You are not redpilled

Friendly reminder that Atheism is the ultimate redpill. Once you take the pill you see the world for the truth of what it is, and believing in god without evidence is not this by any means. Gnostic atheists are also bluepilled, as they have no way of disproving faith. Some religious values are ok, but remember, the pill is about seeking the truth.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike#Deaths_and_end_of_strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist
youtube.com/watch?v=wJ71SXGEOCE

That is a tumblr tier illustration.

Everyone is an agnostic - nobody can claim knowledge.

Everybody is also an atheist. Because God is clearly dead and you have to be autistic not to see that on other peoples eyes.

But everybody likes categories.
The most universal of the Nazarene messages is totally forgotten.

Yes, believing in God without evidence is dumb.

Too bad there is more than enough evidence that supports Theism in general, historically, philosophically, scientifically and just by using basic logic.

We can see that Atheism has evolved into a movement for hate against mainly Catholics. Falling for atheism is simply another trick, theism is the only truth, no religion is correct but some are have more truth than others.

>Believe there is no God, with no evidence!

Daily reminder the only reason science disapproves existence of any deity is because of Occam's razor which isn't a proof of any kind.

Modern Atheism is Marxist in origin tho

>Everyone is an agnostic - nobody can claim knowledge.

Only theist people are claiming knowledge. The burden of proof is not on the atheists, therefore they CAN claim no God exists until it is proven to be real.

Just like I can claim with certainty than unicorns and fairies don't exist. That spider-man doesn't exist. I don't, and cannot, prove that something is not. I don't have to justify anything.

>The Gnostic Theist is the only white one

...

Friendly reminder that Atheism is babby's first attempt at philosophical thought. You haven't hit the finish line: you've merely taken your first step around the track. Don't stop now, we'll be waiting right here when you've come around full circle

Well of course the atheist makes a diverse cast of characters for their graphic. They wouldn't want to look racist.

What if Im an atheist who doesn't give a shit if there was a God and wouldn't worship him anyway even with the threat of hell, whats that make me?

A broken clock is right twice a day

*Ahem* Praise KEK!!

>What if Im an atheist who doesn't give a shit if there was a God
An apatheist!

>and wouldn't worship him anyway even with the threat of hell, whats that make me?
An idiot!

>birthrates so low you will be demographically displaced within a few generations

SO REDPILLED

why would he be an idiot?

If you went through life as a good person and some stranger came up to you one day and told you to start worshiping him or you would go to hell, would you?

you probably would, faggot cuck.

How to determine if something is a shitpost:

Look at flag

If it's australian it's a shitpost.

If it's not australian it's probably a shitpost

Agnostic theism is the true redpill

Our founding fathers emphasized religion not because they literally believed in a man in the sky, but for the welfare of the civilization they're building. Religion is the most powerful bastion of morality, and morality protects against corruption.

It's why one of the first steps in their (((agenda))) is to undermine religion in a nation, until the citizens become hedonistic materialists with no allegiance to anything but themselves. Then it's easy to buy and control them.

This is the strangest red pill.

Atheism - nihilism - hedonism - "moral" hedonism - oh shit this is just traditionalism sans Jesus.

The druggie phase in the middle is fun.

/thread

We can all move on now.

The only smart strayan on Cred Forums

Nope, science is purely materialist, whilst the belief in God requires a non-materialist world view. This way, science as it is implies the non-existence of God by default. This dispute is based on metaphysics, not empirics, like some people claim.

You don't have proof that consciousness is created by the brain, but you do believe that everything is matter, so you're a believer just as religious people, and the fact that you believe that you don't believe makes you dumber than them.

but the guy in the picture is Caracalla

>desperately strains to force his opponent into a false dilemma
yeah, nah, you're a cunt
Read Hume.

>the people I disgree with are stuck up snobs
>the people I agree with are innocent normal looking people

Nice Disney movie reality OP

That's a very similar path to the one I went down! I used to think of Pascal's Wager as an incredibly stupid argument, but I've now realised that it's merely a final stepping stone for those who have already found their beliefs in line with Christian morals once more, not a 'gotcha' question for the new-atheist.

>man in the sky

Neither did the Church Fathers, but (((something))) happened along the way to make us believe that we had to choose between a strawman Magic Sky Fairy and crass utilitarianism.

I'll bite!


>he thinks you can prove that something does not exist

>You are not redpilled
What? Atheism was my first redpill and I imagine that's the same for most people.
The true redpill is to realise that while religion is clearly fucking absurd, the control it has over people is far more useful than trying to instill certain morals and values in people without the threat of divine retribution.

>believing in god without evidence

Oh, but there is evidence. Just not scientific evidence. But then again, no one ever claimed that God can be discovered by the physical sciences...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

>being sure that God exists means you're a Christian

I fully believe in a God but I don't belong to any religion.

>Just not scientific evidence.
I'll add that it's worth remembering that no historical event can be 'proven' through the scientific method. At best, evidence that supports (i.e. lines up with) a particular historical narrative can be discovered.

Naw. The hardest pill to swallow is that there is no free will.

Even when we can test that in labs your unconscious makes all your decisions.

I didn't make the picture, but thanks for the correction. Unfortunately for you, I won't waste my time editing that picture.

Somewhere, in the deep reaches of space, someone has yet to disprove that unicorns are real. . . some day, I may be able to fuck one. . . this alone is enough hope to keep a man living. . . if not for myself, but for unicorn-fucking posterity.

Gnostic Theist>Agnostic Atheist>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gnostic Atheist>Agnostic Theist

>there is no free will.
Unverifiable. There may or may not be free will and there's no way of proving either conjecture.

For pragmatism's sake (believing that I have no free will is the equivalent of pretending to be a victim of my own circumstances), it's better to believe that I do have free will and therefore I do have free will. Does that make sense?

If a society that has mastered genetic engineering exists then it's likely that unicorns do exist. If.

Look at the way the brazen lean into the wind, their prowess completely envelopes their rough form.

Pretty much all knowledge has roots in faith. How do you know what you hear, taste, feel, and see are what is actually happening in reality? You could very easily be hooked up to an elaborate system of drugs and machinery used to simulate all these feelings perfectly.

You could be entirely virtual. What science has already claimed is that the world we see is far smaller than the world that is, and our perception is limited.
All knowledge is belief secured, and as such is faith.

His beard was better.

Atheism is the ultimate Jewpill, goy.

>Pretty much all knowledge has roots in faith.
I agree with you. "Prove we live in a non-virtual reality" is a fun line I like to use sometimes when playing the 'burden of proof' game.

Also, nice trips.

You're going off on tangents I never brought up. Active decision making can be tested and it doesn't come from your consciousness. By the same vein you don't have a choice in all aspects of life. Like food and nourishment. You can't choose to starve yourself to death. That is off the table. The choice to eat was preselected. How much you eat doesn't matter because you're eating. You never had the choice to not eat.

It's a stand alone observation.

As for what you're saying, believing something doesn't make it real.

that's not what fucking gnosticism means you goddamn normie archons

But that is a meaningless argument. Science only tries to describe and understand the reality we find ourselves in.

The nature of that reality is a question for a philosopher.

Nice try though.

I can prove there are no McDonald's restaurants on the moon, or that no-one called OP is not a faggot.

Athiesm, or a lack of a religion, is the only way not to play their little games.

Did you chose to write this post?

>But that is a meaningless argument.
All it does is show the limit of empiricism, and it does that well.

>Active decision making can be tested and it doesn't come from your consciousness.
If you can't even verify that you're not simply playing a sufficiently advanced virtual reality game then you have no way of verifying whether or not you have free will IN SPITE of what scientific tests about active decision making infer.

>You can't choose to starve yourself to death.
I'm trying to take you seriously, but that one is a really laughable claim.
Yes you can starve yourself to death. Some people have done in the past: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike#Deaths_and_end_of_strike

>believing something doesn't make it real.
It can in certain circumstances.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

>nobody can claim knowledge.
Anyone can claim knowledge

agnostic atheism is retarded and if you identify as such you are a brainlet.

>i don't believe in god
>but maybe there's a god
holy shit this fucking jungle gym of rationalization proves you're probably a fucking dumbass useful idiot liberal

That shit's getting old.

Fuck off with the r atheist shit reddit boy.

The other side opens up to you if you are deemed worthy of being aware of its presence.

People who are athiests are deemed unworthy

Your friendly reminder that decades of studies have proven that people with real religious faith score higher on virtually every measure of life success - they have more friends, they're happier, they're healthier, they have greater self control and willpower - itself the best predictor of success in life after intelligence.

Also, the ability to hold religious faith is mostly genetic. What does this all mean? It means that religious people are objectively genetically superior to atheists.

Blue pilled or what. Atheism is a game, to make you complacent. You step out of line, l the government, the only power there is, takes the only life you have, away.

You think you have more than 1 life? You think that Atheism is about being complacent. What the fuck is religion about then?

It's kind of funny how delusional and brainwashed you are that you think that it's not religious people who are being kept in line by the powers that be but claim it's the atheists who are. Actually, it's kind of sad.

>he doesn't know atheism was creating so goys rely on the Government instead of God

>What the fuck is religion about then?

Most religions are about striving to live a good life in order to earn a positive afterlife. If you're using it as an excuse to be complacent then you're either doing it wrong or you're a protestant, which are mostly the same thing.

Religion should be banned.

>worrying what happens generations after you die

SO WISE

>doesn't know the difference between belief claims and knowledge claims
Retard.

The problem is you are completely incapable of comprehending what God really is if he actually exists, you get bogged down in ideologies and texts.
You need to first elevate your consciousness and thought processes beyond common language and into the "sub" conscious, then if you are luck you may get a fraction of a microscopic glimpse of what God really is.

You will not be able to explain, prove, or label that small glimpse, and it is futile to attempt to prove or disprove God, in fact the concept of "proof" doesn't even apply.

...so there's no reason to believe in such a thing then. If you can't prove or show any effects of this 'god' thing then there's no reason to assert it.

Occam was a Catholic monk dumbass.

The truth is the One of Greek philosophy the Good is none other than the Christian God. Read some Augustine, some Aristotle, some Aquinas's. Granted nothing can convince a mind set in its ways, but the prime mover in the least point to the fact of causality necessitating an unmoved mover. Expounding on that point brings us to the a mover that is completely just, completely living, completely good. The point is the truth is that there is a God.

i heard NASA found a massive human shaped body floating out in space, its not too far from earth
they think it is the body of god
i mean, he made us in his image so it makes sense it would be human shaped
i wonder if they have sent any robots to it since then

>He thinks atheism is a religion and that it was created like Judaism and Christianism
>He claims religions are created yet somehow still thinks atheism is part of a religious and political power war

In what way does a "goy" rely on the government for that he would rely on the church for if he was religious? Why can't a christian goy rely on the christian church? I don't get it.

Sorry, I mistook complacent for obedient. My mistake. Let me try this again:

How does being religious or theistic make you immune from government reprisal for stepping out of line? You get diplomatic immunity from your local church?

Again, do you think that just because you believe you have an after-life, you do, and because I don't believe I do, I don't. Being atheist means I'm not part of the afterlife club? Is that what you're saying?

we're all on our own paths

Oh and to add to this:

Why is it a bad thing for a goy to rely on his government rather than his church?

What a laughable cop-out response.

>good afterlife
Aquinas actually believes we may all face "mass damnata". Or mass damnation that we all may be subject to the fires of hell in the end. Christianity has never been about an afterlife but rather following the truth to the best of your abilities. In fact it is a sin to assume you can even get into Heaven at least within the Catholic tradition.

Pretty much, I'm not trying to debate here I just gave some thoughts I was having and you can do whatever you want with them, including discard them

>still thinking religion matters

I can discard them? Really!? Wow, thanks!

Every section of your grid is mislabelled. None of these people exist.

There are atheists (top right), there are agnostics (left), and there are theists (bottom right).

Noone really knows for sure, that is literally impossible. Atheists reject god while theists accept god.

Agnostics don't do either, but may indicate their assumption.

I hate this false grouping more than I hate you godless fedoras.

GNOSTIC A/THEISTS LITERALLY CAN NOT COEXIST.

IF ONE TRULY DID EXIST, THE OTHER THREE GROUPS COULD NOT.

Does an urge to know the truth not set your heart on fire? Or are you so weak willed that you wouldn't want to fervently search for a reality to ground yourself in?

Atheism doesn't say 'god' doesn't exist, it says there's no evidence for it.

Have you ever tried being a good person? It is a choice

If God exists why would evidence necessarily be present?

2009 calling

Because you can't claim 'god' exists without proving it. Do you think everything exists until proven otherwise?

Correct. I hate ignorant religious people who simply can't comprehend such a simple thing.

We don't have to reject it or claim he doesn't exist, we don't have to do anything other than not have "faith" that he does in fact exist. It's fucking called "faith" because it can't be proven. I don't need faith that Barrack Obama exists, I know he does.

Here is the ultimate red pill on religion.

There is esoteric knowledge and exoteric knowledge.

The majority of humans are inherently religious by nature

Religion is necessary for proper function of society. Without it out society collapses (See: The entire Western world)

If you try to take religion from religious fundies they will just find a new religion. Taking an inherently religious person and making him/her an atheist does not in any way make them a rational person. They will just become a secular religious nutjob instead (sjw, feminist, libertarian, etc)

Thus if you are one of the select few who understands that religion is not actually factually true, just keep it to yourself. Do NOT try to spread it by posting dank atheist memes on facebook.

You are either born rational or you are not. It is how your brain is wired. You cannot convert people. They are how they are. Just stop. You are destroying society.

>Both the athiests are typical looking numales
kek

My bullshit detector went off several times reading that.

I am attempting to illustrate a point. I could go all my life without observing justice. In fact arguably that is what we observe but that doesn't mean justice doesn't exist in a pure form. A form that cannot be contemplated and although not tangible testable justice would still exist. The same is true of God, I could witness actions, meaningless actions but to I keen observer, a wind that makes me turn the antibodies fighting a disease I characteristically effectively, even existence itself could provide evidence for existence. Hear me out in science data is the only thing directly taken or observed, conclusions about the data is abstracted from it. The same is true of life every moment is a data point and you must extract meaning from it. In conclusion I say God's existence doesn't necessitate evidence because you may never see evidence of God but that doesn't mean God or justice as previously mentioned doesn't exist.

Sounds like an edgy John Calvin

You have provided no reason to even presume a 'god' exists... you're just adding a complex system where it isn't needed. The world works fine without needing to insert this 'god' thing.

It actually makes a lot of sense, if you think about it. Knowing some very idiotic religious people, he's probably right that if they didn't belong to a religious group, they'd most likely belong to another equally idiotic group.

I was more referring to the statement of 'inherently religious by nature' and that it's necessary for society to function. Baseless assertions.

>You cannot convert people.
obviously you can

>Friendly reminder that Atheism is the ultimate redpill.
m'lady
you're not redpilled if religion or a lack of religion defines you as a person

No. Irrational religious people just become irrational atheists. Those types of people just believe other stupid things instead.

You can't make an irrational person ration. There is literally no point in trying to spread atheism. Fact.

>Irrational religious people just become irrational atheists
IE. They are "converted" from one to the other.

Burgers sure are fucking thick otherfuckers.

That I agree with. When people owned farms and were mostly living in the country side, before electronics, TV, radio existed? Sure. Life must've been pretty dull and arduous, people probably needed something to motivate them and keep them feeling like they're loved and belong somewhere.

Nowadays? Religion is totally useless and machiavellian.

That's called an assertion. Where is your evidence to back your claim up?

As for irrational > rational, that depends on the subject at hand. Everyone can be irrational about something.

I was attempting a roundabout thesis to demonstrate interpretation of meaning from an empirical world. I presume you have heard about the unmoved mover of Aristotle. The philosophical concept goes as such, we observe cause and effect, therefore every cause must originate with an effect. If we go back far enough there must have been an original cause for all observed effect as. That cause must remain unmoved or to should I say that cause must not have been influence by other effects. There must have been an original caused that isn't effected by anything. That fact is the basis of all Christian and Greek philosophy. It is the basis of the more primitive argument of "where did the Big Bang come from" the observed causality of the universe demands an original causality.

i really dont care. i used too but now-a-days humanity has made basically everything a day-to-day battle to have any sorta "faith" or "hope" in.

i have not seen any reason to follow a god even if one exists aswell.

however there might be god/s, though its quite possible there not just one if something of the sort exists at all, or possibly more likely, no religion gets its message right as humans are known to fuck things up.

Nobody knows what was there (if anything) before the big bang, so yet again you're doing what I've just accused you of. You don't get to make factual assertions until you have the evidence to support it.

Even if there is a 'cause', you can't jump to a 'god' being said cause for the same reason I've stated. All you're doing is falling in to a fallacy.

The existence of a "prime move" does nothing to prove the existence of God though.

Oh, forgot to add that this creator must also have had a cause, too, which leads you in to an infinite regress.

You can say this 'god' is exempt, but that's the special pleading fallacy.

I am not jumping to God being the cause I'm demonstrating the necessity of an unmoved mover, the connection between God and that has not been broached by me. I am attempting to demonstrate the fact of something existing through secondary evidence. Here's a better example, I observe a tree sway in the distance, I could claim the wind is swaying the tree or I could claim that an invisible dragon is flapping its wings to create a disturbance that causes the tree to sway. From the secondary observation I have demonstrated to explanations. The truth obviously lies in the wind, from that singular secondary observation I can begin to construct a thesis about how wind is generated. At no point however did Wind personally come talk to me to inform me it exists nor could another explanation not theoretically present itself. As I was explaining earlier in the more ethereal explanation of justice, just because a tree sways does not necessitate that a great causer is behind the whole network of actions.

I'm aware was not making that leap

The point of the prime mover is that it is an end to infinite regress.

Atheism is the ultimate blue pill that people want to believe is redpilled.

Science has even more control on people than religion has.

>a new study says that being gay is normal
>we found a way you can fuck without having children!
>abortions for everybody!
>yes, we can cure that, but it's not 100% guaranteed you'll survive and you'll have pay a ton shit of money

Religion is just a shield (not really, it's more) to protect you from this brainwashing jewish shit.

I'll repeat yet again... as you have no idea what was before the big bang, you can't make factual assertions about a 'prime mover' or anything of the sort.

Let's not forget another factor... time. Time 'started' for us after the big bang, but time may not have existed before it. If you have no space and time then nothing can 'exist' by definition.

Oh vey! Don't listen to those dirty Atheists goy. Stay a good christian!

>I'm aware was not making that leap
Not sure what you're saying then.

where are these stats?

>believing in God without evidence is dumb

Pascal's wager desu

Scientific and logical evidene for Theism? Do you care to elaborate?

You do realize that quote is referring to other Christians, right. And by showing them goodwill, they should do the same. If not, then we draw the sword.

But Jesus was the original red pill
Why do you think Jews wanted him dead so badly?

Congradulations, got better things to do now. Read up on by yourself, I will not attempt to explain to you that:

Not making empirical statements on the Big Bang (I shouldn't have mentioned it because that is why I called it a primitive argument we get into these discussions)

Secondly, what I am talking about "truth" in the most abstract sense would be truth whether or not time or matter existed.

Prime Mover =/= God, I am aware of that it would take an entire book (and likely more) for me to justify such a leap.

The ultimate goal was to explain that not all truth is empirical, alas my time has been cut short goodday.

>making assertions about the origin of the universe while living in your own poorly constructed reality model

Pascal also believed there an evil clown who lived under the tree in his backyard who would eat his family if he didn't water the tree with fine wines every night and shout:
>Drink up clowney!!

I mean, he knew the clown probably wasn't real. But smart to believe he does just in case right? Why take the risk?

Given all of the 'gods' man has made, the odds are firmly against you for getting the right one. Also, the argument relies on you having nothing to lose if you go down the path of belief, which is incorrect.

You lot always run away when your argument has been refuted. Better luck next time, eh?

The scientific method is an article of faith (sorry.)

>Sing it for me Hal desu : 3

The first step of the pill is seeking the truth. The second part is coming up with solutions. There is no solution to degeneracy/white genocide/Muslims/leftists without a rallying point. The only rallying point that has ever seemed to work is religion.

Ergo religion will save us. Ergo religion has power. Ergo God exists.

Gott mitt uns.

No it's not. (sorry.) : 3

The scientific method is self-correcting... it requires no faith.

"You can't disprove none of this is real so therefore GOD COULD EXIST GUYS" is not an argument. We have to work under the presumption that this is in fact reality or else nothing would ever get done.

The distinction between theist and atheist on the agnostic axis is non existent. If you are agnostic, you are agnostic.

I am a true agnostic by this definition.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god

> Gnostic atheists are also bluepilled

wut

Let me put it this way: You either have Jesus in your heart or you don't. You either follow the Bible and what it says, show up to Church, or you don't. If you don't, and you call yourself an "agnostic", there is no functional difference between you and an atheist who also doesn't do any of that. Neither of you pray or accept God's grace, you're both unbelievers.

this

Why should I believe in something not proven to exist

You don't need stats to refute this

>measure of life success
Oh, you can scientifically measure the arbitrary and subjective? Must be the power of Jesus!

>have more friends
I have more friends if I count everyone on my steam friends list. But I don't. In the same sense, church friends aren't real friends. How many real, dependable, trustworthy friends can a person really have?

>they're happier
And it's entirely due to their religion?

>they're healthier
Churches have this one simple trick that makes you healthy! Doctors hate them!


>greater self control
Define self-control. You mean they don't masturbate? How many atheists have drowned their own children in a bath tub? How many atheist have knowingly ingested cyanide-laced fruit juice?

>willpower
Define willpower. You mean they go to work everyday? This just in, everybody does.

>intelligence.
No one can measure intelligence. Arguably yes, in a vacuum, a more "intelligent" person will be more successful. How many supposedly "child prodigies" have killed themselves in their teen years? Can you really say a spelling bee champion is more intelligent than a pole vaulter? Don't even bring up IQ.

>It means that religious people are objectively genetically superior to atheists.
It means religious people are more easily fooled by figures of authority and never question themselves or said figures of authority. They are raised that way and stay that way forever, never questioning themselves. That's nurture, not nature. I bet you there are more atheist from religious families than there are religious people from religious families. Some of the most advanced countries in the world have 50%+ atheism rates and very low actual devoted religious practitioners who actually go to church.

Take your religious propaganda elsewhere.

You can't have it both ways... you either believe or you don't. There is no middle ground to that.

Your religion is quite literally the spawn of Judaism; Jesus wasn't written about in the new testament until like a hundred years after he was gone. The Bible has been edited and rewritten god knows how many times. The fact is no one really knows what happened 2000 years ago and we never will know the full truth, much like WW2 and the nazis.

If you don't know then you don't know. I don't know if there is some higher power behind the curtain, neither do you or anyone else in this thread. There's no evidence to prove or disprove a god; it's one of those questions that are simply impossible to answer with the information we have.

An italian brother who studied history, grazie amico mio, mi hai rallegrato la giornata.

Of course there's middle ground. You can be unsure.

Friendly advice to all atheist:
Lose the fedora
Un-bookmark Reddit
Stop being a liberal
Gain height
Take a shower
Hit the weights
Get a clue

You don't quite seem to grasp this logically... you either believe the claims about this 'god' or you don't. Atheism and agnosticism are two different claims.

You can't 'half believe' in something. If you aren't convinced that a 'god' exists then you don't believe. It's not difficult.

All four of those examples in the OP's picture imply a conviction one way or the other.

I do not have one.

Don't be daft. Believing in Lord Kek is the ultimate redpill.

I don't believe the claim that God does not exist either.

What if you are 90% sure God exists. What are you then?

Belief isn't a claim of knowledge. If you aren't convinced then you don't believe.

No.

BTFO
T
F
O

> 2016
> being athiest

Laugh. My. Fucking. Ass. Off.
Ohh goy, (((science))) tricked you all into abandoning your faith in GOD while they worship their abhorrent space demon.

>No box for "If there is a god, I've got literally zero reason to spin the wheel of religion and follow one. But I'll take up some of my people's traditions, which derive from religion because said religion is the foundation of our society and it has produced great ideas despite it's flaws. Also holiday's are fun. I don't like that churches are dieing but I'm not going to my local church to listen to some Somalian's thick accent for an hour because there aren't enough white preachers. Most religion is either harmless or actually more good than bad for the community, but fuck Islam, it belongs in the shitty desert it crawled from."

SPEND YOUR LIFE IN FEAR.

Sure. And if you're neither convinced that God does exist, or that God doesn't exist then you are agnostic.

Then you're an agnostic theist because you aren't making a knowledge claim.

See In the West we have a saying that goes like this: We don't negotiate with terrorists.

If you really thing that someone who would inflict eternal suffering upon someone else for simply not believing he exists, while purposely staying hidden the entire time, has eternal "joy" to offer you, I have a bridge to sell you.

No one makes a "knowledge" claim. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

You're confusing belief and knowledge. Belief claims pertain to atheist/theist and knowledge claims pertain to agnosticism/gnosticism.

This picture finally convinced me to join islam. After all, if I am wrong about them being idiots I will go to hell. You should never take the chance, right? :^)

being convinced of something dosnt mean its true

Nobody makes a knowledge claim? Erm... yes they do - they're called gnostic theists/atheists...

...

This is stupid.
We know gods don't exist because every world religion is demonstrably false because they make claims about events in history that can be proven to have never occurred, therefore the very concept of "god" is meaningless.

I have not, however, ruled out the possibility of extradimensional entities with powers beyond our mortal comprehension, but still that in no way makes them a "god".

Look at those Mormons and Amish

> grow up in a strong, traditional community
> learn to be self-substinent, selectively use technology to increase produce
> marry a sweet, pure 18yo virgin at 23
> have 10 white children who carry your legacy

How does that sound to you opposed to spending a shitton on education, marry a used up slut at 35, raise 1 child and cuck bastard, die a sad lonely person

>I can prove something that exists isn't somewhere it couldn't be.

>spend your life in fear

I think you have it backwords user

see: Isaiah 41:10

Give me a label!

I do not know, claim to know or have one strong conviction either way, I consider both theories equally valid and hold no belief in either claim.

>Give me a label!


a retard

Agnostic Atheist.

Gee, who would've guessed that the path of lowest resistance was the right choice all along! Every poor idiot that decided to be a morally good individual that abides to Christian doctrine was just tricked into having an overall better life. What a sucker, right?

If you don't believe the claim that there is a 'god' then, by definition, that is unbelief. You can't say you believe and don't believe at the same time.

All of those opinions are shit.

The redpilled answer is:
>YOUR QUESTION IS NOT INTERESTING

God is real and everybody knows it. People pretend god isn't real because they think that makes them really intellectual or something. No, all it does is make you burn in hell.

But I do not believe or hold any conviction towards the atheistic claim.

My answer is I don't know, not yes or no.

...

If you don't know then you don't believe it. You may believe in the future but, as it stands, you don't.

Belief is the acceptance (or rejection) of a proposition. Anything else is something else, including how far off you are from believing something.

What's the most universal of the Nazarene messages

I reject the atheistic proposition just as well as I reject the theistic proposition.

I have a Bible proverb for you.

Proverb 24 1-2

What could be more wicked than sentencing innocent animals, children, and adults who simply did not believe or were brought up under a different religion, to eternal suffering. Every living entity that ever existed in the entire universe that did not believe in god, ever spermatozoid that ever existed, every bacteria, every kitten, puppy, chick currently suffering eternally. You are twisted and so is your God. I would rather serve Satan, I'll get along just fine with a guy who was also repulsed by your God.

The atheist position simple states that you are unconvinced that a 'god' exists, hence you don't believe the claim.

What you are saying is you reject that a 'god' exists and that a 'god' doesn't exist... read up on the law of excluded middle.

>oh shit this is just traditionalism sans Jesus.

Explain

Good scientific evidence is fine tuning argument. It's an accepted fact among scientists that the universe is unusually and improbably fine tuned for the existence of life.

As far as logical evidence there are plenty of reasonable philosophical arguments that suggest the existence of a God.

I recommend you read this article which outlines several compelling arguments for the existence of God.

reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist

To further clarify, me not being convinced is not the same as me being convinced that it's not true.

you can know god doesn't exist

why should he; and how could he appear? we know the scientific (truthful) way the universe started based on basic geometry and physic laws, god has no place in there

It's a scientific fact that wearing a fedora and jamming banana's up your ass makes you "smarter". You people are worse than vegetarians.

Enjoying the pleasures of life except the ones that harm you, or your surrounding society in the long run, while promoting the attitudes that benefit everyone ends up bringing you to a stance virtually identical to already existing Christian values.

Anyone that has gone down the nihilist rabit hole and tried to build meaning from scratch eventually comes to this conclusion.

God is, in it's loosest form, an explanation of the universe's existence. An intelligent creative force.

The athesitic claim is that there is no God, thus, the Universe came into being without an intelligent creative force.

Because I, as a human, do not understand the mechanations of the Universe, I do not subscribe to either belief, and I default to the "I don't know" position.

You are oversimplifying the implications of God's non existence.

Life as we know it. The fine-tuning argument is a loaded argument because in order for it to be 'tuned', that invokes that you need a tuner.

As we have no other universes to examine, you don't get to assert a 'god' as a fine-tuner.

There are bits from the Bible which are taken from older philosophies, religions, and wise words that have a significant value if you want to learn something substantial.
You can;t approach it with a glass half full attitude, you'll find one weird verse and discredit the entire work? Of course there is strange things in there as well, it was written over 2000 years ago.
Here is my favorite which might just as well be an extraordinary summary of taoism-
Psalm 46:10
-Be Still- and know that -I am God-

>that Atheism is the ultimate redpill

Atheists commonly appear to be mentally ill, and are almost always marxists and extreme liberals.

The only type of atheist that is capable of being redpilled is a casual atheist.

And for this casual atheist to be red pilled, they need to understand the corrosive nature of nihilism on our society. The moral decay of western civilization is enabled by atheism, no hindered by it.

A redpilled atheist should want Christianity for the masses even if they cannot bring themselves to accept it. Our civilization is crumbling from moral relativism and it is bluepilled to enable that.

>A redpilled atheist should want Christianity for the masses even if they cannot bring themselves to accept it


sure senpai, everyone who isnt pandering to you is a bluepilled communist cuck, sure ,my retarded friend, sure

It's sufficient to put this 'god' thing as an explanation, yes, but you need to demonstrate necessity which you have failed to do. Universe-creating spiders is a sufficient explanation, just like this 'god' thing is.

The atheistic claim is not that there is no god so I've no idea why you wrote that. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a confirmation that no 'god' exists.

>The fine-tuning argument is a loaded argument

I can see how you could take issue with the wording. "Fine-Tuning" does suggest a tuner because it's a theist argument.

The facts of the argument however don't differ. There is an improbable small range of life permitting intrinsic values of universal forces and our universe, against probability, possesses these values.

I know even Dawkins admits to this. It's my understanding that most sophisticated atheists understand this and they invoke the multiverse to explain it, which in my opinion violates occam's razor as opposed to the hypothesis that it was created by a God.

What I'm saying is that no matter what people throw at him, he'll have a proverb for it as a way to appear complacent. Fact is that if you do not believe in god, you WILL burn in hell for eternity. That means any life form that is not a christian human is burning in hell for eternity. That is very wicked, and I can also quote the Bible, and I quote proverb 24 1-2, which says, don't bother with the wicked.

Nietzsche was redpilled. To become ubermensch in body and spirit is the true redpill

Marxists and moral relativists are blue pilled and harm society.

Atheists are not necessarily Marxists, but they commonly are.

Fair point OP, I see lots of post on here claiming atheism is somehow pretentious, or wrong.

Living life by a set of arbitrary rules and false, fantastical beliefs isn't usually healthy, and it certainly isn't correct.

Are you asking why it's necessary to understand the universe's beginnings?

Then the term atheism is truly an unhelpful word, because it groups together so many different positions, and the only people who actually self describe that way are militant fedora tippers.

our consciousness is all apart of the same one and our ego prevents us from understanding its will

god is life and we are all a part of god

kill yourself and rejoin him

>moral relativists are blue pilled and harm society.


and rules that literally never change dont? your degrading bluepilled cuck western heaven wouldnt even exist if morality didnt evolve

"Friendly reminder that Atheism is the ultimate redpill"

degenerate, in France atheism is a regressive idea, there is no religion but there is something else beyond space/time and matter,

see Godel theorem and fuck off

>tradition isn't perfect so lets destroy everything and replace it with a far less perfect system

>>>/leftypol/

Stop! Stop! It hurts so much...

I believe that at some point every human chooses good or evil, how is that not fair?
That is if you actually believe in a heaven / hell duality, I don't myself. I don't even think our perception of life, death, or this "reality" is correct

>tradition isn't perfect so lets destroy everything

never said that, if you want it, you can do whatever the fuck you want, too bad theres no reason to get butthurt that millenials dont like obsolete rules anymore
>far less perfect system

examples? its not like anyone is forcing you to do anything new

>there is no religion but there is something else beyond space/time and matter
>therefore god must exist : DD
lel

The same Jews that had Jesus crucified want the goys to follow Jesus' teachings. Yep.

Jesus didn't exist my friend. He was a fictional character created by Jews to add to their persecution complex.

The true redpill is that it doesnt matter if God exists. The faith is socially and metaphysically advantageous. Evidence is irrelevant and you can look at religion as pure poetry if thats how you can make it work in your mind. Either way the Bible and other texts have knowledge and wisdom you would have to be retarded to ignore just because you disagree with the context. You can see following God's laws as a way to create heaven in your own life rather than for your eternal soul. Dont be promisuous, dont marry a promiscuous woman, dont steal, dont hurt innocents. Dont inflict self harm, including with drugs. Respect people. You'll probably live a good life or at least contribute to a greater society.

In the times where you have nothing and no one, where there does not appear to be a reason to live, or maintain good will, or take care of yourself and others, faith is extremely advantageous to have. Its not about if your faith is justified by evidence, its justified by the way you live your life. Its justified by the fact that your daughter and wife are less likely to be nihilistic sluts. Its justified by the fact that most people are too retarded to get this meta, and will slip into hedonism if you allow them.

What are you even talking about? I'm too tired to fucking be arsed to repeat myself every fucking time.

Getting into heaven has nothing to do with being good or bad. It has everything to do with believing in God. That's fucking it.

>That is if you actually believe in a heaven / hell duality

I don't, but what I'm saying is that even if Christians are right, fuck it, the entire thing is wicked and I'm using their own proverbs against them because it's ironic and fitting.

>I don't even think our perception of life, death, or this "reality" is correct
> I don't even
Just stop. Only someone who smokes marijuana would come up with something like this. Move on to someone else.

The final redpill is being athiest but realizing and accepting that religion is necessary to manage the plebes.

> your degrading bluepilled cuck western heaven wouldnt even exist if morality didnt evolve

As soon as morality started "evolving" western civilization began its decline.

I believe that our society reached it's peak when it was still unapologetically Christian.

We are living in the Kali Yuga. The Decline,. Moral relativists are a large part of this.

I'm still trying to decide if you're one of the real ones or another AI

Most Christians aren't Calvinist, leaf.

This is some good advice right here m8s.

>As soon as morality started "evolving" western civilization began its decline.


the fuck are you talking about? morality was evolving before the us was even a thing, do you not know the whole thing about your own country being secular? people in the country might have been christian but the country itself never was and never will be

Faith and religion are two separate things.

Wise posts never get as many replies

Irrelevant to my point which is this:

If you're right, your shit is wicked anyways. Proverb 24 1-2.

I mean at this point even a kindergarten child would understand considering it's like the 5th fucking time I say it. Talk about shit posting, fucking shit for brains.

I don't care what you think. If you need the approval of a 16x11 .gif of a fucking flag to make decisions for you, then I'm glad you found God to give you a fucking moral compass.

the thing that exist that influenced him acted they way the did because of physics, then the chemical computer decides his actions took that input and made the appropriate output.

life is just physics and chemistry writing juice code inside your brain.Mac

free will is a sham.

but if you don't believe me why don't you kill yourself right now and prove it mr. tough faggot.

>but the country itself never was

It wasn't institutionally Christian, but it was always Christian in practice and culture.

You've fallen for atheist memes. USA has been very strongly Christian in culture until the last 30ish years.

>It wasn't institutionally Christian


yeah thats what i meant, i know it was extremely religiuos after ww2 just because of communism, but the point is that morality didnt start changing 30 years ago, christianity falling out of the main stream is just a change you dont like

this

christian values built america and teach morals and values that allow for a person to take responsibility upon themselves.

without them people look to big daddy government to solve all of their issues.

A christian will look down on you personally for choosing a life of sin and debauchery but an atheist will say there's nothing wrong with it or make it illegal

these two things kill culture and freedom

Idiots will be kept in line regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Christian useful idiots are content working a humble (shit work and pay) job with good work ethic and voting republican. Atheist useful idiots are content to actively destroy the principles that have blessed us with prosperity and live selfish and hedonistic lives.

Faith is irrelevant to idiocy. I have faith but it certainly isnt keeping me in line with the godless powers that be. If you dont recognize that most people in any group you belong to are useful idiots, you are one of them. This applies to Cred Forums too.

>Flag

Agnostics are the worst. Weak, spineless cowards who don't want to stand up for their beliefs are worse than nihilists. At least they have the confidence to call others wrong instead of being unwilling to even try proving their point

>giving zero fucks about your children
>giving zero fucks about the future of your nation

SO ENLIGHTENED

>muh christianity and nothing else
You realize you are justifying being a loser? Fits your narrative perfectly and anyone who doesn't agree with your overly celibate shit is a fat fedora.

Atheism isn't the redpill

Agnosticism is, theist or atheist

By some religion's standards, eating pork is a crime. They think you're a degenarate the same way you think someone with a Mercedes is a degenerate for having more money than you and enjoying it, even though you specifically picked a shit job to make your church happy and [fall in line] with what the church expects of you.

In free nations such as North America, no one is really kept in line by a government. Women don't have to wear hijabs, for example.

>selfish and hedonistic lives.
I fail to see how buying nice things for yourself is wicked, but whatever. You claim that only useful idiots are humble, yet claim anyone that prospers above useful idiots is wicked. You must be a priest or something. You're definitely not the average christian to bullshit at such an advanced level. Wow, how dare someone get enjoyement out of an electronic designed to provide entertainment. These objects made out of metalloids and powered by electricity are wicked!

Way to be a technophobe. Might as well be Amish, commit fully to your beliefs or don't bother at all, is what I think.

>If you dont recognize that most people in any group you belong to are useful idiots
That's very cynical coming from someone who is in an organization with a god-given moral compass, and who claims society would collapse without said compass.

"In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause."

What are the cynical goals of Pope Francis then? At this point you're more more of an atheist than I am, you're a militant atheist. While we're at it, what are the cynical goals of Cred Forums? You know, for learning purposes.

you right

fuck new atheism.
agnosticism is the better choice

too many jew mindslaves licking the boots of fat oligarchs like Trump would stomp your skull in for anyone to spread the truth.

why are you saying god exist ?
modern physic tell us there is something else beyond space/time and matter.

why are you calling this GOD ? you are a stupid moron

But which religion do you pick to bet on? Pascal assumed Christianity.

Richard Dawkins explained it best, it's not either or, he put it on a spectrum, of certainty that god exists or not, from 1 being faithful believer, to 7 being fervent atheist, he describes himself as a 6, but lives as a 7 since at that point there's no point living as if there might be one, unless in philosophical or scientific discussions.

>why are you saying god exist ?
I don't believe God exists you dumb shit.

This. Everyone wants to be in one of two camps, but a mix is the true answer.

You are talking about state enforcement of religion and I am talking about cultural values and morality. We are talking about different things.

>but the country itself never was and never will be

Like I said, it's never been a "state religion" country.Christianity was never forced on people. But for all intents, purposes, and apperances the USA has been a Christian nation since it's inception up until around the 1960's.

stupid asshole, and look for Godel theorem, you are so dumb I will not waste my time with you

>Too bad there is more than enough evidence that supports Theism in general, historically, philosophically, scientifically and just by using basic logic.

No there's not you stupid nigger.

>reminder that unless you believe in the jewish marxist subversion of western christian tradition and morality you aren't "muh redpilled"

I did. That's why I don't believe in God.

you right about science

for example :
Materialism humiliation : the fail of MACROREALISM in quantum theory
youtube.com/watch?v=wJ71SXGEOCE

Hogwash. I fucking hate you determinist nihilists.

>not an argument

Here's one: since nothing matters at all, light and love and apple pie are all just meaningless illusions, it doesn't fucking matter that it's not an argument.

or, you give life meaning.

stop being a pussy-ass bitch and don't let your life be dictated by retarded figureheads

>unironically believing that one of the most well documented figures in history was entirely fictional

>why are you calling this GOD ? you are a stupid moron

And what do you call it, "something else"?

People don't believe in God because they hate the light and their deeds are evil.

waether or not something matters or not is relative.

As a human being, stuff that makes us happy is important because our brains are wired to find that shit important.

>one of the most well documented figures in history was entirely fictional
LOL

>believing in god without evidence
what about the fact that all the best countries there is to live in right now were built on christian values? is that not evidence?

>stop being a pussy-ass bitch and don't let your life be dictated by retarded figureheads

I'm not mad at you for saying these things: your determinants made you do it.

Just because a belief suits your civilization doesn't mean you should lie to yourself though

You are talking about state enforcement of religion and I am talking about cultural values and morality. We are talking about different things.

>but the country itself never was and never will be

Like I said, it's never been a "state religion" country.Christianity was never forced on people. But for all intents, purposes, and apperances the USA has been a Christian nation since it's inception up until around the 1960's.

>Agnostic Theist
That's not a real thing though.

lol true enough

damn you're one salty bitch though

>this kills the atheist

but which religion?

No not salty. I don't think kiddoes should be taught that determinism is anything but a theory because it makes them much more likely to suck on the barrel of a shotgun, and since the mentally gifted are more likely to be negatively a5affected by the horror of this theory it doubly pisses me off.

If you're a degenerate, anyone you want I suppose. At least your chances are still better than 0.

you americans have a problem with the word "GOD" who relate to stupids religions

If you study modern physic you could say "informing principle" instead of"GOD"

I finally see the light!

I must follow all existing religions on earth at once, and hope that one of them is right. I mean, if I'm right i go to heaven right? literally nothing to lose!

>you americans have a problem with the word "GOD" who relate to stupids religion

>If you study modern physic you could say "informing principle" instead of"GOD"

>Dear informing principle, please bless this food and house etc.

Dunno, I'm used to the shorter version.

Oh yeah: and I'm not a little faggot.

Back to asp nigger

>LOL is an argument
>having no idea about how much of human history we accept as fact based on far less evidence and documentation

Literally just what's in the gospels and nothing else. And that wasn't added until 100 years after his """death""".

Though in fairness there was all that stuff written about him by all the historians in the area. This was the roman empire after all. Oh wait, none of them recorded anything at all. I guess the son of God descending down to earth wasn't that interesting.

I WISH
THAT I COULD TURN BACK TIME

It's just being rational. No one wants to devote there life to a deity they don't truly believe exists. At the same time there is no way to prove that said deity does not exist so unless you want to live your life in fear of a hell that, again you can not prove exists, then the only way to live without going insane on hypotheticals is to live what you perceive to be the best life for you.

So I'm sorry your scared of death so much that you are willing to cuck yourself to something you cannot see. Oh and don't forget to give ten percent of your gross income to your priest not domestic.

Julius Africanus, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Pliny, Celsus, Josephus...

ahahah, but the short version "GOD" relate to religions, I prefer science

good luck

>express that useful idiots are in every group
>get this wall of text from one of them

Lol. Literally. The assumptions you've made about me and what I typed are laughably incorrect. You used what I said as a springboard into a bunch of irrelevant talking points.

I was talking about personal faith in God, not religion or dogma. Literally everything you assumed about me is wrong, I dont even go to church. Im not a christian in any traditional sense of the word.

You're just an assmad atheist who is more interested in proving me wrong than actually understanding what I said, its very clear by your tone. I give examples of useful idiots for both christians and atheists and you jump off on some tangent about me hating free market principles and technology? You are attacking a non christian for being christian out of your own ignorance, how are you not being a useful idiot? Your whole post was a strawman argument, the most retarded thing Ive seen on Cred Forums in weeks.

>who is Josephus
>who is Tacitus
>I don't read much so you are wrong
>unironically believing that no one but the gospel authors wrote about Jesus

I prefer quitting all bad habits, having a happy marriage and children, and a better life than I used to, which was quite literally hell.

You are the one that needs luck, not me.

Nice arguments.

You're making pro-Christian arguments and then claim you're not Christian, and I'm the useful idiot? Ignorance is bliss, huh?

not recorded until at least 50 years after his death.

wew.

One of the best documented historical figures of all time!!

From the Sanhedrin (they hated Jesus more than anyone):

"He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray".

yer a noob at philosophy

dawkins tier arguments are for edgy teenage pizza hut employees. read some classics of philosophy like spinoza, hegel, etc.

"Suffer little children, and forbid them NOT, to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven".

I already called you out for strawmanning and you still cant greentext what the fuck you are talking about? You must be daft.

This turned from me making a claim that useful idiots will exist regardless of faith or lackthereof to you attacking me erroneously for supposedly being christian. My beliefs arent even relevant to the fact that most people are not critical thinkers and will accept whatever dogma they are indoctrinated with, religious or otherwise. The only reason I bother replying to such a belligerent person as you is that your thought process is fascinatingly disconnected from the actual discussion I was trying to accomplish. Its all about arguments and gotcha moments with you.

>having no idea how much of history is taken as fact on far less documentation and evidence
>he's not well documented because all of these roman historians that didn't mention him
>oh most actually did? well they lived after his death so HA!
>not knowing that roman historians and others mention Jesus
>still attempting to argue the historical documentation of Jesus when you have been proven to know nothing on the subject
>mfw you're pretending to be well versed in roman historians work and not what you read in your liberal uni textbooks

backpedal harder, m8

>history recorded within a generation or two isn't credible
>I need my history to be written as it happens
>that's how most historical accounts are gathered right guise?

precicely

Religion has been crucial in the development of culture and society. That doesn't make belief in Yehovah any less retarded when faced with any sort of intelligent scrunity. The benefit of religion is that stupid people are better kept contained in an organized structure. It makes them more docile, more efficient at work, and just an overall bigger benefit. Smart people don't need an arbitrary system to have a sense of decency and respect.

The problem is, most people are stupid, both religiousfags and atheistfags.

By the way, the era before the industrial age killed God was filled with just as much debauchery, it was just less known becasue people were fucking illiterate and not every tiny thing was kept on record like it is now. Just like how wars aren't any more brutal now than they were before, we're just far more exposed to it.

Out, filthy heretic.

This is the true redpill, everybody know it.

The lack of replies shows that no one can effectively contest this point. Anons reply to things they agree with far less frequently than things they can refute.

Xristianity must die goy

Nice arguments.

Calculated.

Yeah because when neo takes it he realizes there's no matrix and reality is real...

>Anyone that has gone down the nihilist rabit hole and tried to build meaning from scratch eventually comes to this conclusion

This, its like being an anarchist, if you go to the trouble to try to mentally build it all up from scratch you realize you end up right here

I know they are, thats why the only replies you can give are either based on strawman assumptions or passive aggressive mental masturbation.

Protip: (does reddit still say that?) I was an atheist, by talking to other atheists I thought were my peers I learned that they are just as prone to brainwashing. Maybe you realize youve been acting like a fool in this thread now, either way (you) arent getting any more replies from me.

God exists. I have felt his presence and know with 100% certainty that He is real and that He loves us all. Try to make a personal connection with Him and you will know in your heart that He exists. There is no other way to know so bickering about it online is useless.

I stopped receiving replies from you when you revealed you were only pretending to be retarded as a way to dodge my arguments.

>atheism

Apatheism is the only logical, reasonable and true religion. All other beliefs were created to keep mankind divided and distracted from the truth.

>mental illness
How do you know you are not insane? Is there not even a 0.0000000000001% chance?

It is indescribable but when you experience God you will know for sure that He is real without question. Just take the steps towards forming a connection with Him and you will know.

>BTFO and proved to have read nothing about what he is talking about

>changes targets, ignores previous argument

You can't know anything with 100% certainty. Not even your own name.

Like I said, it is indescribable. Try it and you will see.

God is not real. It's indescribable. Try to understand and you will see.

...

>atheist :atheism is the truth because the idea of god is either stupid, self defeating or superfluous to what it tries to explain
>agnostic : YUO CAN T KNOW ยงยง
>believer : but christianity/other seems to hold society together

every fucking religion thread

People are just discussing on different basis, and even funnier : they all try to make their point completely missing the point of the adversary

Unless you go through the process you cannot know. That is why I said arguing about it is pointless.

I get that the idea of religion is to hold society together, but I don't care

...