Thread has been deleted
Last comment
atheists are believers
s1mple | 
Poland ruskitroll123 
you have 3 options you belive in God you don't know if it exists or not you recognize that it does not exist believers will know that God exists and believe in him Atheists recognize that it does not exist, and they believe it the same no one can say and show evidence that God exists or not everyone are believers
2019-08-30 10:58
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
Christian debater starter pack •Topics •Stupid threads •2 IQ •"infalible 'logic'" •2k yo book •correlation implies causation •Ill go to heaven but am still afraid of death even though my belif is 100% proven
2019-08-30 10:59
off topic ??
2019-08-30 10:59
#58
gla1ve | 
United Kingdom LFX 
+1
2019-08-30 11:34
#61
rain | 
Estonia Turittu 
•2k yo book lol
2019-08-30 11:35
+1
2019-08-30 11:58
#116
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
IDK where you took the "stupid threads" or "2 IQ" when there are a lot of christians who have more IQ than an "atheist", even an agnostic has more IQ than an "atheist" dude lmao
2019-08-30 12:31
Where do you get these numbers?
2019-08-30 19:50
#142
United States Orn 
source: trust him
2019-08-30 19:53
#143
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
where the guy got the numbers, even tho there are no numbers, everyone just says "im atheist" when they dont even know what it means
2019-08-30 19:55
He didn't use a number, which would need a statistics, you did. Atleast we don't believe in a big man in the sky, which was thought out by some people high on pcp.
2019-08-30 20:08
#149
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
lmao i didnt use numbers. I didnt say 50% is... 40% is... i said a lot of, and if you check i said "atheists" and not atheists because everyone lately calls themselves atheists. I didnt show stats because again, i didnt use numbers, idk where you got the info that a christian is like the br guy described a christian, thats it. And maybe you dont believe in "a big man in the sky", but you believe what another human thought tho lol, big bang, evolution, etc... every single theory was created by a person, either fake or not, it was, and they also said "i have proofs".
2019-08-30 22:50
Brainwashed from birth
2019-08-31 14:56
+1
2019-08-30 12:51
#127
 | 
United States G0LDEAR 
Not quite brother
2019-08-30 13:06
The last one is the best one LOL
2019-08-30 19:21
+1
2019-09-03 15:30
#2
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
stop taking drugs bro, they obviously dont do you very good
2019-08-30 10:59
#3
 | 
Switzerland meme_jesus 
I'm an atheist and I literally don't care if the god exists or not. I will see when I die.
2019-08-30 10:59
then it will be too late :P
2019-08-30 11:00
#7
 | 
Switzerland meme_jesus 
Too late for what?
2019-08-30 11:01
If the cunt exists and does nothing about the shit going one we will get no fuckin respect from me
2019-08-30 11:02
#15
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
Our planet a fucking sandcorn in the sahara compared to ou galaxy. And our galaxy is a fucking sandcorn in the sahara compared to our universe. If all this is created by god, he got plenty of better shit to do than care about the lifes of some humens))
2019-08-30 11:05
Isnt he all powerfull and all knowing? lmao he can do EVERYTHING at once
2019-08-30 11:07
Not to mention that god being allknowing contradicts our ability to have free will. If he is allknowing then he must've known where humanity would end up, hence we live by destiny and not free will. If there is no free will, then why are we being punished with hell or awarded with heaven?
2019-08-30 12:28
We never went to the moon and you believe this shit government teaches us. Nerd
2019-08-30 19:21
He will go to hell with all good loooking bitches? i call that haven. Have fun with hilary clinton. donal trump, adolf hitler and so on
2019-08-30 11:03
#110
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
wtf?
2019-08-30 12:25
they are all religous = they will go to heaven. Most retards in the world are religous and will go to heaven. So if we Say that it exist i think hell is a safer place, murderers pedophiles and those kind of mentally ill people get in to religion in prison = they will go to heaven
2019-08-30 12:47
#131
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
u clearly dont know what hell's about dont u? you didnt read the bible not even once it seems
2019-08-30 18:36
Ofc I didn't I bet less then 1% of the world's population has. But in some religions all you have to do is ask for forgiveness.
2019-08-30 19:20
#139
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
true, catholic people just goes, they "pray" and thats it, they can continue murdering, and they are "forgiven". A thing that protestant christians dont believe
2019-08-30 19:31
How do you know you are not wrong and good is Allah or good is Zeus how do you know not everyone worships wrong god and we still have old gods? Where are the old gods what happend to them they turned in to one entity?
2019-08-30 12:56
#132
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
how do u know the gods or god doesnt exist???
2019-08-30 18:49
It will be too late for u i think
2019-09-04 12:25
#6
 | 
Canada AleksiBigBrain 
Name checks out
2019-08-30 11:00
Atheism is not a believe system. It's the opposite.
2019-08-30 11:02
#112
 | 
Argentina Joedash 
atheism is believe and also have the knowledge that there's no god nor something like that. But they cant show that God doesnt exist so its kinda weirdo, atheists believes in a scientific who created the big bang theory, its a controversial believe.
2019-08-30 12:27
How do you prove something that don't exist?
2019-08-31 01:27
Agnostics believe that they don't know if god exists and they believe it the same agnostics are believers Your logic is pointless bro
2019-08-30 11:02
understand that atheists like believers have a thesis that cannot be proven and rely on it believe in it
2019-08-30 11:04
Not believing in something with no evidence is not the same as believing in something with no evidence
2019-08-30 11:05
#77
CeRq | 
Italy rad0r 
Form of intelligence in this thread wow
2019-08-30 11:59
I'm not defined by my disbelief in your chosen skydaddy any more than I'm defined by my disbelief in santa clause
2019-08-30 12:05
#17
 | 
World memyselfandI 
No dude. Stop taking a bloody quote that literally and think about it's context.
2019-08-30 11:05
You're believing I take the quote too literally. You're a believer too
2019-08-30 11:11
#48
 | 
World memyselfandI 
You wrote it yourself. I am not replying to you, I am replying to the post you made.
2019-08-30 11:24
He's making fun of the logic and you're too retarded to understand the between-the-lines context of his post
2019-08-30 11:28
#60
 | 
World memyselfandI 
Nah dude, nice try with your kindergarten bullying though. He is not all fun and giggles, neither is he all serious. You will rarely find anyone being either.
2019-08-30 11:34
? Re-read his post. It's not even thinly veiled. What you just said makes no sense in the context of his post. You're embarrassing yourself.
2019-08-30 12:12
No, being an atheist is a lack of a belief in a god. Atheism isnt a system of belief, its system of lacking in belief. Its the religious people who claim god exists, they have to prove it, you dont have to prove it doesnt exist.
2019-08-30 11:04
yes atheist is a lack of belief in a God exacly and you also base your beliefs that God is not there no one can prove it do you not understand?
2019-08-30 11:07
No you dont understand, let me explain it to you. If you accuse subject a of stabbing subject x you have to prove it him and his defence dont have to disprove it, you state an argument and they find holes in it to see if its holds up, its called burden of proof, its functioning system works, how can i disprove something when you cant even prove it. Claiming there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being is an extraordinary claim and this means you need extraordinary evidence.
2019-08-30 11:09
yes atheist is a lack of belief in a God exacly and you also base your beliefs that God is not there no one can prove it do you not understand?
2019-08-30 11:11
No, you dont understand, you cant grasp the very basic concept of burden of proof.
2019-08-30 11:12
+1
2019-08-30 12:27
#155
 | 
Germany sketchbook 
+1
2019-08-31 06:44
Do atheists base their beliefs on whether the loch ness monster is real or not?
2019-08-30 12:06
#62
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
What is evidence? It’s very arrogant when you say “prove it to me”, cuz at the same time you don’t have the absolute knowledge to tell someone that something is right or not. Atheists think that proven things are true, but these are just proven things by authorities in the field of science.
2019-08-30 11:50
No, nowhere in atheism does it say you have to agree with science, atheism is a lack of a belief in a god.
2019-08-30 11:51
#70
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
Agnosticism is also lack of belief in a God, they just don’t know if the “creator” exists or not, which is absolutely reasonable.
2019-08-30 11:56
Everyone is agnostic, atheist or theist
2019-08-30 12:07
#93
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
What do you mean?
2019-08-30 12:10
Agnosticism means lack of knowledge. Since nobody knows if god exists, everyone is agnostic about whether god exists or not. If someone asks you if you believe in god and you say you're agnostic, you haven't answered the question because belief and knowledge are different
2019-08-30 12:49
#123
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
How will I answer if I don’t know whether “Creator” exists or not?
2019-08-30 13:05
Then I'll just say I'm not asking if you know, I'm asking if you believe it exists
2019-08-30 14:20
#140
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
1. Agnosticism is lack of knowledge. 2. Agnosticism is lack of beliefs. I agree with both of these statements and it doesn’t make me less agnostic.
2019-08-30 19:32
If you lack belief in god then you are an atheist. If you lack knowledge of god then you are a human being, like everyone else
2019-08-31 05:37
#159
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
I see no reason to argue with you. You have a habit of considering your personal opinion as generally accepted.
2019-08-31 09:41
Exactly the opposite. What's generally accepted is that agnostics are somehow different from theists or atheists. I'm saying that we're all agnostics because we don't know.
2019-08-31 14:33
You can't just make shit up and say, "prove it is not true" If i say there is a spaghetti monster roaming space i better have fucking evidence or i go to mental hospital. Such flawed logic it belongs to a time 2000 years ago
2019-08-30 11:12
wtf are you talking about topic is atheists are believers they belive that God doesnt exist same like belivers they belive that it exists
2019-08-30 11:13
I believe there are no flying pigs?? Why?? Because there is no proof of flying pigs. I'm i the nuts one for saying there is no flying pigs?
2019-08-30 11:15
wtf are you talking about topic is atheists are believers they belive that God doesnt exist same like belivers they belive that it exists
2019-08-30 11:19
Ok - you r just a indoctrinated religous person. Fair enough. You are a dying breed, hf
2019-08-30 11:54
You are being baited so hard. Start by reading his name.
2019-08-30 11:59
Oh salami lekum
2019-08-30 13:03
No, they have NO belief
2019-08-30 11:29
#20
 | 
World memyselfandI 
You should be agnostic instead. Choosing to firmly believe there is no god, is no smarter than the opposite. And no, the religious people don't have to prove a thing to you. You are completely lost in arguing to understand what religion is about to most people. IE, the non-warmongering peaceful people who are abundant on this planet, contrary to the media trying to present every single believer as a nutcase who is about to bomb some place.
2019-08-30 11:08
No i never said they were all nutcases, im simply saying that if you make the claim that something exists you have the burden of proof, i dont have prove that something you cant prove doesnt exists. My position is pretty simple, god doesnt exists, however if you can prove it with real evidence then ill accept it as fact, with religious people however it doesnt matter they will go on believing blindly, that willful ignorance, that means dumb on purpose. Im not going to give the time of day to people who are like this, religion was mans first attempt at explaining things and it was a bad attempt, the issue is with human is we are clever enough to make up dumb shit and follow it.
2019-08-30 11:14
#46
 | 
World memyselfandI 
I am not religious, but I am certainly not an atheist. Being atheist is kind of arrogant IMO, as there a plentiful of scenarios which would suggest some kind of god. You final sentence describes taking a standpoint (which in my book you shouldn't). You are also writing exactly why you shouldn't take that standpoint. You say god doesn't exist, but yet you are willing to change your opinion if presented with facts. The above is not up for discussion, at least not with me. I have thought many years about my life, and have decided that being totally convinced is very much different from knowing. In my book, you are convinced that god doesn't exist, but you do not know. And as you do not know, I can not accept is as a fact. Btw, religion touches upon subject which science have no tools to measure. This is why religion is still alive today, and this is why science can not answer every question available to man.
2019-08-30 11:23
But my standpoint is reasonable, the religious one isnt. Religion answer anything, it lies and deceives and prays on weak minds. The fact is is im perfectly open to admitting im wrong if proven so, religious people arent, they are actually very childish.
2019-08-30 11:25
#56
 | 
World memyselfandI 
As long as you treat your fellow humans beings well, I don't give a rats ass what your belief system is called. I am non-religious myself. But I do have a bit of extra respect for the religious people. To me they seem a bit more humble than non-believers. “The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.” "Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities -- the political, the religious, the educational authorities --- who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing -- forming in our minds -- their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself."
2019-08-30 11:31
#14
Aleksib | 
Europe samje 
It is only the hardcore atheists that explicitly state that god does not exist. Most atheists are not convinced that god exists because of the lack of evidence.
2019-08-30 11:05
#28
JW | 
Austria winghaveN 
expected thread from a polak, god does not exist, have you ever seen him? You're a fool if you are a believer
2019-08-30 11:13
why you flame ? thread is not about whether God exists, it is about the fact that it cannot be proved whether it exists or not and that atheists equally believe that it does not exist as a believer that exists atheists are believers
2019-08-30 11:16
#41
JW | 
Austria winghaveN 
ye, but you, polaks are catholic extremists, that is my reaction
2019-08-30 11:21
extremists? what does that even mean does it mean that we accept the Catholic faith 100%? I dont think so little one has such a strong faith it means that we love everyone thank you m8
2019-08-30 11:26
you know, believing in things isnt the debate. As usual you only tear down strawmen in your arguments rather than actual issues. The issue is that religion is used to control and subjugate people
2019-08-30 12:15
i dont care if god exists really. When ppl need that joker never show up so who cares.
2019-08-30 11:14
you do care because this is your life?
2019-08-30 11:17
Yes this is my life. and im the one who takes responsibilty. I dont blame god or whatever when shit happens. That's why i dont care.
2019-08-30 11:21
#34
zet | 
Switzerland MRKNUSPER 
heaven: - cold - full of boring people hell: - hot - you can meet interestng people like adolf i choose hell
2019-08-30 11:17
Can you imagine all the dirty women in hell who will do anything. Its red with chains everywhere aswell, just sounds like a hardcore strip club. Also the guy in charge is awesome. youtube.com/watch?v=Ut116mBuPpg
2019-08-30 11:19
#44
zet | 
Switzerland MRKNUSPER 
+1 for example all the hot ones who commited adultery. meanwhile all the ugly, prudish ones will have a bore fest in heaven, no thx
2019-08-30 11:21
#37
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
Did i inspire you with my thread?
2019-08-30 11:18
No.
2019-08-30 11:19
#51
 | 
Kazakhstan MahNinja 
The question wasn’t for you but ok.
2019-08-30 11:27
yes
2019-08-30 11:21
#49
 | 
Brazil subconsious 
Religion is made for stupid people. They feel safe when they think something is after. Based and stupid. They have so much power over normies :)
2019-08-30 11:26
feel safe? XD do you really think Catholic faith is stupid? ? XD
2019-08-30 11:32
#98
 | 
World mrtasxD 
Yes
2019-08-30 12:15
#160
 | 
Brazil subconsious 
of course. one of the most cancerous religions. its really crazy.
2019-08-31 13:12
the same mechanisms of religious beliefs have simply been restructured in a modern way for atheists sure, they dont believe in 'god,' but they still believe in 'gods'; role models, ethical systems, celebrities, fiction (movies, game stories, etc.) a 'god' in most religions is just an abstraction of an idea, ethic, personality, etc. represented as a personification or anthropomorphication even if atheists believe they dont believe in anything, they do in-fact believe in things in the same fashion that religious people do, only in a modern-secular fashion if you simply change the definition of god to what it boils down to in most societies, which is simply a representation of that which is beyond thought, of everything, or a high ideal atheists even pray, as praying is nothing more than self-reflection. when you ask 'god' for advice, you are simply asking yourself. praying is simply a form of introversion there is no such thing as an 'atheist' were all post-modern neo-pagans
2019-08-30 12:02
#85
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
atheism restricted only to denying biblical/mythical god it has nothing to do with other more in line with reality definitions of god
2019-08-30 12:06
That's the cheapest version of theism that I've ever seen defended. I think it's JP who made it popular recently, and I don't understand how people don't realize how this renders the idea of believing in a god completely trivial. "Hey look! Those people have ideas and concepts and self-reflect, in other words they're behaving like human beings, surely that makes them believers in gods, because, you know, now gods are any ideas and concepts and pretty much anything you believe in anyway!" How people are falling for that pointless definition is beyond me. I could also play this game and redefine something to the point of absolute triviality, once I've done that I could also claim that people believe in whatever I redefined easily. It would just not be very useful.
2019-08-31 06:28
but that is precisely what a god and myth is: an abstraction of an ideal in the form of a story, person, animal, etc. in ancient times, humans had an extremely limited understanding of the world, and naturally, our attempts at expressing understanding (or an attempt to understand) were limited by that lack thereof. Now that we have a much more sprawling, complex, and objective understanding of the world along with advanced technology, new forms of media and distribution, everything along the metaphorical landscape has been broken down and transformed radically, but that doesn't mean that we've somehow lifted ourselves from metaphor and belief. This doesn't mean people literally believe in deities in the traditional definition, it simply means those mechanisms of belief are aiming themselves at things that we believe are more pragmatic or 'objective,' like science or political theory, or for other more simple people, fictional media and popular personalities. In order to understand what a 'God' really is, it HAS to be redefined. We know that it is unlikely that god, if he were physical, would be anthropomorphic, human, or even a 'he.' Ancient people simply needed to use familiar imagery and symbolism to get an idea across in an artistic or poetic fashion. Nowadays, we're so good at it that we've trivialized art, stories, music, etc. (which were all indistinguishable from religion in old times) to the point where it's mass-produced commerce. I'm not the one who is trivializing the definition of God, we've simply killed it through our cultural and technological evolution. The church has killed it through constant moral corruption. But that doesn't mean it's dead, it simply gets resurrected in a modern form. We like to believe that we are above our ancestors and their primitive mechanisms of belief, but we participate in those same mechanisms constantly. In my view, even if someone is a nihilist, they are simply a believer in the nothing god, who believes he believes in no god. Kind of interesting and ironic, actually. I'm not saying people literally believe in 'Gods,' I'm saying that Gods and religious stories are at their essence metaphors and ideas in an abstract form, governed by the intellectual capabilities of past humans. And today, even the most atheistic person is going to be influenced heavily by abstractions, metaphors, and stories, and they're going to hold on to them, close to their heart, just as religious people did. We simply have more freedom to adopt and believe in abstractions that relate to us individually, but at the same time we're heavily shaped by a dominant culture without our consent. Besides the freedom we do have, it's not that much different from being a person born into Orthodox religion in the past: our dominant culture has many good ideas, but also many bad that we are either unaware of or are afraid to face. We really are no better than religious people; we use the same psychological mechanisms, and we're just as prone to be wrong, and we make just as many mistakes. So why think you are better when you believe in no 'God'? Just like with religion, with every good thing we create through secularism and rationalism we at the same time create a new problem, or fail to solve an old one. Things have certainly changed, but at the same time, they haven't changed at all. The way I see this idea as being useful is to try to humble people, atheists who put stock in flawed secular ideas while scoffing at the idea of spirituality or moral objectivity. To show that people of radically different ideas and experiences are at their essence the same. That there is no use in fighting over the existence of deities, because they DO exist, in our emotional and neurological landscape, which in turn heavily influences the physical. We are the agents of our 'Gods' no matter how you look at it. You believe in SOMETHING and that something is influencing how you act in the world. And I believe that people that sit around thinking they're superior to other people over their beliefs, when we're all human, probably believe in a pretty shitty 'something,' and learn to get back down to earth.
2019-09-03 01:39
Sorry, I want to rephrase that last part. People should definitely be criticizing what others believe in and debating about it. There's nothing wrong with believing that your beliefs are somehow superior in some way to another belief. The problem arises when you believe you are superior to that person holding the opposing belief, when you are just as privy to believe in something as flawed, or potentially flawed as they do. Arguing over whether or not God exists is just a complete waste of time, it's like arguing over the existence of aliens in Area 51; it's an unfalsifiable. We should be arguing about God as it exists as an idea, not about whether it really exists or not. That is what I'm doing.
2019-09-03 01:47
Sry I couldn't reply immediately to your message so I put it on bookmark but it was the very first version it seems and your edit and #165 did not appear, I'll try to edit if it's not too long to do, otherwise I'll reply to myself to add what I need.
2019-09-03 02:58
I ended up adding #168.
2019-09-03 03:13
"but that is precisely what a god and myth is: an abstraction of an ideal in the form of a story, person, animal, etc." Again: if any idea or concept is a god to you, you can use that definition if you want, it's just a pointless definition. It's like saying that all videogames are first-person because we always play them through our own perception, fine you're free to redefine all videogames as "first-person videogames" if you want, you'll still need to make a distinction between ACTUAL first-person "first-person videogames" and the other kinds if you want people to understand you, and since you just put them all in the same basket, good luck. Same thing here, you're free to think that all human beings are believers in gods, but you'll still have to make yourself understood by others when they make the distinction between non-believers and believers, and since your definition puts them both in the same basket, good luck doing that. In ancient times, people had a lack of understanding indeed, and some of them used gods to compensate that lack of understanding indeed, but they also had some understanding of their environment, and this, they did not need gods for. But of course if you consider that any idea or concept is a god then I guess they did: under your definition their chairs were gods, their pinky was a god, whatever you want. Again, once everything is a god, then calling something a god becomes pointless. No, we don't need to redefine a god to understand what it is, we just need to define it (assuming of course we manage to make our definition understood by our interlocutors), whether we take an old or a brand new definition it's the same, as long as we make ourselves understood. Maybe YOU feel like you need to redefine it, but that's your problem. I have no issue addressing your new definition, but if that's the one I think it is, then I'll have no other choice than to consider it pointless. A believer in the nothing god, heh? As pointless as I thought it would be. The old concept of god has never been killed, many, many people still believe in an anthropomorphic god (in fact with the current demographic trend, it's likely that more people believe in that version). You do trivialize it. Why, I don't know, and I'm not going to pretend reading your mind, but the moment you try to argue that every idea or concept is a god, you could not have trivialized the concept of a god more than that... I call ideas: ideas. I call concepts: concepts. If you want to call those "gods", good for you, and good luck trying to push that definition, but that will be without me. "I'm not saying people literally believe in 'Gods,' I'm saying that Gods and religious stories are at their essence metaphors and ideas in an abstract form, governed by the intellectual capabilities of past humans." No, you seemed to say more than that. The fact that all X are Y does not mean that all Y are X. So if you say that all gods and religious stories are ideas and concepts, I'm fine with that. That's when you try to argue that all ideas and concepts are gods and religious stories that we disagree. "And today, even the most atheistic person is going to be influenced heavily by abstractions, metaphors, and stories, and they're going to hold on to them, close to their heart, just as religious people did. We simply have more freedom to adopt and believe in abstractions that relate to us individually, but at the same time we're heavily shaped by a dominant culture without our consent. Besides the freedom we do have, it's not that much different from being a person born into Orthodox religion in the past: our dominant culture has many good ideas, but also many bad that we are either unaware of or are afraid to face." So, now, any culture is a religion? It's not like I shouldn't expect it from someone who seems to have a blast trivializing things. Same problem, same treatment. "We really are no better than religious people; we use the same psychological mechanisms, and we're just as prone to be wrong, and we make just as many mistakes. So why think you are better when you believe in no 'God'? Just like with religion, with every good thing we create through secularism and rationalism we at the same time create a new problem, or fail to solve an old one. Things have certainly changed, but at the same time, they haven't changed at all." When did I claim to be better than religious people? Acknowledging a distinction between theism and atheism does not mean that one or the other is "better". I know that I'm better than some theists, but I'm sure there are theists who are better than me as well (although we would need to define "better at what" for all this to make any sense). Secularism does not prevent religion anyway. Same for rationalism, you can be rational and be a believer, it's just that you would need to admit that you're not using rationality when it comes to your presuppositions about your god. And that would not prevent non-believers from having presuppositions of their own, which they would need to acknowledge just the same if they wanted to engage rationally. And yes, any worldview has problems, because of our fundamental limits in terms of epistemology and our limited cognitive abilities. I don't see how that makes all ideas and concepts "gods".
2019-09-03 02:56
Edit: "The way I see this idea as being useful is to try to humble people, atheists who put stock in flawed secular ideas while scoffing at the idea of spirituality or moral objectivity. To show that people of radically different ideas and experiences are at their essence the same. That there is no use in fighting over the existence of deities, because they DO exist, in our emotional and neurological landscape, which in turn heavily influences the physical. We are the agents of our 'Gods' no matter how you look at it. You believe in SOMETHING and that something is influencing how you act in the world. And I believe that people that sit around thinking they're superior to other people over their beliefs, when we're all human, probably believe in a pretty shitty 'something,' and learn to get back down to earth." First, I'm surprised that your first thought is humbling atheists because I see condescension and arrogance from both sides personally. Second, if the goal is to appease the debate, then arguing in favor of one side unequivocally is from my experience not very productive. Third, none of those goals makes your definition useful, not because those are necessarily bad goals, but because a definition that renders the concept trivial is almost never useful. It's like saying that the entire universe is a god. Fine, personally I call it the universe, I see no benefit calling it a god aside confusing everyone and bringing unnecessary baggage with it. ----- "Sorry, I want to rephrase that last part. People should definitely be criticizing what others believe in and debating about it. There's nothing wrong with believing that your beliefs are somehow superior in some way to another belief. The problem arises when you believe you are superior to that person holding the opposing belief, when you are just as privy to believe in something as flawed, or potentially flawed as they do. Arguing over whether or not God exists is just a complete waste of time, it's like arguing over the existence of aliens in Area 51; it's an unfalsifiable. We should be arguing about God as it exists as an idea, not about whether it really exists or not. That is what I'm doing." I agree, you should not feel superior to other people just based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Also, I think area 51 is far more falsifiable than the concept of a god, but we don't have to enter this debate.
2019-09-03 03:12
I don't know what to say to you if this isn't getting across. A God and something like an ideology do have many core differences and saying they're the same thing may appear like a trivialisation, but I don't see it like that at all. Under my definition, it does not make chairs and pinkies Gods, groups and individuals have to do that by putting high value unto chairs and pinkies, which people don't do. Although even when saying that, you do have people that worship absurd, material things as if they were Gods. So a chair could indeed be a God to someone. Anyways, I just don't see how it's making anything trivial. If it were truly trivial, I would be taking away meaning and significance from the things I am talking about, but the way I see it I am actually adding meaning and significance. If a God is not literally a transcendent, conscious being, it has to be something. So, what is it? That's the question I'm trying to answer, and as far as I can gather, it's what I'm saying it is. Instead of just saying something like, "it's what dumb people do to compensate for lack of knowledge," I try to go deeper and infer what it really is using a more modern framework. I don't see it as useless or trivial, I see it as reconciling the past (instead of rejecting it) in order to learn more about our nature. Even if what I'm saying means that you could worship anything as a God (Which people have the capability of doing) there is still significance to that, that concept doesn't suddenly erase the significance of the idea of God. To me, trivializing things means to remove the need to ask further questions, but I think I'm opening space for more. Also yea, sorry if it seems I'm leaning hard on criticizing atheists. Much of what religion has been and has turned into is reprehensible indeed. When I post online I'm usually just spitballing because I'm bored and typing your thoughts out is fun sometimes, so it's not uncommon to have some mistakes here and there.
2019-09-03 06:10
"I don't know what to say to you if this isn't getting across. A God and something like an ideology do have many core differences and saying they're the same thing may appear like a trivialisation, but I don't see it like that at all. Under my definition, it does not make chairs and pinkies Gods, groups and individuals have to do that by putting high value unto chairs and pinkies, which people don't do." So it's not all concepts or ideas, it's just the ones that people put high value on? If that's the case, it's at least down a level in terms of trivialization, but it's still quite trivial, as soon as someone puts high value on something that thing becomes a god? So if I enjoy exercising, then exercising becomes a god of mine? Personally I would call it a hobby or a passion, depending on how much I enjoy it. If you want to call those gods, go ahead, again, that'll be without me, I see no use in calling those gods apart from confusing everyone, myself included. ----- "Anyways, I just don't see how it's making anything trivial. If it were truly trivial, I would be taking away meaning and significance from the things I am talking about, but the way I see it I am actually adding meaning and significance." It doesn't need to take away meaning to trivialize it (although obviously redefining something means taking away some meaning and adding some other meaning instead). If I were to claim that everyone is a philosopher for example, because everyone in some way and to some extent reflects about the world and its nature. That's just redefining human beings as philosophers, that's trivializing the term, that's also adding confusion to the term because now people have to be able to make the distinction between what everyone (including me) call philosophers, which are the people who studied philosophy, and what I call philosophers, which are all human beings. So not only did I take away a very useful term that was already perfect to convey my meaning, but also, by using the same term for the set and a subset, I added unnecessary confusion. Not to mention that just saying "every human being thinks to some extent about the world and its nature" is not very useful. Sure, they do, because that's part of what a human being can do, but that does not make everyone a philosopher. It's the same problem when calling everyone a believer, you're simply describing things that are characteristics of human beings and calling those characteristics of believers, that's fine, if that's your jam, but don't be surprised if people find this kind of definition useless and confusing, as I do. ----- "If a God is not literally a transcendent, conscious being, it has to be something. So, what is it?" I don't think it has to BE anything, and that's the pattern I see among people (like JP) who want to redefine the term god: they seem to absolutely want the term to point to something in the world, and something important. The fact that a concept doesn't point to the actual thing it were supposed to point to does not mean that it necessarily must point to an actual thing. Just like dragons and unicorns don't actually point to an actual thing, it doesn't mean they must point to an actual thing, they're just things that people thought existed, and now that we know they don't exist (at least as far as we know) then they only exist as their specific concepts, they don't require to be redefined to mean "all concepts" or even "all concepts that we highly value" in order to still make sense to us. You seem to value the concept of gods so you're really motivated to find something it points to, but imagine people doing the same thing with ghosts or dragons or spirits or whatever we now don't consider exist, but used to. Would you find that meaningful if they came up to you and argued to redefine some very useful and common words with these terms? How useful would that look to you? ------ "That's the question I'm trying to answer, and as far as I can gather, it's what I'm saying it is. Instead of just saying something like, "it's what dumb people do to compensate for lack of knowledge," I try to go deeper and infer what it really is using a more modern framework. I don't see it as useless or trivial, I see it as reconciling the past (instead of rejecting it) in order to learn more about our nature." You don't need to be dumb to compensate for lack of knowledge, you just need imagination and a will to make sense of the world. Nor is it rejecting the past to show how a concept was used to compensate a lack of knowledge, on the contrary, it means that we're making sense of the past. ------ " Even if what I'm saying means that you could worship anything as a God (Which people have the capability of doing) there is still significance to that, that concept doesn't suddenly erase the significance of the idea of God. To me, trivializing things means to remove the need to ask further questions, but I think I'm opening space for more." It doesn't erase its significance but it does trivialize it if whatever people value highly becomes a god compared to a god as a transcendental and powerful being, it just looks like a way to force the word "god" to still be in use in everyday language, and I don't see why we would need that, especially when we have other words for this already and the word "god" is still very strongly associated to all the baggage of a transcendental being. It's like calling the big reptiles like crocodiles as "dragons" because we need the word "dragon" to point at something that's real instead of this imaginary version of dragons that we have in our heads. I mean, fine by me, I'll just keep calling them reptiles, because I don't see why we would need the word "dragon" to point at anything other than the fantastic beast that we have in our stories, but you do you. ------ "Also yea, sorry if it seems I'm leaning hard on criticizing atheists. Much of what religion has been and has turned into is reprehensible indeed. When I post online I'm usually just spitballing because I'm bored and typing your thoughts out is fun sometimes, so it's not uncommon to have some mistakes here and there." That's fine, I'm not jumping on you for criticizing atheists, because like all groups, they have their fair share of problems, my problem is when people point to a group doing X as if it was something that was only done by this group, when in fact other groups do it as well. If that was not your intent, we're fine.
2019-09-03 15:32
Thanks for the respectable posts, cool reads, but I'm not gonna go further with this no hard feelings. I probs sound facetious, but look up the definition of metaphor. Literally all I'm saying is that Gods, religious symbolism, etc. are metaphors and representations that allude to a source of meaning. When atheists criticize believers with condescension (and vice versa), there is a strong element of irony because atheists also have beliefs that are as flawed or worse than a believer. Often when people have a disagreement with each other and act hostile, condescending, arrogant, uncompromising, etc. it often gets so heated because it's essentially battle between their 'Gods,' which when I say 'Gods' I use it as a metaphor for peoples highest values. Whether or not someone is a theist, agnostic, or atheist it completely dictates their entire perspective. The theist is full of religious dogma and scripture, and the agnostic or atheist is full of cultural dogma and media. What I'm saying is that the theists 'dogma and scripture' are analogous to the atheists 'dogma and media' in their function of forming a persons perspectives, values, etc. So, when you criticize a religious person for their so-called primitive, out-dated beliefs, you should know in the back of your mind that in 50 years time, whatever beliefs you have floating around in your head may be just as flawed and dangerous as ideas of old to the people of the future. So what is the point in fighting over unfalsifiable semantics like 'is God real or not?' when you can look at God /as it is real/. And doing that quickly leads to more important questions.
2019-09-04 12:23
"Thanks for the respectable posts, cool reads, but I'm not gonna go further with this no hard feelings." No problem, and thanks to you as well. ----- "I probs sound facetious, but look up the definition of metaphor." Sure thing. "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable" - Oxford Reference I think it speaks for itself. ----- "Literally all I'm saying is that Gods, religious symbolism, etc. are metaphors and representations that allude to a source of meaning. " And again, I agree with that. When we have a problem is when you claim that all representations that allude to sources of meaning are gods. ----- "When atheists criticize believers with condescension (and vice versa), there is a strong element of irony because atheists also have beliefs that are as flawed or worse than a believer." See what I mean? When you want to be understood by someone who doesn't use your definition "everyone is a believer", you need to make the distinction between believers and non-believers anyway, as you did here. That's an example of why defining believers as everyone is not useful, on top of being confusing. As for your point, whether atheists have some flawed beliefs is not very relevant to whether the belief in a god is flawed or not, and in general that's what is discussed between the two sides. If you want to discuss with them some beliefs that you think they hold and which you think are flawed, then discuss those with them, but saying that they also hold flawed beliefs when they're arguing that a belief in a god is a flawed belief is just a distraction from their original point: even if it was the case, that would not address what they're talking about. ----- "Often when people have a disagreement with each other and act hostile, condescending, arrogant, uncompromising, etc. it often gets so heated because it's essentially battle between their 'Gods,' which when I say 'Gods' I use it as a metaphor for peoples highest values." Ok, personally I use "values", or if I want to dig deeper "fundamental values". I don't see the need to use "gods", especially in a debate environment where the term already refers to something different. But again, if that's how you want to call values and define gods, go for it, just don't be surprised if it leads to confusion, and don't expect people to use these terms the way you use them. ----- "Whether or not someone is a theist, agnostic, or atheist it completely dictates their entire perspective." If you're talking about values, then they're important to anyone's worldview indeed. I wouldn't say they dictate it because there are things that are not that relevant to our values. If you're talking about the concept of god as defended by most believers, then no, it's really not fundamental to the worldview of atheists and agnostics (in fact even deists would not be affected that much). However it's fundamental to theistic worldviews indeed. ----- "The theist is full of religious dogma and scripture, and the agnostic or atheist is full of cultural dogma and media. What I'm saying is that the theists 'dogma and scripture' are analogous to the atheists 'dogma and media' in their function of forming a persons perspectives, values, etc." First, scripture and religious dogma doesn't save anyone from potentially being victim of cultural dogma, except for some lonely monks who retreat from the world I suppose, and even then, they often did so based on a life inside society in the first place, so they're in part shaped by it. And religion being part of culture, religious dogma is a form of cultural dogma. As for atheists, sure, there are some atheists who are victim of cultural dogma, and there are some who are not, either because they left some dogma (religious or not) and are very critical of dogmas, or because they simply don't appreciate things that cannot be questioned as a result of their upbringing allowing them to question anything. And I'm sure there are some deists who are not victim of cultural dogma as well. For theists it's harder, since most theistic worldviews are based on religious dogma (which are part of cultural dogma). But there are probably theists who are free of religious dogma, some define themselves as theists but non-religious for example, assuming of course they don't consider their god as something that cannot be questioned. So being a victim of dogma is not necessarily dependent on your position on the existence of a god, but in general it helps to at least be a deist, agnostic or atheist for that, because theistic worldviews, usually, use dogma to spread and maintain themselves. ----- "So, when you criticize a religious person for their so-called primitive, out-dated beliefs, you should know in the back of your mind that in 50 years time, whatever beliefs you have floating around in your head may be just as flawed and dangerous as ideas of old to the people of the future." I try to avoid criticizing people, because I find that usually counter-productive, I try to criticize ideas. So if their ideas have fundamental problems for example in terms of morality or if they simply don't make sense, then I'm going to criticize these ideas. Whether I hold ideas that will be criticized by people in the future is irrelevant, it does not give a pass to those ideas that I'm criticizing right now. And if people want to criticize my ideas in the future, let them do so, if I'm as rational and open-minded as I hope I am and they make better points than I do, then I'll have no choice but to change my mind. And if they're correct and I don't change my mind, then that would not change the fact that I would be wrong on the issue they raised. ----- "So what is the point in fighting over unfalsifiable semantics like 'is God real or not?' when you can look at God /as it is real/." The point (at least for atheists) is that some people try to act upon something that they cannot show is real. As you can expect, it can lead to dangerous actions and ideas, so it's important to address their belief. Please remember that most believers do not believe in the concept of god you're defending, in fact most of them would probably consider your concept of god a heresy or at least something along those lines. Atheism is only a reaction to what theism tries to push on society, without people pushing this concept of god, atheism would not even exist as a word, and we wouldn't need to argue about the existence of something that no one would even defend the existence of. We have to address the concepts of gods that believers present to us, otherwise it's dishonest and missing their point, and in majority they won't try to rename "values" as "gods", in majority they'll be defending this supposedly transcendent being that supposedly care about your sex positions and who marries who. ------ "And doing that quickly leads to more important questions." The first one being: why the hell would we need to rename "values" as "gods"?
2019-09-04 16:19
#71
Zeus | 
United Kingdom iowBill 
this is such a fucking retarded thread
2019-08-30 11:56
#72
 | 
Finland nexustron 
God, as in a dude in the sky with beard who has complete control over everything, does not exist. God exists if you think God is the universe, laws of physics etc... So, God exists if the definition of God allows God to exist.
2019-08-30 11:56
#83
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
wtf believing and knowing are mutually exclusive blind faith is the only existing faith knowing means that you aren't believing
2019-08-30 12:07
3 options? So you clearly don't believe in any of the shit you're scared of the make believe hell lol. Also are you retarded? How many religions and gods are there/have there been? It's not 1/3 options its like 1/4000. Get a grip
2019-08-30 12:11
#99
 | 
Turkey oz1ko 
atheism sucks. you can not know anything about if it exists or nah
2019-08-30 12:15
#102
rain | 
France HYPNO5 
this is simply the difference between being atheist and agnostic .
2019-08-30 12:17
You don't need an evidence of something that doesn't exist
2019-08-30 12:18
Yes but we don't believe in bullshit
2019-08-30 12:18
Stop focusing on what you want to happen after death, this life is all we've got for now.
2019-08-30 12:21
There are 4 actually: agnostic theists agnostic atheists gnostic theists gnostic atheists
2019-08-30 12:24
#109
 | 
Europe jvesper 
i arent think god is exist
2019-08-30 12:25
you have 3 options you belive in Flying Spaghetti Monster you don't know if it exists or not you recognize that it does not exist
2019-08-30 12:25
you have 3 options you belive in people identifying as an attack chopper you don't know if it exists or not you recognize that it does not exist
2019-08-30 13:04
#126
 | 
Turkey tastemycobra 
Does God exist? How the fuck am i supposed to know?
2019-08-30 13:05
i don't care.
2019-08-30 13:06
atheism are believers like abstinence is a sex position
2019-08-30 13:14
#136
 | 
Brazil Cleckzera 
no one can say and show evidence that Santa Claus exists or not everyone are believers
2019-08-30 19:22
#137
f0rest | 
Paraguay shob0 
What a retarded post omg... Everyone is a believer HAHAHA. I dont believe in god. What am i then?
2019-08-30 19:25
#138
 | 
Brazil Cleckzera 
We are in 2019 and still there are people who believes in god hahaha
2019-08-30 19:27
>you dont believe in god >you think we living at 2019 year XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
2019-08-30 19:58
#145
 | 
Brazil Cleckzera 
who cars? should I say that we are in year 4.543 bi?
2019-08-30 20:03
why you even talkin about shit religion and why reply my message
2019-08-30 20:09
Youre prolly worshipping the wrong god anyway you plastic mainstream religion fan
2019-08-30 20:09
Epicurus is ur saviour*
2019-08-31 05:43
I agree, but at least they have a good reason to believe what they believe.
2019-08-31 05:57
Claiming a god is a positibe claim. There is minimal faith involved in rejecting a claim that has no evidence.
2019-08-31 06:53
I do not believe there is no god. It's just fictive fairy tale like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars or Narnia, until you have proof. Bible is no more trustworthy than any other book on library's fantasy isle.
2019-08-31 07:00
Some absolute jewels of wisdom in some of the replies. Big ups, +rep Thanks for writing some of that down guys m, mmi
2019-08-31 07:06
God=Dog
2019-08-31 15:06
Very smart but I believe that theres no way to know if god exists and that its stupid to even debate about it, only stupid people believe in god, those little smart believe he doesnt exist, the smartest dont care
2019-09-03 12:57
If atheism is a belief then abstinence is a sex position
2019-09-03 15:31
18:30PACT vs AGO
PACT
2.80
AGO
1.41
14:00Natus Vincere vs Heroic
Natus Vincere
1.29
Heroic
3.64
19:55HAVU vs SKADE
HAVU
1.37
SKADE
3.00
Bet
Return
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.