Athiesm

Rightwing Cred Forumsack here.

Why the fuck are so many Atheists left-wing egalitarian shitheads? Evolution is the best evidence that different groups of humans have evolved biologically and culturally to be different and that forcing integration is doomed to fail. Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc
pastebin.com/4qDqptnR
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Whimper morality, my friend.

>Atheists left-wing
IN NOT THE ATHEISTS, IT SODOMISED TARDESES

Isn't egalitarian the non-retarded "equality of opportunity" schtick?

The atheist libtards are much more about equality of results

Because the motivation behind alot of vocal atheists is feeling superior and bucking back against some idea of authority.

>vocal atheists is feeling superior and bucking back against some idea of authority.
Just like every religion, "Cuck"

>The atheist libtards are much more about equality of results
The ones that are all about equal outcomes are not atheists, it's impossible to be an atheist and a leftist at the same time without some serious mental juggling. If nothing else, leftism is their religion.

I'm with OP on this one. I wonder if there's a lot of redpilled atheists out there, but maybe they just aren't vocal about either.

Funfact: the laws of thermodynamics are right-wing.
>no free lunch

You need the Logos, or else you can basically choose whatever you want to believe and accept it as true

Depends on who you talk to, today most define it as equality of outcome but a smaller group or classical liberals considers it equality of opportunity.

BTW I'm an atheist but as a voting block most tend to vote towards more leftwing parties as opposed to rightwing ones, at least in the US.

>pic related from pew in feb of 2016

Left wingers have been duped by the right into believing open borders are good.

Open borders had always been a right wing policy to drive down wages and discipline workers.

Any real left winger not cucked to SJW logic will understand that open borders are not beneficial for valid economic and cultural reasons.

Immigrants need time to assimilate into the doctors they move into, it's not wrong to ask them to do so, otherwise why bother coming?

Next time you speak to one of the bastards explain the economic effects on low skilled workers and ask them to justify their opinion. They don't be able to convincingly.

'Evolution' is a (((communist))) myth.

That's pretty fucked, I'm part of the 15% of athiests that go republican

Maybe rightwing atheists are answering their nominal faith in polls because they are still community-oriented?

This is something I started thinking about when i became an atheist. The true answer for everything boils down to science, and if you wanted to know why Humans have some many different ethnic groups, look at the science. Or, better yet, look at nature! Every species has a wide range of sub-species and breeds within its group. This helped me come to accept the fact that Humans are not ALL genetically the same.

As for the question, it's because 90% of atheist's are fedora wearing faggots, who think the friend zone is real and that Bill Maher is their REAL god.

>knowing that different groups evolve differently traits over time, making them unique subspecies is bluepilled
Fuck off Vlad

or perhaps people in sciences accept the (((standard morality))) by default, and even when they get redpilled on god they stay bluepilled on other issues? Maybe it's for their research grant money, which repubs often threaten to cut?

Leftism is too religious on its own to own the atheists

Most people cannot into logos and just parrot memes based on popularity and a desire to make themselves look a certain way.

I've never understood this. Humanism is a basic denial of science in the basis of MUH FEELS.

Maybe because it's often an immediate response to their environment and upbringing and there can be a lot of frustration there.

They throw off those shackles and think and feel they are free. By golly, isn't that good enough? They could deprogram themselves out of something that runs very deep and has a fear of mortality in it. Not everyone can do this! Which is true. This can cause a lot of feeling of smugness, which makes some sense but they fail to see the big picture.

These kind of people fail to see how they were programmed in every possible way, they just see the most obvious one. Family, friends, acquaintances, school, government, even what kind of nutrition one ought to aim for (food pyramid was set up to shill for grains and sugar and claim fat is terrible for you for decades...).

They stand before a new reframing, one where they can feel smug and smart and decide existence is beautiful because it's finite and now more concrete to them.

Just because you deprogram yourself out of brainwashing doesn't mean the world has changed, only your perspective has. Consider what these kinds of atheists thought of existence before their initial big deprogram.

Existence was, is and will always be what bothered them before they bought that reframing was reality: a nasty, pain planet with a lot of idiocy that's senseless.

I'm always curious and puzzled why these atheists suddenly declare life is beautiful with this illusion removed.

Revelations/redpills are a cascade, not a moment. It takes fortitude to withstand this. For most, it's not exactly pleasant to accept this world is a place of unequal people, that no utopia is waiting if only everyone would stop being stupidly religious. That nature isn't lovely, it's a savage bitch of relentless hunger and cruelty.

It's an unconscious shielding of the larger picture.

>They throw off those shackles and think and feel they are free. By golly, isn't that good enough? They could deprogram themselves out of something that runs very deep and has a fear of mortality in it. Not everyone can do this! Which is true. This can cause a lot of feeling of smugness, which makes some sense but they fail to see the big picture.
>These kind of people fail to see how they were programmed in every possible way, they just see the most obvious one.
That actually makes a lot of sense.

>I'm always curious and puzzled why these atheists suddenly declare life is beautiful with this illusion removed.
Who does this?

>For most, it's not exactly pleasant to accept this world is a place of unequal people, that no utopia is waiting
I hate the idea that I will someday die and that's it, no heaven or hell I just am not any more, not getting to experience things and watch the future unfold. Not having an afterlife to look forward to is quite ugly.

>Who does this?
It's something I've noticed amongst the stereotypical atheist crowd, the ultra modern reddit garden variety atheist type. The sentiment like,
>"Sure is a beautiful day living with TRUTH. I don't need god to see how nice and beautiful living can be."

>I hate the idea that I will someday die and that's it, no heaven or hell I just am not any more, not getting to experience things and watch the future unfold. Not having an afterlife to look forward to is quite ugly.
Yes... this is a decent argument against atheism, unfortunately. Most people cannot understand this and continue on, wake up, go to their usual routine and not lose themselves in some terrible habit.

Now I find I'm far more displeased with what I see looking backwards rather than the lack of a pleasant afterlife. Why do I deal with the suffering of existence at all? I will die. At least I won't have to exist anymore, existing forever and ever and ever sounds more and more awful the older I get. I think it may come as a relief in a few decades.

I meditated a lot on death. This is simply what worked for me. I watched a lot of videos of people dying and thinking about how suffering was guaranteed and pleasure wasn't. I thought about everything that could have possibly been put inside me by my schooling, or my family or social conventions, to examine and decide if they should remain within me or not. Watching the eyes of people dying then dead, considering what they dealt with before and then after.

Realizing essentially everyone is caught up in their own fantasy, that most things are memes as insane as that may sound had me reconsider all my views and ultimately made me stronger.

Languages and math are memes, memes that made us monkeys fly to the moon. I think our human existence is based more on feelings and things like "meme magic" than most atheists will ever accept.

Because atheism is just rebellion.

No one really believes that nothing exploded into everything for no reason, they use it as a shield, "oh three people in the world use Jew math to prove how its possible, but they can't agree and the theory changes every few years. You realise that actual quantum physicists don't know how that shit happened, right? The common theory for years was two membranes banging against each other, and now the most common theory is quantum evaporation magically making it happen.

That will change again, it always has. Ever since the Big Bang was first theorised by Catholic Priest and Physicict Georges Lemitre (gaytheists of the time hated that btw, because the theory all the clever atheists held then was that the universe was eternal).

But they use it as an excuse to be hedonistic. If God isn't real then their actions don't have any ultimate consequences, there is nothing stopping them from being a panqueer gender fag or whatever, because that's infinitely more believable than nothing exploding into everything for no reason. It validates their degeneracy.

Atheism is social poison.

Most atheists arrive at their conclusions the same way most people arrive at most of their conclusions - by rationalizing their emotions. They don't feel that there is a God, so they grasp onto the first logical-sounding explanation they can to justify their emotions.

Perhaps the hardest redpill to swallow is the one the atheist swallows - namely, that their fellow atheists are mostly the same emotional retards as everyone else.

Best post I've seen on Cred Forums in ages

Christianity provides a sense of justice that they do not have so they beg the government for it.

Atheism, like most movements and "opinions" are trends. Trends move with masses. Masses want to be masses. Masses want you to be masses.

Wow, thank you user. I'm pleased that you got something out of that.

Redpilled atheist here, I'm almost full NatSoc, with several adjustments. There's far more of us than you might think, especially scientists and those in STEM. Most are atheists and also accepting of the reality of race and our current economic situations on account of their profession.

Objectivists are also the second most common atheists behind libtard ones so there's that too.

THIS

>morality without God

Impossible. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

...

>South American is actually a socialist first
What a surprise. I'm almost as surprised as to learn their countries are shit.

>there is nothing stopping them from being a panqueer gender fag or whatever

Do you actually believe that a majority of atheists are LGBT at all?

I actually can't tell if this post is a ruse. The problem of first causes is unsolvable (by definition), and no atheist I've met justifies their beliefs according to it.

Tell me, how does one justify an axiom? Nothing created nothing? What created "God"? It's impossible to justify an answer by definition -- no first cause, which predicts the same outcome, is a better explanation than any other.

Unless you have some justification for God spawning from nothing that's better than the universe spawning from nothing?

Catholic Biomedical scientist here.

Most of my colleagues are atheists. I was involved in a conversation between two of my female colleagues, both with MScs, talking about ghosts they have seen and how 'x place is haunted'

Moral of the story, scientists can be retards too.

I just read that in Mortys voice.

>morality without god is impossible

Nice meme, but it's wrong.

Humans naturally have empathy, dominantly for their own race and culture above all else (this is one of they key elements behind why I got into NatSoc theory shit). This has been proven in a variety of studies.

Second, we have an objective measure of order regarding crime rate and things like rate of cheating among partners. In order to maintain order and thus ensure an optimal society, we instill more traditional values purely based off of statistics and scientific reason.

The whole God side of the spectrum is outdated and irrelevant and is direct misinformation and anti-empirical evidence, which is not healthy for a society looking to raise strong critical thinkers in order to advance the human species, mainly their own race.

The problem, there, is
>females

Athiest here. I'm not a humanist, in fact I believe humanity needs to breed less (mostly in third world countries).

But answer me this if you are a christfag, doesn't your belief state we are all equal in the same faith, how come there are some racists groups out there who claim to be christian but wouldn't hesitate to discriminate people as lesser beings despite holding the same beliefs and morals. If Christianity is something to identify yourself with your nation, culture or race, then I think you have the mentality of someone who doesn't truly appreciate freedom and liberty. Go suck papal, patriarch, pastor cock if that's the case.

>Unless you have some justification for God spawning from nothing that's better than the universe spawning from nothing?
We know that the Universe spawned. We don't know from where, but we know that it had the potential to create all that is and that could have been, will be and could be.

Nothing prevents things from existing eternally - they simply need not have a beginning.

Why are empathic people more moral than sociopaths?
>measured by success
Have fun, mr. robot.

Its hard to find thoughtful posts on Cred Forums now a days. When I fist lost faith I didn't see life as

>beautiful with this illusion removed.

I understood that the struggle of life-form against life-form, human against human, ethnicity against ethnicity, nation against nation, as beautiful.

I honestly believe that it is amazing that we live in a world where the best rise to the top, and the worse disappear. This is the essence of progress.

They contribute to their society and their people, easing suffering, promoting wellbeing and happiness and helping to maintain order and superiority.

Also, I am not anti-spiritual whatsoever.

I don't know. It does irritate me too since I am atheist and basically antitheist as well.
If I had to guess it is because the church (note: not the mosque, leftist atheists wouldn't mention Islam much) is a form of domination, oppression and usually the priest is an old white guy (the nemesis of social justice).

I'm atheist but I'm hard right now at this point which kinda sucks because I don't want to be allied with fucking retards who think there's an invisible man in the sky.

How the fuck are atheists liberals? I thought they were all about science. They do think transgender is an actual gender? In so confused some one help

I can assure you the majority of faggots are atheists, and the majority of atheists encourage faggotry.

Why wouldn't they, there's no point to anything, right?

Plenty of irreligious redpillers mate, don't worry

Equal inherently as men, not equal inherently in behavior.
A man raised by 3 generations of psychopaths is not trustworthy.
Niggers have done this since inception.

>They contribute to their society and their people, easing suffering, promoting wellbeing and happiness and helping to maintain order and superiority.
Sociopaths do it, too. Sometimes to greater success.

Scientific atheists are rarely liberals in my opinion unless they're very young.

Hipster libtards who think it's a cool, hip thing to do use it to falsely justify degeneracy.

Learn the difference.

This is true as well, but given their typically selfish nature it is unwise to trust them to do so.

because atheism is abandonment of tradition and allows the individual to easily slip into the philosophical bankruptcy of nihilism

why are you making the assumption that evolution somehow disproves theism, anyway?

Why is your trust necessary to be moral?

I think you misunderstood what I said, I meant trusting them to contribute back to their society and nation when they are usually uninterested in doing so as a result of their sociopathy.

Natural resources might be a better explanation as to why certain cultures thrived over others. Lack of disease, high calorie wheat, ... ? ....

>God is out dated

Then why is every country not based in Christian morality shit?

And why is every country where atheism is the enforced state policy murderously shit? I mean NK, Maos China, Pol Pots Cambodia, USSR, etc

You can talk as much as you want, but history speaks more than the opinion of some fedora on a Cantonese wood carving forum.

Ok, so they are unreliable. Why is that immoral?

>Nothing prevents things from existing eternally - they simply need not have a beginning.

Is there any reason to think that there's a beginning-less creator (more specifically, a personal God) who began our universe?

That is, why is that -more- reasonable than thinking something came from nothing?

Why is "something was and never wasn't" more reasonable than "something became"?

>what are IDs

atheist reportin' and im a massive conservative

What is this lefty bs you talking about?
>like having a fairytale to believe in makes any fucking difference.
Yeah... the only difference is that you accept niggers with your useless fairytale. enjoy your black heaven.

>Logos meme
I, too, favor the pre-Socratic wisdom of Heraclitus, originator of the Logos concept. I do not, however, condone the cultural appropriation and re-branding of it that the Hebrews did. It's a shame that the cult of Dagon, who penetrated the Hebrew Jesus cult and made it their own, destroyed many of the Greek philosophical works that the New Testament made a sort of Cliffs Notes out of, so as to obscure its providence, but we've been able to piece enough of it together from substitute sources, like Clement of Alexandria's written works, for example. Look into philology and you will learn the truth about your mythologies.

Even if this argument was true in all cases, it's not like this automatically makes all races equal again. If anything it proves they are, in fact, inferior, and we have simply found a reasonable cause for why. Never got why race deniers always peddle this excuse.

They in and of themselves are not immoral, but the actions they can be predicted to take fairly often are as it is a failing of them to contribute and pay back to their society and race.

The data show that most are despite the obvious contradictions

And beasts of burden like horses or cows or donkeys. Native american migrated to the Americas early enough that mega fauna hadn't adapted to human predators. Thus, early humans hunted off all potential; domesticated animals.

>Is there any reason to think that there's a beginning-less creator (more specifically, a personal God) who began our universe?
Does our Universe start a new one without losing any of its potential? If not, I really doubt there is a loop going on. So there is a source that was not caused. Perhaps there is a whole world full of such things. But the origin has to be without cause.

I'll bite, I'm an Athiest and when I do political ideology tests I fall on the left wing side of the spectrum, and I am an egalitarian, but not in the way you are thinking, I don't think every one is equal, I believe all people should be given an equal opportunity to succeed, what they do with that opportunity is on them. I also believe in biological differences and cultural differences and that some cultures can't mix with each other. In short I'm left wing but I'm not a looney, that tolerates the hypocritical points of view that are currently running leftism.

Proof that atheists are bad people

>so as to obscure its provenance

I believe whites and their natural traits contributed far more to superior societies than religion did, look at paganistic Rome and Italy. Revolutionary for its time, as opposed to the "thriving" medieval kingdoms through the 1,000 year long dark age.

*recently like in the last 10,000 years. Apologies over my grammar errors

Is this from another of the many denominations in the us? Kek
Isn't Christianity about forgiveness? For instance, if you commit a murder, you confess and then you serve penance and magically you are absolved.
This is the Catholic way, I'm not entirely sure about Protestantism.

Emperor's new clothes.

>"I...I'm smart! lmao G*d, lmao religion."
>"I...I'm not racist! White privilege is real."

>They in and of themselves are not immoral, but the actions they can be predicted to take fairly often are as it is a failing of them to contribute and pay back to their society and race.
>to contribute and pay back to their society and race.
Why is this moral? Why the preference for the built-in aspects? Why the submission to instinct? Why is it moral? Or is it just called moral, and it is just another pattern with no grander meaning?

I remember you friend

Here in uk that doesn't seem to be the case as much. Overall I think atheists over here tend to be more conservative and anti immigration than the serious Christians. I think the reason for this is that atheism is a lot more common and accepted here, probably around 80% of the population. So people aren't rebelling by being atheist here, also a lot of the Christians here are probably more liberal than the atheists especially the Anglicans and born agains

Finally you get to your point, holy shit.

Anyway, nothing makes it anymore moral than God is made moral because a word in a page says that's what he is. Simply because a belief system claims that all morality stems from this one thing doesn't make it any more objective a morality. Look at Islam, they believe their morality is objective and the one truth. Their morality, your morality, my morality, it's all a jumbled pot of shit with no real meaning.

That said, the "moral" I'm describing is essentially in preference to maximum order and happiness being attained in a society/nation, as should have been made obvious.

>t atheists, it's impossible to be an atheist and a leftist at the same time without some serious mental juggling.

not really.

Atheism -> nihilism -> egoism.

Leftism is about having others pay for your egocentric lifestyle. It's only natural they would make an alliance with the poor to take all from the rich.

>I can assure you the majority of faggots are atheists
Holy shit, people as retarded as you actually exist? Am I being baited?
"Is there reason to think that most atheists are gay?"
"Well most gay people are atheists."

Second, citation? A moment of statistical consideration should tell you that, because of the vastly higher base rate of religion, the rate of homosexuality among atheists would have to be orders of magnitude higher in order for the majority of gays to be atheists.

>Why wouldn't they, there's no point to anything, right?

Why would you hate gay people? And how is your hatred of gay people evidence of your absurd belief in a sky daddy who protects you?

>If God isn't real then their actions don't have any ultimate consequences
Incorrect nigger! Their actions determine the most important thing in the world: the success of their DNA memes, otherwise known as genes. It's one of only 2 ways to cheat death if you don't believe in an afterlife. The other way is to pass on non-DNA memes that last beyond your death. Famous writers for example, or scientists that make a major change in how we viewed the world.

Jehova's Witnesses are the most redpilled because they haven't swallowed the party pill.

>Does our Universe start a new one without losing any of its potential? If not, I really doubt there is a loop going on. So there is a source that was not caused. Perhaps there is a whole world full of such things. But the origin has to be without cause.

Yes? I'm not in disagreement with this at all. The origin -must- be without cause, by definition. It's not just the case for physical systems, logic and math itself require necessarily unprovable axioms to create anything.

Why is "God from nothing created universe" preferable to "Universe started from nothing", where "God" carries the relevant connotations of modern religions (personal, created it for us, conscious, omniscient, and omnipotent)?

>That said, the "moral" I'm describing is essentially in preference to maximum order and happiness being attained in a society/nation, as should have been made obvious.
So you just speak newspeak. How are you different from Muslims?
>Finally you get to your point, holy shit.
If I start with it, autists don't understand me.

>Anyway, nothing makes it anymore moral than God is made moral because a word in a page says that's what he is.
>a word on a page says so
Gravity isn't so because Newton said so. You're taking it the wrong way, like the kikes did, like the muslims did like the young earthers do. Like every fucking atheist seems to do.
Your morality is "good" because you want it to be good. How are you different from kikes? You're on different side? You root for another team?

Your morality is good because you believe it to be good.

Just as meaningless as mine. I use metrics of overall human happiness and innovation as a baseline, however, not arbitrary words on paper.

>God from nothing
It's not "God from nothing." It's everything from God. There was never a "nothing". Nothing holds no potential for change. It holds no potential at all. God is the obvious choice, as He'd hold potential for life (only caused by life as far as we know) and consciousness.

What reason do you have to believe that your morality is the correct?

Not only do you have to deal with the philosophically dubious claim that morality can even originate from authority, but the empirical issue of whether such an authority even exists.

>Gravity isn't so because Newton said so.
So what you're saying is that morality is independent of God, yet without God you can't have morality?
Nice, and he's the autist.

>Your morality is good because you believe it to be good.
I hope, believe, assume. I've been wrong so often, and so ironically that I think that only God can explain it.
>Just as meaningless as mine.
I can't change it on a whim. Sure, I can ignore it or disregard it on a whim, but I can't change it. You can. You don't have morality. You have a methodology.

It's not "universe from nothing", it's everything from the universe. There was never a "nothing", for time holds no meaning without a universe.

Literally how are these different?

>I can't change it on a whim.

Oh, you can't have an axiomatic system without God?
Cool.

Mine does not change on a whim either, as it uses objective measures (human happiness, stability and rate of innovation). The methodology through which I believe these things can be best accomplished absolutely can change over time, but the underlying principles of what I would like to see accomplished remain the same and always will.

atheists are losers

Btw I'm atheist and NatSoc

You're just talking crap here. implying unprovable attributes to both God and the universe with no logical reasoning. Why has God always existed while the Universe could not?

What is that thing that separates God from matter.

You dont know it and you cant even begin to make assumption about it.

>It's not "universe from nothing", it's everything from the universe.
No, we didn't have a Universe before. What caused a change in it? It held no potential as it was unchanging, if it was changing, it should have been a loop - which I already routed out as extremely unlikely, as no potential could be wasted - unless we are that waste of some even grander chain of events that actively creates new worlds, and is unchanging.

>Why the fuck are so many Atheists left-wing egalitarian shitheads?
because athiesm is literally an anti-white jewish/satanist plot to destroy america

>life (only caused by life as far as we know)
There's a new theory on life origins gaining popularity right now that claims to defeat the (-)entropic bootstrapping problem. Something to do with interactions between surfaces of clay minerals and ion-rich waters, but I don't understand it well enough to explain, or to say if its bullshit or not.

>it's impossible to be an atheist and a leftist at the same time without some serious mental juggling

this is the stupidest thing I have read all week

They have thrown off their belief in God, but not their need for authority figures. This makes them flock to the state. Communism\Socialism is essentially religion, just replace God with the government.

Liberals like to pretend they're smart and understand science but this is just proof that many of them lack the critical and quantitative reasoning to apply it to anything/have original ideas.

I'd love to be proven wrong by jesus showing up and rapturing the fuck out of the world, but religion to me just seems like believing in santa claus and such.

>Oh, you can't have an axiomatic system without God?
>Cool.
You can't base it on anything except something that doesn't stick around. Society? Will fall. Your desires? You die. Profits? Bubble market.

Christ you gaytheists love playing mental gymnastics.

When they can replicate it in natural conditions without intelligence or outside help, then it becomes reasonable.

Being atheist does nothing innately to prove you are somehow incapable of believing in fairy tails. Hell, in most cases it actually lets idiocy more mainstream religions would compete with seep in.

Estonians are one of the most atheistic nations on earth, but also one that most believes in paganism, "ghosts", ufos, wiches, whatever meme of the generation tears through the population. Just declaring "there is no god" does nothing innately in creating rational mode of thought, it just leaves a vaccume of ideology.

That vaccume is often filled with whatever first thing manages to infect it afterwards.

Also a big reason for this is in america that Republicans have been branded the "christian" party, so atheists fall in line like good goys behind democrats on default.

>Why the fuck are so many Atheists left-wing egalitarian shitheads?

They aren't? What's your evidence? I'm an atheist, right wing, and I like evidence. Sauce or gtfo.

youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c

I don't know why so many of my fellow non-theists are such lefties really. I think it's because historically, theism and religion has been associated with the right wing, so they become leftards instead. By doing so, they embrace the concept that everyone is a fucking copy of eachother and any deficiencies are just because of of "colonialism" or some other shit. Some races are just better evolved than others, and that's just science.

Atheist centrist here. It depends how emotional they are. Some atheists are pussies and don't care about overpopulation issues and degeneracy.

>nothing exploded into everything for no reason don't ask me to prove it no one can
>BUT GOD DEFINITELY WASNT INVOLVED SHEEPLE

Atheist logic at its finest.

> left-wing

>egalitarian

This fucking meme.

Because the vast majority of atheists are atheists because of Marxian influence in the media and education system. So they naturally adopt a humanist viewpoint rather than a Darwinian one.

>No, we didn't have a Universe before.
How do you know there was a "before"?

>unless we are that waste of some even grander chain of events that actively creates new worlds, and is unchanging.

Who knows?
Why would such a chain of events be some omnipotent, omniscient, personal God?

>You can't base it on anything except something that doesn't stick around.

You're right, we should base morality on something that doesn't exist at all

Where did God come from?

>with no logical reasoning.
It exists, it isn't actively created (it follows rules; ie. this follows from that). Consciousness is only noted on one individual, the measurer. It was in potential form in the beginning. We have life. The only source of life we know of (scientifically speaking) is some other form of life. Therefore we'd either have to have another known source for life. The potential for {now} was in the beginning, unless the potential (ie. laws of nature) change. They seem to be static. If the laws of nature, laws of potential change, do tell me.

E=E1+E2+...+En
Do you get it? There is no "new" stuff added later on. Therefore it all had to be set in motion in the beginning. This includes the potential for life, consciousness etc. -unless they are aliens to this Universe, as I suspect consciousness to be.

Gonna have to de-oxygenate the oceans to run that experiment unfortunately.

>gaytheist
>defining morals in terms of genetic success

>You're right, we should base morality on something that doesn't exist at all
Yeah, like {your dad}.

Couldn't the correlation be between academia and liberalism? After all most scientists and academics identify as atheists.

And academia has been poisoned with liberalism, no doubt.

Consciousness may well arise from physical processes, and much has been written about it, from both a scientific and philosophic viewpoint. Godel, Escher, Bach lays it out quite cleanly.

Modern atheists are closer to satanists than actual atheists.
It is a religion, one built around the worship of science without the understanding of science.

Now I'm not saying atheism is satanism, what I'm saying is these people are mistakenly believing in satanism thinking that it's atheism.

If you're confused please know that the most proper brand of satanism does not actually believe in Satan as a god or anything, they believe it more to be that their religion is a counter to any concept or belief of God the same way water is a counter to fire.
It is not a rejection of all theistic belief unlike true Atheism.

Note how most modern liberals and "atheists" do not know jack shit about science; they're terribly stupid, and yet they still gather around and worship members of the scientific community and subscribe to science magazines and the like. Very partially they subconsciously believe this will make them look smarter, so they hunker down in science culture, but I have found the majority of the time they legitimately worship science. They believe it to be the solver of all things, they believe it to be their protector, they listen to all words related to it as if they were gospel.

Real satanists would have good motive to inject these beliefs into society under the guise of a superior way of thinking, wouldn't you agree?
I've already seen many MANY atheists say something along the lines of sympathy for satanism. I don't believe they truly know what they're saying, but it's still being said.

>evolution
>evidence

toplel

Obviously the Atheism fairy caused God to explode out of nothingness, just like the universe.

It could be, that has no standing on my argument, though.

>I wonder if there's a lot of redpilled atheists out there, but maybe they just aren't vocal about either.
Hello

You are trying to use logic while you bases is completely illogical.

You consciousness is electrical pulses firing from neurons. it is physical and quantifiable.

Everything that is not nothing is matter, yet you are trying to tell me God is coming but he is not matter.

Where is your reasoning that it is possible for something to not be matter.

Most rational atheists just don't give a fuck about religion save islam. FUCK ISLAM.

Right, don't answer the question. You sure convinced me! It's just too embarrassing to believe that something came from nothing, so instead, I'll believe that God came from nothing, and everything came from it.

Most atheists aren't rational atheists.

Sorry. What's your argument, exactly?

>You consciousness is electrical pulses firing from neurons
Is it?

Imagine you are locked in a room with a radio and measurement devices. You measure the speech that comes out of the radio. You end up with measuring air pressure, electricity and stuff like that.
What you never measured was the speaker. That's the problem with reductionism, that's the problem with science. It is a tool - like those measurement devices.

You just assume your reason plays no part. Yet you assume to explain your reason to yourself.

You religious subhumans must be gulagged in the name of Marx

Muslims and Catholicishits and Jews first. Fuck sand religions.

I don't know. I have never met an attractive atheist. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian but I am the type of Christian who believes God is love and that we should love our fellow man. This isn't a theist vs. atheist discussion.

But I honestly have never met an attractive atheist, even before learning they were atheist, I would think to myself, “That woman is ugly… jeez…”

Do you think that people are atheists because they hate God for making them ugly?

It exists in this world, it had a beginning with this world. Therefore whatever we find here, must be explainable by the source material. Obviously, if there are altering paths that can be taken, the source must be greater or at the very least in our level.

Most evangelical christians have been sequestered by cuckservatives or neolibs, they aren't a problem anymore. MUZZIES FUCKNG ARE. ALL OVER THE WORLD.

>agreed

>but I like science and religion :)

Christianity is a salt religion, though. Just look at this thread.

All you are doing is making metaphor about logic and how your answer could be outside of logic.

Well guess what, that is not a logical argument.

>I'll believe that God came from nothing, and everything came from it.

How is God going to "come from nothing" if God is eternal?

Funny how mormons are saving the white race.

Makes you wonder why they're attacked so much, doesn't it?

I'm just stating the limitations. You take a subject that is not really known about, say consciousness. Then you just reduce it to the parts it has.

>I'm atheist but I'm hard right now at this point which kinda sucks because I don't want to be allied with fucking retards who think there's an invisible man in the sky.

Rockwell was right: youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc

Sure, there's something to saying that measurement never tells you about actual reality, and only its symptoms. Empiricism has its limits. Yet it's still the only door to reality -- a priori reasoning alone can't get you there.

Wouldn't you agree that if something exhibits no physical effects that it's difficult to say it really "exists" in a meaningful way?

I'd support a radical christain movement over any muslim movement any day. Even as an atheist, DEUS VULT.

your are stating the "limitations" of logic in order to take this argument outside of logic, sens you don't have an argument that can stand up to logic.

Stalin and company made sure biologists and researchers that found results supporting HBD were conveniently "demoted" or "disappeared", though.

Evolution=people are different
Creation=Equality

No I'm telling you my theory is that the atheism fairy caused the God to magically form from nothing. Just like the universe right.

Isn't that what you (((modern atheists))) believe?

Americans are being fat as usual.

Guys seriously if you really believe in a sky daddy instead of science you are MENTALLY CHALLENGED.

its the same way that nihilism gets approached by the jews.

Its a limited hangout type of thing. Critical theory is also inherently jewish.

You see, the jew cannot create anything on his own, he can only pervert something with his jewish tint.

thank god I have this pastebin against him though

pastebin.com/4qDqptnR

Why does this explanation not apply to the universe?
By analogy, the open interval (0, ∞) has no "beginning" topologically, and is eternal in both directions, despite its bound. How is this distinct from your view of God?

Are you trying to make the argument that Christianity supports radical mass immigration policies because "we are all equal"?

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
ALL LIFE IS DRIVEN BY THE DESIRE TO IMPROVE ITS GENETIC FITNESS

>ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL, RACE MIXING AND INTERNATIONAL ALTRUISM ARE THE BEST

Yeah I don't get it either

They are not limitations of logic, they are limitations of science. Learn the difference.
You are trying to limit truth of existence to cover only particles. Because particles are rather simple. When you think of particles, does a group of particles think of themselves or do you think of particles?

In short:
>Do you exist or am I talking to an AI?

Science and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive you Mongloid sand nigger.

>Who does this?
I did. Smoked a shit-load of weed and watched hippy liberal crap on YouTube. Carl Sagan, Neil DeNog, and bought into it.

I was raised Southern Methodist, but went to a Southern Baptist Middle/High and got shamed for shit all the time. Masturbation is devil. Dancing is devil. Sex is devil. Hungry kids in Africa and you like stuff your fatty face. You devil.

After High I made friends with atheists and deprogrammed. After the update finished I got malware of hating all religionfags.

Now I understand that I needed that religion growing up so I wouldn't sext or rape. But now, its time to party w/ niggers before they get their Arab spring on and kill us all.

TL;DR
>muh innocence, privilage, fat-acceptance, and childhood

>Science and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive
IS THIS WHY YOUR SHITTY CHURCHES BURNED SCIENTISTS AND ACCUSED THEM OF BEING HERETICS?

Atheists are at heart futurists and progressives. They're smart enough to not believe in magic, but not smart enough to distinguish the grey reality from the black and white lies were told for political and economic convenience.

It's a case of political science and finance majors giving the technology club a wedgie, basically.

>believing modernism
Modernism has never, ever accused anybody of anything wrongly, ever. Especially regarding political power. No, never. Everybody is equal, evolution is true. Free will doesn't exist, everybody should have a choice.

also this

youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc

Ask the Pope

Yes there are infinite unfalsifiable statement like that. Which is why you apply occam's razor to it and select the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions.

because if it has a beginning, it cannot support a model of infinite regression of causation

there must therefore be a base in the hierarchy of causation, and a base would naturally have such properties as being eternal, being unchanging while simultaneously being the driving force behind the causation of the chain of events in all things, etc

a universe that is not eternal cannot contain an entity that meets these parameters, so it must therefore be a force outside of the universe

Christianity isn't the Pope so I guess I'm in luck.

>Which is why you apply occam's razor to it and select the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions.
Which is not de facto "I AM PARTICLE." It is: "I control particles."

No, again you are making the assumption that something other than matter is at play here. When there is zero evidence of such.

>so it must therefore be a force outside of the universe
The universe is cyclical you disgusting cuck.
And time means jackshit in the grand order of things. Time cannot be considered separately from space and energy, it's just that humans perceive these entities as separated. Time is a human simplification to keep track of entropy.

Even if this loop has been "caused", there is absolutely no guarantee that the entity who caused this is "good" or "charitable" or even sentient for all that matters. It could be something ranginf from a blob of energy to Chthulu

>there is zero evidence for such
Do you not live? Do you not think? Do you not do anything? Do you not type? Are you, or are you not?

The first rational statement, measurement, proof that everything befalls upon is this: "I am. "
Before you make that statement, you can't even believe in science. There is no one to believe it. Sure enough, if there is a reflex-operated biological machine that has been programmed to operate on such notions with no consciousness, it may have avoided such things. So I ask again. Are you, or are you not?

>because if it has a beginning, it cannot support a model of infinite regression of causation

Why not? On the interval (0, ∞), it is bounded, and supports infinite regression of causation.

This analogy is more powerful than it appears, for (0, ∞) may represent the domain of time (this is isomorphic to (-∞, ∞), which is the "God" model -- they are quite literally the same in that respect).

Why can the universe, while bounded, support infinite regression of causation? Everything happened before something else. Where's the issue?

You've been paddling upstream all thread long bruh. We get it, you want to deny the materialist & reductionist outlook, now go to a Christianity thread.

Why do any of these things necessitate something beyond matter?

>sodomy prevalent and polytheism on the decline

>christianity sweeps into Europe, getting rid of degenerate pagan practices and replacing it with a strong ideology

>white people can't even hold onto THAT for long because Christianity has weakened enough to allow another strong faith to invade (Islam).

Fucking hell.

Yes "I am" made of matter.

To imply I am more then Matter would mean that if you took away the matter there would still be something that exists.

So please tell, do you have evidence of something that is not matter?

Do you believe that Islam encourages sodomy?

Non-sequitur. Worse, it's such an obvious one. That means you aren't of the caliber for these kind of discussions, you are like a Sprey acolyte trying to explain why the F-35 is bad. You're just so deeply out of your element you can't even recognize that you are getting btfo.

>Why do any of these things necessitate something beyond matter?
Because we think in another language. Definitions, ideas. They are not just data. AI will never understand it. AI operates as the reductionist model would have us operate.

Player controlling a model is far more expressive of how it goes. We have Logos.

>Yes "I am" made of matter.
Your body is. Why do you think everything that is, can be measured by other, measurable objects within the spectrum of existence we can interact with?
>it's the simplest model
..and it will be wrong unless we get the scope right.

>They are not just data. AI will never understand it.

How do you know this?

>They are not just data.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

1. prove it
2. enjoy your magical thinking brah

Because occam's razor. Your model is making more assumption than mine.

IM SMARTER THAN YOU

>translating (0, ∞) to (-∞, ∞) mathematically means you can support infinite regression
How? How can you regress beyond a beginning? It would make no sense if there can be an event before the very first began.

>How do you know this?
The way it operates. A door does not know it is opened or closed, nor does a clock know the time. We know those states, we make those states of the environment. They are juts data sea before our reason kicks in.
AI will always operate on necessity, not volition. It will always be blind, no matter how many cameras you put in it.

meat eating breaks the NAP

>..and it will be wrong unless we get the scope right.

There's no proof that the hard problem cannot be solved for AI, and all acting on a model which assumes that it is unsolvable does is halt progress.

>1. prove it
Measure me an utopia.

>There's no proof that the hard problem cannot be solved for AI
Unless we get the AI to use itself, it won't be AI. If it uses itself, it isn't coded.

>How? How can you regress beyond a beginning? It would make no sense if there can be an event before the very first began.

Really?
Let's play a game. You give me a number bigger than 0, and I'll give you a number smaller than it. I can regress forever.

Similarly, give me a time, and I can give you a time further back than it.

Both are infinite regression.

You have no evidence that matter cannot contain human consciousness on it's own.

You are just making a huge assumption

>If it uses itself, it isn't coded.

How do you know this?
Have you ever read Godel, Escher, Bach?

There is a point where an object starts, and where it ends. We can divide it to have endless points in-between, but the absolutes are absolute.

You can divide your life to as many segments as you like, doesn't make you live forever. There is a moment where the universe began. There may be a point where it ends.

>utopia
Now I definitely know you're batshit. Good night.

It's because the right is filled to exploding with retarded christfags who can't get their head off their asses about religion.

It's not even only the atheists that the right is losing over this. The right really has to tone down religion if it wants to survive.

But a causer isn't a theoretical number, you can't break down each cause in a chain to anything less than what the cause actually is.

It silly to compare computer AI to DNA. One is written in 10 years and the other in millions of years

It's simple - liberalism is a mental disease.

>You have no evidence that matter cannot contain human consciousness on it's own.
You claim that it does. You prove your point. I stick with skepticism.
>you are making a huge assumption
Based on intuition that told me of reason itself, beauty and all of that. Your measurement devices are blind to consciousness, but not its effects.

>the most important thing in the world: the success of their DNA memes, otherwise known as genes.

What kind of lunatic considers this the "most important" thing in the world? Not keeping your promises? Not standing up to lies and corruption? Not working to leave the world a better place than you found it? Not making an effort to improve your community?

No, your DNA memes, the results of which will not be felt for centuries anyway and will be lost as part of a massive genetic drift anyway, and which will ultimately be drowned out by phenotypical expression and cultural taboo regardless.

If you're talking about living on after death, your genes are irrelevant entirely. Genghis Khan is related to a fuckton of Eurasian people, but he's not remembered for getting it on with a ton of ladies. He's remembered for conquering half the fucking world at knifepoint. Minus that and he'd just be a quirky king from the autobiography of some Silk Road trader.

One is really left to wonder at the thinking which goes into this. Atheists CAN come up with serious moral systems and compelling reasons for living. More than a few do. What baffles me is that so fucking many of them just DON'T, and do this weird mental gymnastics stuff instead. That and naive, uncritical utilitarianism are pretty much the hallmark of an intellectually shallow nu-atheist internet poster.

And the one made in 10 years is more efficient as an operator... The fact that we can't even adequately code a human replicator should tell us that we do not know even the basic functions of consciousness, but alas, here we are, telling what it exactly is.

Yeah, you are just reactions. I'm just me.

Measure it. I dare you. It is just data, after all.

>There is a moment where the universe began.

How do you know this? What is the first number in the interval (0, ∞)? What was the "first" moment?

You misundestand the analogy. My life had a first moment (if "life" is defined specifically enough). The universe did not, unless we expand the domain of time past the bounds of the big bang. Though this would be merely defining yourself as correct, no?

>What kind of lunatic considers this the "most important" thing in the world?
A person doesn't make it the most important thing, reality does.

You might as well be crying
>What kind of shitlord considers race to be real?

>How do you know this?
We call it the big bang. I don't actually know it per se, more than I know evolution, at least. It's what I've been told by reliable sources.

>reality does.
Pray tell, does it not lead to guillotines?

>you can't break down each cause in a chain to anything less than what the cause actually is.

I'm not sure what this is saying.

Hard to measure something that is so illogical that it cannot even exist. Go find me a utopia and measure it, culty.

If you decide to Jonestown yourself to go meet the comet people make sure to announce it on Cred Forums first

>The fact that we can't even adequately code a human replicator

Not really sure I get your point. Nature has done countless things more complex than humans can achieve.

We can not replicate our own Sun. SO what? is everything human cannot replicate magical? Is that really what you believe?

>What is the first number in the interval (0, ∞)? What was the "first" moment?
Ah, but now you are just using language. It is a symbol for an amount. The first is the first. It can be named x, 1, 0.1... It doesn't matter. It is the first change, be it a 4D slideshow with one 3D frame or something quite different. It can be done.

>what is the first number in the interval (0, ∞)?
0

There cannot be a -1, -2, -5, -∞ if the first is 0 because you can't go before the first began. That's the point.

>Nature has done countless things more complex than humans can achieve.
Nature? No. You mean "Patterns have arisen that we can't replicate."
> is everything human cannot replicate magical? Is that really what you believe?
Magical? No. Is a player magical? No. It is from an outside source connected to outside points. The body we have here is just the model. Your brain is the antennae.. - the radio I spoke of earlier. Why can't you get it?
Show me something else aside from humans that has Logos.

>talking about guillotines
take your medication! just wow

>We call it the big bang. I don't actually know it per se, more than I know evolution, at least. It's what I've been told by reliable sources.

Right. Why do you think you "know" that the big bang represents a "first moment" more than it does a bound? The topological differences between a closed interval and an open interval were probably never described towards you by those reliable sources.

What I mean is that I understand what you're getting at, and you haven't been given "false" information, but there are subtleties here that you've probably never been given.

If the time domain were on a closed interval (that is, it's of the form [0, ∞), rather than (0, ∞)), we would never be able to measure it anyways, and such a thing hasn't been conceived of. We can well theorize about the moments after the big bang, but the "moment of" is simply out of the domain, for it isn't an actual point in time. It is an open interval, and so, it allows infinite regress, and is, in that sense, eternal (which is all of the senses, down to isomorphism).

Hume's guillotine is what I was referring to. Of course, in case of liberals, the other, more material type are to be found.

>Magical? No.
>proceeds to expound magical beliefs
You've lost the plot culty

>reality is what I say it is even if I can't defend my argument
you are retarded

There -literally- is no smallest number on the interval (0, ∞). It cannot be done.

>Why do you think you "know" that the big bang represents a "first moment" more than it does a bound?
The laws of physics kicked in and change was first measured. We have no measurements from anything beyond, either meaning "ex nihilo" or an outside source. Ie. somebody booted the program.

>0
>There cannot be a -1, -2, -5, -∞ if the first is 0 because you can't go before the first began. That's the point.


No, 0 is not the first number on (0, ∞). 0 is not contained in the set (0, ∞). It has no smallest number. It does have a greatest lower bound, 0, but not a smallest number.

>>proceeds to expound magical beliefs
You are sending me a message. That is not magical.

It's not about size or magnitude, it is about order. Let me give you the accurate representation of it: "the first". Or using physics, the first xth dimensional version of a Planck length "frame".

>We have no measurements from anything beyond, either meaning "ex nihilo" or an outside source. Ie. somebody booted the program.

Again, why do you believe there is anything beyond? There is no first moment. You can always go further back. This is what eternal means.

Atheism arose during a time when Christianity was extremely dogmatic and oppressive, and when fighting for more freedom actually made sense. Many atheists were genuinely intelligent back then, and often had a background in science.
Liberals started to cling to atheism because Christianity was associated with conservatives, and this was an easy way to attack them. Atheism also had a reputation of being inspired by science and was associated with nerd culture. This was obviously very appealing to liberals as they could pretend to be critical thinkers and interested in science, despite never having touched a STEM related field in their lives. This got even worse when being a faux-nerd became trendy with the rise of social media and the smart phone.

In case you're not aware, liberals have literally destroyed the atheist community. It split in two, with one side being dominated by SJWs and their retarded social justice bullshit and the other by the critically minded skeptics of old, who simply want religion out of politics, but don't care what your political background is.

>Again, why do you believe there is anything beyond?
Because ex nihilo makes no sense by any standards, especially since this world has clear cut rules that stick around and don't change randomly.

>There is no first moment. You can always go further back. This is what eternal means.
Yes there is. We just measure it according to the fourth dimension. Planck length is the smallest possible length measurable in our Universe. Sure, we have numbers that go smaller, but no changes.

Because atheists are raised in a non religious family, and religion is the best way to teach people the value of charity.

Without valuing charity, they turn to statism

/thread

>It's not about size or magnitude, it is about order. Let me give you the accurate representation of it: "the first".

Suppose x is the first number such that 0 < x < ∞.

Let y be defined by x/r, where r>1 is a real number.
Then 0 < y < x, and x is not the first number, which is a contradiction.

Therefore, there is no first number on (0, ∞).

Your idea of "first" is a literal logical impossibility.

>Let y be defined by x/r, where r>1 is a real number.
Why? Reality has all numbers aside from just real ones. Why can't x be an irrational number?

>Your idea of "first" is a literal logical impossibility.
No, it is what can be measured. The first frame. You just make infinite points between your fingers and your keyboard - how do you write? You've always been writing?

Are they using Jew as ethnic Jew or Jew as religious Jew?

Most orthodox Jews are actually Republican. But because ethnic Jews are much more prominent than religious Jews, they crowd up the result

everyone follows a social code, when christianity is destroyed for them they jump to the next biggest code, liberalism

>Yes there is. We just measure it according to the fourth dimension. Planck length is the smallest possible length measurable in our Universe. Sure, we have numbers that go smaller, but no changes.
Planck length is defined in reference to measurability. Aren't you the dude who said that the measurement isn't reality?

That is, there's an underlying reality, one which our measurements inform us of. There are limitations on measurement, and the planck length is the length with respect to that limitation.

Unless you're willing to say that reality is only that which can be measured? (You know this is a poison pill, for you lose your view on consciousness and the supernatural)

Knowing that people are not equal doesn't mean you can't be egalitarian. Egalitarian just means equal under the law, not equal in every way.

Gaytheists BTFO ITT

Libcucks on suicide watch

>Why? Reality has all numbers aside from just real ones. Why can't x be an irrational number?

...Irrational numbers are real numbers. Real numbers are the field extension of the rational numbers into the rational numbers plus the irrational numbers. That is, r (for real, not for rational [which is generally denoted by a fraction, for that's where "rational" comes from: "ratio"]) can be irrational, and the proof works just the same.

why do you go on about evolution after talking about atheism, those are two different ideas

>Aren't you the dude who said that the measurement isn't reality?
Between clear cut states, measurement is quite reliable. However, cutting those states apart and saying they are just their parts since the parts were measured, is absurd. "A hammer is not really a hammer, it is just particles in a certain order." Alright, sounds simple enough and works. Do it to stuff that one knows nothing about and it all falls apart. You just go with assumptions. You assume already that consciousness is just another hammer. Then you break it down and find nothing resembling consciousness.

Sorry, pulled an all-nighter.

>No, it is what can be measured. The first frame. You just make infinite points between your fingers and your keyboard - how do you write? You've always been writing?

We've moved a looooong way past Zeno in the past two thousand years.

Again, divide that "first" number by a real number greater than 1 and you see that it is not the first number. I gave you above an undeniable, deductive proof.

There is no first number on (0, ∞), and unless you provide good evidence that reality takes place on a closed interval (which would require evidence literally outside of the universe), then there is no -actual- first moment, merely a lower bound.

The fact that one can divide anything to an infinite amount of parts does not mean that infinite amount of them actually interact with one another, or that they actually exist. It is just theorem.
The world begun. If what you're saying is correct, there never was any progress away from the beginning. Everything would be static.

>Then you break it down and find nothing resembling consciousness.
It can be argued that consciousness may arise from pieces that don't have consciousness (through strange loops and the like), but that's beside the point.

That's beside the point, though. If you are abandoning fundamental empiricism (which you are, and is a perfectly valid position), then the universe is, quite literally, as eternal as "God" would be.

There cannot be a first moment if the map is not the territory.

>Again, divide that "first" number by a real number greater than 1 and you see that it is not the first number.
What if... this world doesn't use numbers, but integers? Sure, you can divide integers so much as you like, it doesn't change the program. It still had its first line. It still had its first operation. You just say "there are infinitely many points between A and B, therefore A and B are not really separate." B being the first separate state of existence from A, the potential.

because humans are made to follow dogmas. if you dont follow the religion one, you brain finds another dogmatic thing to latch on, which can be leftism

>The world begun.
Rather, more precisely, the world HAD begun.

>If what you're saying is correct, there never was any progress away from the beginning. Everything would be static.
No, there is nothing in the mathematics which necessitates this. You're equating (0, ∞) with {0}, when, in fact, 0 is the only non-negative number not contained in (0, ∞).

Say it with me: There is no first moment. There is a bound, from which everything moves away, but there was never a "first". This does not necessitate a static universe.

>There cannot be a first moment if the map is not the territory.
Unless we compare it to the source of it. The world is limited. From our perspective -that is, the world's perspective- it ends in a brick wall. Take any step from it and it is movement, size is irrelevant. The world is not eternal, we can even interact with the past. (Double slit experiment works with ancient light, mapping its past instantaneously).

I'm not abandoning empiricism unless I have reason to- I quite clearly said that I've measured myself to be an actor. Others simply ignore those measurements they ought to have made. Perhaps to fit in, perhaps to wallow in hedonism, I don't know. Maybe others are "NPCs".

what show is this called?

Sorry, I'm a bit slow today. You really are just arguing that there are infinite spots in-between those two, so it counts as "infinite".
NOT that the world has always been.

I don't know what your problem is. My problem was the idea that the world had always been and caused itself due to its infinity... But the thing is, the source needs to hold all the more potential to have such built-in factors. Jump to -|x| to find what I've been talking about.

Bill nye the science guy

>Rightwing Cred Forumsack
There's no other kind these days

>What if... this world doesn't use numbers, but integers?

Integers are numbers. Still, reality is continuous, which the integers (and by extension the rationals) cannot be.

Unless you have proof, or evidence? Such proof can't be found.

That is, you're defining yourself to be right. I can't say that you're wrong, because such a statement is outside of logic. You're choosing different axioms.

As well, these are different axioms than we've chosen in modeling the universe, so you'd be rather alone, but I can't stop you.

nvm found it

thanks you useless faggot street shitter

Rick and Morty

>NOT that the world has always been.

No, this is what I'm arguing. The universe always has been. That is, at all points in time, there has been universe, for time depends on the universe to be defined. There LITERALLY is no first moment, and this is relevantly -identical- to the concept of an eternal creator.

Every metaphysical argument of this kind for an eternal, supernatural creator of the universe applies to the universe itself.

> My problem was the idea that the world had always been and caused itself due to its infinity... But the thing is, the source needs to hold all the more potential to have such built-in factors.

I don't know how this goes in the direction of a prime mover.

I'm getting my h1b soon, if my flight stops in Holland for some reason, I'll be sure to bring my culture to your streets as well. I doubt the cops will stop me too, dat b raysis.

>Why the fuck are so many Atheists left-wing egalitarian shitheads?

Because, they're still "secular Christians". they believe in all the bullshit except the God part. They're scum basically.

they turned 15 and decided the notion of God is fucking retarded but they were too lazy to deprogram themselves beyond that.

Mormons are best christians , atheist are proven pieces of shit , even lower shit then the jew

Anyways, I have to go to bed. Thanks at least for being respectful.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics

I think that's the best I've seen put forward from an atheist as to their morals.

There's plenty of right-wing atheists

The problem is that a lot of atheists drank the koolaid too hard and essentially traded one religion for another religion without even realizing they did it.

The overwhelming similarity in all cases is that they believe every word that comes out of the mainstream media without question. The MSM questioned religion, so they instantly dropped religion. The MSM told them to be SJW's, so they became SJW's. The MSM told them evolution wasn't real and LO, evolution ain't real anymore.

Since they (we, since I'm an Atheist) don't grow up with an Ideology or some worldview mindprogramming, we are much more susceptible for indoctrination, since there is no previous indoctrination to overcome. Once a substantial amount of people believe in the same thing, it become's a self fueling fire, because of herd mentality.

There is literally no difference between ethnic and religious jews. Their religion has become their ethnicity, and their ethnicity a religion.

And yet, he was still a socialist.

>become's

Your Republicans are generally special kinds of religious loons compared to most right wing parties.

It was kind of a newish thing though then.

They dont vote at all , god governs the world what happens has to happen

First there was religion then we got satan claus to debunk religion

>Atheism
You misspelled Nihilism.

This is what further pushed me down the rabbit hole. I end up in the Ron Paul hype back in 08' and 12' and end up hating atheists afterwards. Post 2012 after all that It was just one after the other leftist atheist hating on christians non stop with a big ole dose of nihilism. Fuck that.