um, unaccountable, extradimensional and uncriticizable ways, so everything is either his well-doing or the latte-drinkers' fault. See how easy it is to be religious?

When we debate this subject we are faced with two hands.

On one hand believing something because someone wrote a book that we should believe it. Also doing this will comfort us in the knowledge that if we try hard enough we will live eternally frolicking amongst the clouds. It also invites to a lot of gloating of the other side who will burn in hell and feeling good about oneself for not belonging to that side.

On the other hand we believe what we see and experience and by logical proof take to be the truth. This side is faced with a big problem, a gap if you will, the great question of why one should bother living. Because its a proven fact that if you take away a person's brain he is dead. Shut your eyes and you cant see, cover your ears and you cant hear etc. etc.. Well, imagine someone getting blown to smitherines by a grenade, how is he going to experience, much less appreciate any type of heaven without his senses? The same goes for hell btw :P. So now we understand the problem, once we die, we cease to exist, nothing we have ever experienced can compare to that. Therefore death is neither sad nor joyful, yet death IS inevitable. So what can we do, we're stranded on a trickling hourglass which is our life, whereafter nothing really matters. Scientific discovery and historic acknowledgement, you say? Just as man dies, so Earth and the human race dies with it eventually meeting the same fate, i.e. pointless struggle. Out of death experience, you say? Try having one when youre brain is blown to pieces. Vampires, you say...? (-_-).

So what is there left? Just enjoy life as it is? Live for the moment? Do drugs, drive fast cars, bungee jump? I suppose thats one option. Theres also the option of believing something like a religion to comfort oneself. They all sound like good options, but in my humble opinion I just say live life as it is, no matter what youre doing you wont be enjoying yourself all the time and you wont ever be ever comfortable. So in whatever you ever choose to do, remember to experience every moment of it fully and treasure it. That is my version of atheism.

>>99
Go cut.

>>99

Dont be emo about that "its all pointless we dies" crap.
If the human race would put more effort/resurces into scientific research we may be able to 1: Put the human brain into a "less squishy" container. 2: Migrate to electronics (Ie: record memory in the form of a computer program, thus creating sentinent artificial life, where existance/purpose would be logically filtering data with the accept/reject subroutine/ability present in our organic forms. 3: Cure aging. 4: Breed a supirior race with the capability of longer life, healthier life, and heightened mental capacity to create even better incarnations of "human" - basically forcing evolution based on what we, observers, find important, rather than drawn out, painstaking natural selection.
We could develop technology that would allow us to explore space. We could search other galaxies for planets suitable for habitation, we could even develop the technology to CREATE planets. Earth's clock is ticking; if we work hard we might be able to gtfo before it becomes unable to support carbon based life.
There is alot to do.
If we use 100% of our ability we may become the most powerful species in the universe.

No point? No Reason? Live fast? Waste the limited time you have on drugs & sex? Fuck that.
Science is the only shot we have. No amount of faith will stop our us from dissapearing before we reach our full potential as a species.

Religion is just comfort for the weak - and only the strong survive.

>>98
Bet you can't do it. You seriously think religious people don't have doubts?

>>101
>>only the strong survive
Religion is probably the oldest idea man has got. Don't go quoting natural selection on this one, because religion has proved it worth.

Everything in post-Enlightenment philosophy has pointed towards humans becoming their OWN masters.  Christianity was not built in a day, and it is going to take a long time for us to shed all of its vestiges.

When these final vestiges of Christianity disappear from the world, it's going to become OK for people to rule another again.  The current illusion of intellectual/other types of egalitarianism perverted by those who misunderstand post-Enlightenment philosophers will fade away.  It will be okay for a "higher type" of man to exist, and rule over others.

>>103
events in history have pointed towards the second coming of Jesus Christ, etc etc.

FAIL for making fantastic predictions about the future

>>104
second coming of jesus christ... lol what?

Did jesus have sex the first time?

>>105
He permitted whores the 'honour' of washing his feet to show that he forgives them.

>>101
That's the general idea, I agree. However never fall into the trap of believing you are unfallible, you and I and everyone is capable of becomming a crazy fuck. You need to point in the right direction while remaining predictable and controlled if you want to implement a new ideal.

>>1

hey guess what

BEING AN ATHEIST DOESN'T MEAN YOURE SOME WHINY PRETENTIOUS NIHILISTIC FUCKTARD

also fyi i may be an atheist too but i can't stand most atheists

honestly, most of you faggots practically shit yourselves over someone having any sort of theistic or supernatural beliefs, you faggots are really no better than the people you're attacking

HOLY SHIT RELIGION IS FOR SHEEP MAN ITS FOR FUCKING SHEEP FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFHOLYSHITIMAFAGGOTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

YOU GUYS ARE DUMB

>>110
no u

Christianity created Nazis.

>>112
That's like saying the knowledge of snails is responsible for all the evil in the world caused by people who know what a snail is. We all know the jews created the nazis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A&mode=related&search=

VIP quality animation in Politics

idk if u guys alrdy no this but sex dsnt work either i tried it but this erection people say is suposed to hapen didnt happen