Atheist Anti-theist Books

there is no arguments against god but against certain conceptions of god

You actually believe there's a god? kek

what does that even mean?

You actually believe you have enough knowledge or wisdom to say one way or the other regarding God rather than simply living well and trying your best to know what life means to you personally? kek

>>The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty - Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

Attached: index.png (2400x2848, 3.04M)

HAHHA it's funny because i imagine that people who disagree with me have poor social skills therefore i am correct

It means that if you define god as "energy" or "the Universe" or something like that and ignore the fact that 99% of the people in the world mean something totally different when they talk about god, no one can argue with you against the existence of "god."

No, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Instead of blindly following retarted beliefs like people in my country.

what country are you in, user?

"God is the Universe xD". What if I say I am a God? Can you argue with me?

I doubt I would bother.

Sure. I'll argue with you about it. Let me start.

How come you get to be God?

Mexico. Here, religion is for the poor and ignorant. The anesthesia for the pain in their lives. They make saints out of the most ridiculous supersitions. Based off Catholicism, practically bordering paganism.

I mean its almost certainly the case for Bakunin though. He was objectively a fat neckbeard contrarian in his own time even Marx couldn't stand him

What God? The abrahamic God? The idea of an inteligent creator is not crazy whatsoever. I mean if humans ever creates AI and dumbs it down a lot that would basically be an inteligent creator. The idea that we were created can't be prove or disproved

I've always heard that that's a product of new world influence on religion. I think, personally, if you were to adopt a traditional albeit detached understanding of Christianity you'd find at least some knowledge that would be potentially life enriching.

I never go to church, and I don't tithe, but I've found that praying and loving God (i.e. loving what he represents) has brought me a quiet and dignified happiness with myself.

seconding this recommendation. As far as I'm concerned Sobel defeats more or less any possible argument for God

The reasoning behind concluding that a belief is false because an unlikable person believes it continues to elude me.

Well duh, you're a smelly unlikeable neckbeard yourself

The idea that an intelligent creator designed humans is disproved by pretty much everything (e.g., the prostate).

I'll have you know that my morning routine rivals Reynolds Woodcock's in its fastidiousness.

A design doesn't have to be good or flawless. I mean I don't know if you are trolling

Richard Dawkins is the best representation of the anti-theist and his book, The God Delusion, provides the best basis for the atheist culture if there ever was one.

>Dawkins

In reality you're praying and loving yourself. Which is good.

If you're arguing that there's an intelligent designer out there who has deliberately designed everything to look like it would have if it had been the result of undirected processes, then, sure, I can't prove you wrong. Congratulations on your brilliant theory.

No.

Not the guy you replied to but I can just say that I believe I am God so I am God. Nothing outside your own head matters anyway

It is not a brilliant theory but all organic life on earth comes from the same carbon structures. You can say it is a result of volcanic activity,but all experiments point that's wrong.

Don't drink any liquids for a week and report back on the importance of external things

This is the dumbest argument that has ever existed. Denying the material world is just self-denial and mental masturbation

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

>life on earth comes from "the same carbon structures"
>someone says that this is because of volcanoes
>experiments show it's not because of volcanoes
>therefore, an intelligent designer made the "carbon structures"

Am I getting that right?

>I named my cat "God," so therefore I can prove God exists HAHAHAHAHAA CHECKMATE

No.I am saying that the origin of life is unknown to us,so the idea of inteligent design is not crazy as it comes from a common "base" if you want to put it that way.All life derives from the same structure.It could have come from a meteorite from all we know

You can't just stuff god into current gaps in understanding. "I don't know X, therefore maybe god did it. Why not?" Well, you can, but you shouldn't expect anyone to be impressed.

Aristotle

Nah, not him, but all Jesus did was saying he was God and people believed him. How's Jesus different from user? They have the same claim and the same amount of proof.

Jesus performed mircacles.Unless fapping 7 times a day becomes a miracle user will never be a prophet

>Jesus performed mircacles

So they say

Sure, but Jesus's audience was a bunch of almost totally uneducated village people. If you go to a bush village in West Africa nowadays, you'll find the same thing-- people seeing miracles and spooks everywhere because they don't know any better.

Hell there's people do that on network tv

Life coming from the same base is a really good argument for inteligent design,if you based inteligence on what we understand as inteligence.If you take a computer it has the same lithium based batteries and silicium based circuits meaning that fixed pattern of creation is alredy proven to be linked with a design made by an inteligent being.The same pattern applies to live.Most organism have their DNA and RNA basis as their basis and then they rely on oxigen and other carbon chanes based nutrients for their selfpresevation.
It would not be crazy if earthly live had been inteligently design by a creator or however you want to call it

...

>Jesus performed miracles.

kek

Whats so funny?

People believed that.If user manages to convince people about his divinity we could equate them

Folktales aren't facts. Magic tricks aren't miracles.

But what if he did perform miracles?

>Convincing faggots from two millienia ago vs Convincing faggots from today.

Not really fair, user, and you know it.

Prepare to have your mind blown.

Attached: 9780451529060.jpg (279x450, 23K)

He managed to convince a lot of people and christianity was the religion of 50% of the roman empire before Constantine you can believe or not in Jesus divinity but the people around him really bealieved it.
>Scientology
Yeah not really.In fact modern science and materialism are pseudoreligions on themselves

What if, what if. That's when "faith" comes into play. Whether you buy the story or not. Personally, I don't, but to each their own.

Donald Trump got elected President, who needs miracles when today we have meme magic

It's different in a village context. Trust me on this one.

Evolution doesn't explain anything,in fact what Darwin proposed is outdated as he never learnt about mutations.In fact evolution as Darwin formulated is not even true.Mutations are random and in a lot of cases don't lead to any improvement.

Yeah but I mean what if he actually did

I believe that Jesus performed miracles because if I did not believe that I would be unfashionably dressed (e.g., wearing a fedora or trilby) and wouldn't adhere to conventional standards of grooming (e.g., I would allow the hair below my chin to grow out).

Horseshit, while Darwin wasn't aware of radical mutations he was certainly aware of the chance variation of all born creatures that precludes mutation

>Donald Trump got elected President

The world never ceases to amuse me. Just when you think people are smart and civilization is advanced, they fucking prove you wrong kek we're the same apes from millions of years ago.

This, but unironically

Yes, Darwin's observations have been supplemented in the many decades since he made them, but if you think that the fact that the fact that all life on Earth has a common origin is an argument in favor of magic, Darwin is probably a good place for you to start.

underrated post

>tfw Darwin is out dated but a book of folk tales from 2 millenia ago isn't.
The absolute state of this board.

Go start with the Greeks

Mutations are random.Either way evolution doesn't explain the origin of that primitive organic substance
No one is talking about magic.I am talking about someone designing the first organic chain,as humans have designed circuits.Nothing more.Darwin does not address the origin of life,just the dynamics of biological species
I am talking about inteligent design. I have not mention the bible once

>Either way evolution doesn't explain the origin of that primitive organic substance

It does actually

How?

They offer philosophy and fiction, while these Christian folk tales are taken as fact.

Self replicating molecules or some shit

The Platonic world of ideals wasn't meant to be taken as fiction

Then we would find ourselves in front of actual supernatural phenomena subject to study and scrutiny. I mean, if he actually did it.

What is the origin of that? I have been talking about this all the time.The organic chain didn't appear out of nothing,there are multiple theories about its origin,but it is still unknown.If a computer gained conciousness and managed to understand circuits that wouldn't make the circuit something not designed by a creator.The could be applied to the esence of life which is the organic chain

>I don't know the answer, so God did it.
>Yours or mine?
>...

You are creating strawman's at this point. I don't mind debating with you but at least stick to the topic and don't put crap that I have never said on my mouth

Yeah but at that point you're going back to the big bang

Some of those preocupations are dealt with in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But replicating life isn't the same as creating life. Life must've had started with chemical reactions and the sun and such.

the origin is chemical clocks inside of primordial sludge on a meteorite or on Earth that were catalyzed by solar energy and chance. That's it. You'd also have to deal with Earth being over ten billion years younger than the rest of the universe. You're not thinking clearly. I'm an agnostic and intelligent design in the vaguest of senses is a tenable albeit unbelievable idea, but you're arguing for it with the wit of a drunken sailor on holiday leave.

This is what I was referencing, user (Kubrick on 2001):

>I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe. Given a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the interaction of a sun's energy on the planet's chemicals, it's fairly certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It's reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some proportion of such life developing intelligence are high. Now, the sun is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of us. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennia—less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe—can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.

Not him but you're implying a God did it, just because you don't know the answer. That's not a cool argument. It's the God of the Gaps shit.

that's not the metaphysical definition of God user, you're now talking about panspermia

>technology will keep exponentially improving forever and become magic

Didn't know Kubrick was this much of a brainlet

He didn't imply that at all, it may vaguely be the subtext of his argument but he never mentioned God

>But replicating life isn't the same as creating life. Life must've had started with chemical reactions and the sun and such
It is a possibility.There might be "life" that is not organical in nature that could have created organic life.Either way we just don't know
Read my previous posts.I have alredy talked about those possibilities.All are possible but until it can be replicated on a lab you can't claim that X is more likely than Y. I have never talked about a God either,that was a strawman that someone created
I have never implied anything,I just say that if we call a creator God,the idea of inteligent design.I am just defending that inteligent design is not a crazy idea.In fact I am pretty sure that humans will be able to create life in a couple of centuries. Either wayquestion of God is metaphysical not physical

For some civilizations it will become like magic. Others will die because of it. That's the beauty.

Except we literally have no reason to assume science won't just end this year. That we'll have reached the end of all possible technology very soon and everything after that will just be minor incremental efficiencies

>It is a possibility.There might be "life" that is not organical in nature that could have created organic life.Either way we just don't know.

But that inorganical life could only have been created by organical life. The chain of life, it always goes back to organic life and its origin, and things indicate life started with all those chemical reactions in the proper environment.

He first needs to persuade people that he's without sin and be executed for their sins, then he might be equally regarded.

Kubrick's talking about other worlds as well, did you even read it? Some civs will reach God-like technology, some aren't even close. It's all speculation, at the end of the day.

>Some civs will reach God-like technology

We have literally no reason to believe this and with observation of space we have a lot of reason to believe the opposite

>But that inorganical life could only have been created by organical life. The chain of life
The thing is that we understand very little about any other forms of life.And that's limiting ourselves to the material world that we know and understand through our senses that are by definition limited