are you an atheist or a believer? [poll]

[6'4 looksmaxxxer]

like i said, I'm not religious. God and morality are two different concepts

Jfl how does that even work

 

[SHARK]

"Life sucks so there is no god" is not a logical argument, it's an emotional one. Coming from so called "rational" atheists.

I don't care if there is a god or not, I refuse to worship it for making me ugly.

 

[Deleted member 1464]

Religion is some third world shit my niggas

 

[SHARK]

I see where you're going.

But the concept of atheism is based on the lack of proof of religion. The burden of proof is on religious dogma and it's believers, not on people with ”disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” Lol like what is there to prove of the already absence of proof (that you yourself acknowledged in your comment) in anything religion, logically that doesn't make sense.

I feel like people who argue ”atheists have no proof” deep down have an internal bias WITH members of a particular religion. Be honest, you wouldn't be upholding that thought on let's say Hinduism. Would you say non-Hindu believers are retarded because of their disbelief in Hindu??

You can't prove nothing happens after death. Your consciousness already came from nothing, why can't it happen again? Did you travel 1 trillion years into the future and see that you never came to life again?

 

[Dude420]

Lol then what created the Creator
There is a lot of scientific backup for the big bang theory, do note my emphasis on theory, as there isn't enough solid scientific support for any creator from any mass religion for his/her/its existence to be considered a hypothesis, let alone a plausible theory for any atheist to be considered as agnostic, or to logically hold as a possibility

Our scientific understanding of the physical world is clearly incomplete and who knows what was before the big bang or if they are other realities. All there are are dozens of contracting theories on what caused the big bang. You have no fucking clue bro, you are just a slightly smarter ape than your other ape relatives which is purely shaped to maximize his survival in a relatively niche environment. At the end of the day you just ignorant on countless levels, believing wholeheartedly in atheism would only accentuate how foolishly naive you are. Agnostic by default of our ignorance is the only sound position to have.

 

[TheMewingBBC]

You can't prove nothing happens after death. Your consciousness already came from nothing, why can't it happen again? Did you travel 1 trillion years into the future and see that you never came to life again?

That's not my argument. Nothing is retarded about holding a stance against something with a lack of evidence to exist.
The same way I have a stance against Santa’s existence
Or the tooth fairy

 

[KEy21]

You should be required to take 4+ years of cultural history college leveled courses to even be able to broach the topic

I wouldnt even be able to debate half of the “atheists” on websites like these because they’re so damn stupid

 

[ldar = cope]

There are barely any true believers

That's not my argument. Nothing is retarded about holding a stance against something with a lack of evidence to exist.
The same way I have a stance against Santa’s existence
Or the tooth fairy

santa Clause is real

 

[6'4 looksmaxxxer]

"Life sucks so there is no god" is not a logical argument, it's an emotional one. Coming from so called "rational" atheists.

I don't care if there is a god or not, I refuse to worship it for making me ugly.

Rest assured there is no god

That's not my argument. Nothing is retarded about holding a stance against something with a lack of evidence to exist.
The same way I have a stance against Santa’s existence
Or the tooth fairy

We're literally our brains why the fuck do people think we "go somewhere else"

 

[Deleted member 2426]

Agnostic. Both religion and atheism are retarded because they claim they know for certain what the truth is. They don't. Neither has proof.

 

[SHARK]

That's not my argument. Nothing is retarded about holding a stance against something with a lack of evidence to exist.
The same way I have a stance against Santa’s existence
Or the tooth fairy

Atheism is saying "I know there is nothing after death"
Agnostic is saying "I don't know"

I'm agnostic, but atheist in the sense I don't believe any man made religions.

 

[Deleted member 2587]

Evolution is real

I believe we evolved into humans. That’s it

 

[Deleted member 2012]

Where is agnosticel?

 

[Blackout.xl]

There probably is a higher power out there that created the universe. There’s no way that the universe managed to exist without there being a “first cause” imo

 

[ZyzzReincarnate]

agnostic but thats closer to aetheist than not so i selected that

 

[TheMewingBBC]

Our scientific understanding of the physical world is clearly incomplete and who knows what was before the big bang or if they are other realities. All there are dozens of contracting theories on what caused the big bang. You have no fucking clue bro, you are just a slightly smarter ape than your other ape relatives which is purely shaped to maximize his survival in a niche environment. At the end of the day you just ignorant on countless levels, believing wholeheartedly in atheism would only accentuate how foolishly naive you are. Agnostic by default of our ignorance is the only sound position to have.

We accept our ignorance on the world and find the best explanation for it till a more better understanding comes. True atheism practice this, true atheism takes the scientific approach for finding the best explanation, not some ancient belief system. There’s absolutely nothing naive about upholding the best explanation WHILE CONTINUOUSLY looking for a better explanation.

Again, why fence sit between believing a entity with hardly any proof for it existence, and simply deny such existence until strong visible proof comes foward, especially when there’s better explanation. Believe it or not, the Big Bang has a strong foundation with tons and tons of scientific backings, but no level of evidence of an entity behind it.

”agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP (temporary agnostic in practice) category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability." -Charles Darwin
Till proof is visibly brought showing God/creator exist I will continue holding my belief, in the disbelief of such Gods commonly worshipped around the world

I'm agnostic, but atheist in the sense I don't believe any man made religions.

My belief is similar

 

[Dude420]

We accept our ignorance on the world and find the best explanation for it till a more better understanding comes. True atheism practice this, true atheism takes the scientific approach for finding the best explanation, not some ancient belief system. There’s absolutely nothing naive about upholding the best explanation WHILE CONTINUOUSLY looking for a better explanation.

Again, why fence sit between believing a entity with hardly any proof for it existence, and simply deny such existence until strong visible proof comes foward, especially when there’s better explanation. Believe it or not, the Big Bang has a strong foundation with tons and tons of scientific backings, but no level of evidence of an entity behind it.

”agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP (temporary agnostic in practice) category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability." -Charles Darwin
Till proof is visibly brought showing God/creator exist I will continue holding my belief, in the disbelief of such Gods commonly worshipped around the world

You have no good explanations. I believe in science when it can provide reasonably good theories that are verifiable to explain the physical world, but in the case of what is the ultimate causal link behind all of this, science offers no good theory, not even one that creates unanimity within the scientific community. Please give me a solid scientific explanation of why they were matter in the first place. The causal laws which operate our universe may not even apply outside our universe and to explain the previously mentioned question. The extension of my ignorance in such matters logically obliges me to be an agnostic by default. You are atheist on the basis of a "scientific approach" that possesses nothing to say of value on the matter at hand, you are to an extent as deluded in your faith in science as a Christian is when he speaks of God/the Bible to explain everything, science can't and probably will never be able to explain everything due to his limitations in our ability to perceive and test the universe.

 

[TheMewingBBC]

You have no good explanations. I believe in science when it can provide reasonably good theories that are verifiable to explain the physical world, but in the case of what is the ultimate causal link behind all of this, science offers no good theory, not even one that creates unanimity within the scientific community. Please give me a solid scientific explanation of why they were matter in the first place. The causal laws which operate our universe may not even apply outside our universe and to explain the previously mentioned question. The extension of my ignorance in such matters logically obliges me to be an agnostic by default. You are atheist on the basis of a "scientific approach" that possesses nothing to say of value on the matter at hand, you are to an extent as deluded in your faith in science as a Christian is when he speaks of God/the Bible to explain everything, science can't and probably will never be able to explain everything due to his limitations in our ability to perceive and test the universe.

Lol my whole argument started when you mentioned you can’t disprove a creator, which you can, because there isn’t enough credibility in support of the possibility in the first place.
There isn’t any animosity in what put the Big Bang into place, you keep coming at me for answers I don’t have to support your reason for being agnostic. Note I never claimed anything started the Big Bang, you keep misquoting me and reasserting that each reply, but like I said, there’s strong scientific backing that the Big Bang model did indeed occurred.

What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)

The Big Bang is not a model of creation, but a theory that explains what we see of the universe's long history — without direct evidence, any predictions for time = 0 are more fantastical than fact, argues Paul Sutter.

www.google.com

Science itself is a systematic enterprise that builds and organized knowledge in the form of testable explanation. It’s the best damn thing we have in explaining everything. No matter how far from the truth you feel we are comparing it to theistic explanations is irresponsible.

Also again
“The extension of my ignorance in such matters logically obliges me to be an agnostic by default. You are atheist on the basis of a "scientific approach" that possesses nothing to say of value on the matter at hand, you are to an extent as deluded in your faith in science as a Christian is when he speaks of God/the Bible to explain everythin”

As an atheist, I don’t believe in a God or Gods. That’s the definition of an atheist. Every atheist shares some agnostic perspective, but seeing how there’s no proof of a creator, we don’t feel obligated to believing or being the line of uncertainty which would imply that I believe there is a possibility of one existing.
We can agree to disagree. You can identify as an agnostic because there’s no animosity out of the various plausible theories that jump started the universe(s) or Big Bang, and I will remain identifying as an atheist because I know a creator by definition and description is not one of them

 

[Dude420]

Lol my whole argument started when you mentioned you can’t disprove a creator, which you can, because there isn’t enough credibility in support of the possibility in the first place.

You didn't and you can't. You would need a solid verifiable theory explaining why they were this compact matter in the first place, why there is a universe for that matter to reside in, what caused the Big Bang, and so on, in order to disprove with certainty the existence of a creator. Unless I miss out on the fact that you are a scientist ahead of his time that could explain this.

There isn’t any animosity in what put the Big Bang into place, you keep coming at me for answers I don’t have to support your reason for being agnostic. Note I never claimed anything started the Big Bang, you keep misquoting me and reasserting that each reply, but like I said, there’s strong scientific backing that the Big Bang model did indeed occurred.

What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)

The Big Bang is not a model of creation, but a theory that explains what we see of the universe's long history — without direct evidence, any predictions for time = 0 are more fantastical than fact, argues Paul Sutter.

www.google.com

Science itself is a systematic enterprise that builds and organized knowledge in the form of testable explanation. It’s the best damn thing we have in explaining everything. No matter how far from the truth you feel we are comparing it to theistic explanations is irresponsible.

Also again
“The extension of my ignorance in such matters logically obliges me to be an agnostic by default. You are atheist on the basis of a "scientific approach" that possesses nothing to say of value on the matter at hand, you are to an extent as deluded in your faith in science as a Christian is when he speaks of God/the Bible to explain everythin”

As an atheist, I don’t believe in a God or Gods. That’s the definition of an atheist. Every atheist shares some agnostic perspective, but seeing how there’s no proof of a creator, we don’t feel obligated to believing or being the line of uncertainty which would imply that I believe there is a possibility of one existing.
We can agree to disagree. You can identify as an agnostic because there’s no animosity out of the various plausible theories that jump started the universe(s) or Big Bang, and I will remain identifying as an atheist because I know a creator by definition and description is not one of them

That was a great article to support everything I previously mentioned
"We just flat-out don't have an understanding of strong gravity at small scales.
We. Just. Don't.
Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don't understand the nature of the universe. The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we're a bit lost. Get this: At small enough scales, we don't even know if the word "before" even makes sense! At incredibly tiny scales (and I'm talking tinier than the tiniest thing you could possible imagine), the quantum nature of reality rears its ugly head at full strength, rendering our neat, orderly, friendly spacetime into a broken jungle gym of loops and tangles and rusty spikes. Notions of intervals in time or space don't really apply at those scales. Who knows what's going on? "

Obviously I know we have pretty solid scientific explanations for what happened a few seconds after the big bang, I never argued the opposite but like I keep repeating, at the moment of the big bang and before? Science pretty much ends there in his ability to provide explanations of the causal process that made things as they currently are.

Believing in the "scientific approach" to justify your atheistic position simply blindly makes you have a strong faith in what science fails to understand. Your position is unjustifiable because there is actually no logical sense behind it, it is only based on the faith that the previously mentioned questions are scientifically explainable and science could one day find the answers. Being agnostic is not the avoidance to apply reason and logic on the matter, but the logical conclusion one should have in the realization of his complete ignorance on the matter. You are the one using faith over reason, not the other way around.

 

[KEy21]

Humanism became common belief in the 1400’s or so. Our reliance or highly weighed opinions of science as we know it - is still a fairly new topic.

 

[Deleted member 3299]

JESUS IS KING

 

[TheMewingBBC]

You didn't and you can't. You would need a solid verifiable theory explaining why they were this compact matter in the first place, why there is a universe for that matter to reside in, what caused the Big Bang, and so on, in order to disprove with certainty the existence of a creator. Unless I miss out on the fact that you are a scientist ahead of his time that could explain this.



That was a great article to support everything I previously mentioned
"We just flat-out don't have an understanding of strong gravity at small scales.
We. Just. Don't.
Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don't understand the nature of the universe. The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we're a bit lost. Get this: At small enough scales, we don't even know if the word "before" even makes sense! At incredibly tiny scales (and I'm talking tinier than the tiniest thing you could possible imagine), the quantum nature of reality rears its ugly head at full strength, rendering our neat, orderly, friendly spacetime into a broken jungle gym of loops and tangles and rusty spikes. Notions of intervals in time or space don't really apply at those scales. Who knows what's going on? "

Obviously I know we have pretty solid scientific explanations for what happened a few seconds after the big bang, I never argued the opposite but like I keep repeating, at the moment of the big bang and before? Science pretty much ends there in his ability to provide explanations of the causal process that made things as they currently are.

Believing in the "scientific approach" to justify your atheistic position simply blindly makes you have a strong faith in what science fails to understand. Your position is unjustifiable because there is actually no logical sense behind it, it is only based on the faith that the previously mentioned questions are scientifically explainable and science could one day find the answers. Being agnostic is not the avoidance to apply reason and logic on the matter, but the logical conclusion one should have in the realization of his complete ignorance on the matter. You are the one using faith over reason, not the other way around.

Solid argument ngl, either that or I’m too sleepy to argue

 

[Dude420]

Solid argument ngl, either that or I’m too sleepy to argue

Impress you are willing to concede it, hats off, we rarely see that, especially on forums.

 

[TheMewingBBC]

Impress you are willing to concede it, hats off, we rarely see that, especially on forums.

I’m a person that seeks truth and success, I try not to have an ego. I found more objective reasoning in your stance and therefore will re-evaluate mines and move on. It is what it is

 

[LordNorwood]

High IQ Christian believercel

 

[Deleted member 1751]

Pain! You made me a you made me a beliver! Believer!

 

[Deleted member 685]

I'm part of the church of Incelophism

 

[Deleted member 3202]

Rest assured there is no god

We're literally our brains why the fuck do people think we "go somewhere else"

I wish there were an afterlife, lol.

 

[RAITEIII]

Pain! You made me a you made me a beliver! Believer!

Was gonna say the exact same thing

 

[6'4 looksmaxxxer]

I wish there were an afterlife, lol.

Same