To intelligent too be an athiest

>Pascal´s wager meme.

They are not "equally unlikely", belief in God is a byproduct of human imagination applied to a hypothetical and meaningless concept. It's 0% possible that the concept of God actually exist.

Then again we could say God has a 100% chance of existing

You can say anything.

There's a shadow just behind me,
Shrouding every step I take,
Making every promise empty,
Pointing every finger at me.
Waiting like a stalking butler
Who upon the finger rests.
Murder now the path of "must we"
Just because the son has come.

Jesus, won't you fucking whistle
Something but the past is done?
Jesus, won't you fucking whistle
Something but the past is done?

Why can't we not be sober?
I just want to start this over.
Why can't we drink forever?
I just want to start this over.

I am just a worthless liar.
I am just an imbecile.
I will only complicate you.
Trust in me and fall as well.
I will find a center in you.
I will chew it up and leave,
I will work to elevate you
Just enough to bring you down.

Mother Mary won't you whisper
Something but the past is done?
Mother Mary won't you whisper
Something but the past is done?

Why can't we not be sober?
Just want to start this over.
Why can't we sleep forever?
I just want to start this over.

I am just a worthless liar.
I am just an imbecile.
I will only complicate you.
Trust in me and fall as well.
I will find a center in you.
I will chew it up and leave,
Trust me [5x]

Why can't we not be sober?
Just want to start things over.
Why can't we sleep forever?
I just want to start this over.

I want what I want [4x]

True. Words don't change the fact that God exists.

&Humanities strikes again

>tfw two intelligent to belief in god but i wish god existed

Words are the only way we could communicate this existence to each other, unless one can be confident in some personal unspoken dialogue between oneself and whatever deity.

...

>It's 0% possible that the concept of God actually exist.
when will Veeky Forums fucks get out of here? If you reject everything that's not "muh reality" you end up saying that morality and the law doesn't exist

Language is a gift from God

Not him, but you are wrong. Morality and the law can be based on reality and simple cause and effect or to achieve a goal for society in reality. Morals and laws don't have to come from a divine or supernatural source.

Objective morals do. Otherwise your ethical framework has zero bearing on anyone else unless they agree to it, it's all subjective.

>Objective morals do
And if objective morality actually existed, the world would look very different. It is all subjective, it's just that some are more convincing than others (either through merit or through force.)

They do, you just face the consequences of flouting objective morality after you die.

There are no objective morals known to us. Even going by religion, other religions have other moral systems and your arguments to justify said morals are the same as theirs: my god said so. An unprovable claim and as subjective as the secular morals and laws you call "subjective" as if that changes anything.
Being subjective does not imply a free for all unless someone agrees. A person can disagree with drug laws, but he is still bound to it and if caught breaking said law gets a punishment.

Just because the law is not objective does not mean we cannot use our own reasoning to come up with pragmatic laws or morals.

>after you die.
No evidence for such a thing exists. You could just as easily say that people get to enjoy living immorally in this life as a result of the objective morality they practiced before they were born.

how do atheists explain the origin of life. do they think that single cell organisms just formed out of water or what

Do you need 'evidence'? As scientists love to say "The nice thing about facts is that they're true regardless if you believe them or not". We all get judged on our actions when we die, everyone knows it deep inside, some people just choose to ignore their intuition because they think scientific facts are more trustworthy than their own inner feelings, which is wrong.

Nobody knows how life originated. The difference is atheists don't pretend to know.

An obscene level of luck. Same reason they 'explain' why the universe is fine tuned to allow life "Hey it just worked out that way, ok maaaaan?"

They're not the brightest individuals

To expand on this, the best idea we have is that there were a lot of chemical shenanigans going on with earth as it cooled down after first forming, and hydrocarbons and proteins that exhibit life-like behavior just happened to form, proteins which due to their chemistry attracted atoms and molecules to themselves in a pattern which replicated their own pattern, and things just got out of hand from there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

>strawmanning this hard

>a universe made up of 99.999...% vacuum on top of all the uninhabitable planets is finely tuned for life because one planet that we know of (Earth) has life

If the universe is finely tuned for life, let's shoot you into space, or send you to any of the other planets in this solar system and see you survive.

There could be an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to be in one of the ones that's just ordered enough to support life. After all, we wouldn't be in one of the ones that isn't.

Your cells are basically bags of water surrounded by something called phospholipids. Basically, they're a two sided molecule: one half is electrically attracted to water, the other is electrically repelled by it. If you dump these very simple molecules into water, they self-organize into spheres, because the attracted portions point out to water while the repelled portions point to each other instead to get away from it.

That's a simplified account, but it's that same basic idea repeated over and over. Large amounts of simple things all interacting at the same time produce much more complex behavior, and when these complex behaviors combine you get new building blocks for new interactions.

Of course, people like will try to say this is "luck." How fortunate it is that our cells just happen to be made out of phospholipids, which just happen to organize into packages in water? But this is looking at it backwards. The only reason we have cells in the first place is because phospholipids organize the way they do.

*reads this emanation*
*ascends to the one*

>Do you need 'evidence'?
Yes. If it's a fact, it can be investigated.

How fortunate it is that phospholipids have just the right properties for cells to be created, I wonder why that is, eh?

>Claims I'm strawmanning
>Uses a strawman himself
Nice one. God only created life on Earth, that's the reason the universe is finely tuned for life but only we're here. Argue with that and you'll need to answer the Fermi Paradox

science is discursive
it cant tell you anything about god

These combine to point out a fundamental flaw in the "it's so unlikely!" argument. If it didn't happen, we wouldn't exist to think about it. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't have happened. We're not observers who would exist anyway, and it isn't convenient that we get to be alive, we're the direct result of it happening. Lightning will strike the same place twice eventually given enough time, and it's a big fucking universe out there.

>Reductio ad absurdum 100 %

Again, you have it backwards. Phospholipids do not exist so cells can be created, cells can be created because there exists a molecule with particular properties. Were it not phospholipids, it would likely be another molecule with a hydrophillic and hydrophobic end, and if not then perhaps the "life" analogue in that reality would be more like viruses, with protein coats rather than cells.

But to say the universe is finely tuned for life is false. We happen to be in the temperate zone of one star. Life being on Earth says nothing about the universe. In fact, the universe seems inhospitable as fuck from what we have seen.

As for Fermi's paradox, I don't have to explain it. That would be like me asking you to answer Zeno's paradox. It is irrelevant because nobody knows yet. If we ever do.

>Again, you have it backwards
You do. Molecules only have certain properties because they were created that way by God for specific purposes.

>Argue with that and you'll need to answer the Fermi Paradox
Not all that complicated, really. The amount of time we would have been "visible" to alien civilizations based on the radiation we are admitting has been extremely short compared to the age of the universe, and our ability to detect the potential radiation of alien life has been around for even less time. Depending on how technology changes, we may become "invisible" again fairly soon. More recent than all of that is the ability to detect earthlike planets with liquid water. If alien life is out there, it could very easily be extremely difficult to find both in space and time.

If it didn't happen, we wouldn't exist to think about Roundabout argument. The fact it happened doesn't detract from wondering about how likely it was in the first place. If I win the lottery 3 times in a row it would be retarded to dismiss it by saying "In any universe where I have more than 150 million dollars I must have won the lottery 3 times, therefore the fact I won it three times isn't that amazing because I own 150 million dollars"

All the anthropic principle says is that it's not surprising to see values that support life since we're here, if they weren't that way we shouldn't be. It doesn't say anything about the absolute staggering improbability of it being that way when there seems to be no logical reason the universe should balance on a razors edge to be able to create us, like we know it does now.

>(You)

that doesn't infer life. amino acids or molecules binding together doesn't just animate their aggregate

>Morality and the law can be based on reality
mmmm nope. According to people like you, nothing that can't be touched or perceived is not real. Therefore, morality and the law can't be based on reality because they're not real. It's all subjective and it's so lovely to watch you naturalistic fucks trying to argue otherwise.

There's an objective set of moral rules. You can either accept that or not.

You're just looking at the tip of the iceberg if all your mind jumps to is the orbit of Earth around the Sun. Yes, it is very good that the Earth lies in an orbit that allows water to exist in a liquid state, but billions of planets have an orbit like that, that isn't actually all that improbable. You haven't even scratched the surface of the ridiculous, ludicrous improbable ways our universe has conspired to have JUST the right properties that it allows stars, galaxies, worlds and atoms to form, to within a tolerance of 1%

The cosmological constant is a good one. A number tuned to 120 decimal places and if it was even slightly different there would be no life. 10^82 is the number of atoms in the universe. This number is tuned to 10^-120

Compared to that the idea that the Earths orbit is 'improbable' is very quaint

>There are no objective morals known to us
killing a fellow human being and stealing are seen as wrong by everyone. There can be attenuating circumstances but they're seen as wrong.

They come from an objective set of morals.

this is only convenient if you assume there is only one universe

>the difference is that atheists don't pretend to know
They do, though.

I'm aware. Phospholipids organizing into a single layer isn't a true cell membrane. But it's a building block, which allows for more complex behavior. For example, RNA self-catalyzes its own replication in a way DNA doesn't, for example. What happens when phospholipids organize around self-replicating RNA, which was itself initially formed in the reducing environment of the early earth, etc.?

You may have heard of the man who dug his way through a mountain over decades and decades of work. No individual day brought the mountain down, but small, consistent steps allowed the task to be achieved. Consider each of the things I am talking about as small, simple steps, and know that they built on each other over the course of millions and millions of years. And it was these small, seemingly simple steps that were actually the most important to live emerging, and actually much more significant and time consuming than for example the difference between all animals and all plants.

That is true. Which is why multiverse theory is becoming more and more popular. The idea that this universe just naturally formed in this specific way is long gone. The only way to reconcile it is to assume that we live in an infinite multiverse, at which point probability is a non-issue, it becomes certainty.

But if are are the only universe, there is only a single conclusion that can be drawn. This universe was created.

>there could be an infinite number of universes
something that can't be inductively or deductively reasoned. At least God can be inductively reasoned.

The only reason the "infinite multiverse" meme gained popularity was because the other possibility was outright admitting the existence of God. Can't have God as a rational explanation when naturalism and scientism is in vogue.

>it's another religious person that does not understand science episode

>yes, if it's a fact it can be investigated
How do 1 + 1 equal 2? And don't try to argue it from an argument from linguistics.

But the definition of human being and stealing was incredibly flexible. We interpret them as a set of objective morals, but when you actually look at people's actions they were less extenuating circumstances and more just accepted facts of life. Additionally, murder and theft are generally mal-adaptive from a societal perspective, (which is why war and looting took so long to be recognized as wrong, because it's only bad when you do it to the in-group) and stem from pragmatic human survival in groups rather than some eternal objective morality.

I understand science. I'm studying biology. Morality and rationality can't be looked at from a naturalistic worldview. Same with the question of God.

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Francis Bacon

>something that can't be inductively or deductively reasoned.
There is evidence of the influence of other universes due to the unevenness of our universe's expansion, as recorded in the cosmic background radiation. Additionally, it isn't that far fetched considering how the scope of the "known world" has ballooned. Turns out our civilization wasn't unique, then our planet wasn't unique, then our sun/solar system wasn't unique, then our galaxy wasn't unique. Why should our universe be unique, especially now that we have reason to believe otherwise?

Someone already did it for me, looks like.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

>God made us intelligent enough to know there's a meaning to life, but not intelligent enough to know what it is.

But you can understand them from a naturalistic perspective. We know our brains have consciousness so we can reason. Let's take murder. I don't have to have a decree from a supernatural realm to see it as bad (or good). I can say "hey, when we let people murder with impunity, my life and the life of others around me sucks ass. Maybe we can lock them away somewhere to solve this issue".

That did not require a god or any other supernatural force. And empathy is explained by neuroscience and how our brains evolved and function. You can easily discern morals and create laws by normal means. Are they objective? No, but I answered that criticism earlier in the thread.

you're only explaining the atenuating circumstances that I already talked about. In any healthy society/civilization, anyone that took another's man life was punished. And this comes from fucking Babilonia. Cultures as distant as aztecs and egyptians had a moral code that difered in multiple rules but it had the same esential fundamentals.

Respect your elders is also one of those.

>Additionally, it isn't that far fetched considering how the scope of the "known world" has ballooned.

That isn't relevant to the question of life and how finely atuned our universe is to the formation of life in our Earth. The multiverse theory is only popular as pop-sci. Stephen Hawking admitted that God's existence is consistent with our discoveries in physics.

so you couldn't formulate an argument by yourself as to why 1 + 1 = 2 and just accept it because you believe in it. Congratulations: you have faith in Math.

you're looking at the issue from a extremely simplistic worldview or either don't get it.

> I don't have to have a decree from a supernatural realm to see it as bad (or good). I can say "hey, when we let people murder with impunity, my life and the life of others around me sucks ass. Maybe we can lock them away somewhere to solve this issue".

Why don't others murder with impunity? Why do others get to the same thought process? Why do others understand that their life sucks ass because of someone murdering each other with impunity?

If according to you, everything there's to it is "nature", then why aren't we atuned to murder and theft the same way multiple species do (might makes right)?

Your meaning in life is to pick something and hold onto it so that your life doesn't feel like a waste, whether it be a nation, belief or end goal.

Not him, but at least having faith in math can be tested. He can test his faith and see the proof. He can rely on math to work and function and create and sustain technology, let him make accurate predictions, allow him to count money, etc. Math has actual utility that can be tested repeatedly. Care to give me a test to show god's utility?

>He can test his faith and see the proof
That mathematics are useful to science doesn't exclude that you're making a leap of faith to accept axioms.

>Care to give me a test to show God's utility?
5 fucking thousand years of civilization based around God or some kind of belief. The most popular one at the moment is science.

Why? You already explained it. People can see the results, they say "Hey, this is nice. I don't understand it at fucking all, but is nice".

We were attuned to it. In some places of the world it is still lawless, or people dwell in slums and live their lives, etc. We are humans so in general we all share the trait to want to survive, personally and as a species. Hence why we are social animals and developed traits useful to said socialization. Whether that is empathy, caring for kids, whatever. These are not divine things, they are the result of our minds. You can even see other social species like dogs, other primates, etc., having very basic moral systems. It is a natural thing. And like any other natural thing, there will be variation to some degree which is why human morality varies, on top of our much more complex minds capable of thinking outside of pure instinct. If you were a biologist you would know this. So, either you're a terrible biologist or full of shit.

>you're only explaining the atenuating circumstances that I already talked about.
Here's the problem. If the rule itself was objective and unchanging, why do the extenuating circumstances change so drastically over the civilizations? What was the punishment for returning home victorious from a war?Cultures as distant as aztecs and egyptians had a moral code that difered in multiple rules but it had the same esential fundamentals.
So, in other words, every one of them were one particular species of human? And it's supposed to be surprising that there are similarities to the moral codes of humans that evolved specifically to live in social structures?

>The multiverse theory is only popular as pop-sci.
Again, the cosmic microwave background radiation records light from relatively near the Big Bang. One thing studying it shows that the initial expansion of the universe was uneven, which requires explanation. One such explanation, completely separate from the fine-tuning argument, is that the inflation of our universe was affected by the inflation of others. It's just that the plausibility of multiple universes also deals nicely with the fine tuning argument, in addition to its main function.
>God's existence is consistent with our discoveries in physics.
Yes, because an omnipotent God could very easily construct a Last Thursday universe and there would be no physics-based way to know one way or the other.

>Congratulations: you have faith in Math.
I do operations with math on a daily basis. So do you. If 1+1 did not equal 2, then, for example, what would we make of the differences between unicycles and bicycles? We can observe that they act differently. What should we do with those observations?

It isn't a leap of faith to accept axioms in math when they actually work. It's like saying I take it on faith that gravity works. When I can see it working, it really isn't a leap of faith.

But thanks for admitting that religion is all about what feels good and not reality.

better than religious cucks "god just work that way man"

1. Lawless doesn't mean moral-less. You can hear it from any conversation.
"How would you like if anyone did the same to you"
2. You're only looking at it from the "killing" angle. Empathy, protecting the weak, reciprocating good actions are seen as the right thing by everyone.

>Dogs and primates have very basic moral systems
Instinctual behavior doesn't equal morals. You're full of shit.

so your explanation is "lol, evolution". Ok.

>but thanks for admitting religion is all about what feels good and not reality
Your definition of reality is so fucking naturalistic it hurts.

Reality is encompased by everything that we can feel (even if we cannot see it). You can use the numbers although they're not real. There's no real numbers running around having kids and eating each other.

god is just a concept of how ancient people perceived the world and tried to answer some big question with the limited knowledge they owned
prove me wrong, you can't

>numbers aren't real
>animals having morals is instinct but not people
>reality is what we feel

Okay, so a troll and not a biologist then. Had me going for awhile.

>so your explanation is "lol, evolution".
Yes, actually.

Is it possible to create things by imagining them?

it couldn't be more simply
>the reality/universe must be created somehow
>it must be god then
it's all what you cling on to
also seem like you religious cuck can't even think for yourself and need a big bad to tell you what to do, like a fucking manchild

they don't though

...

>If you reject everything that's not "muh reality" you end up saying that morality and the law doesn't exist
But those are human constructs while god is actually claimed to exist as something beyond humanity.

I'm conflicted about this issue because I think that people will believe something based on several factors:
how intelligent they are (able to comprehend complex or interconnected topics)
how convincing the belief is (does it make sense)
social consequences (good or bad side effects of behaviors of people)

So ultimately what you will believe is a function of your biology, your credibility, the ideas in your society, and your situation among others.

...

The conflict is that people expect random strangers to be convinced of the same things that they themselves find convincing, without any regard to why they themselves were convinced of the belief.
That's where the conflict comes from, what may seem obviously true to one person will not seem true to someone else, in fact the circumstances may very well make them convinced of an opposite belief.
But it's the incredulity that is dangerous, when instead of realizing that your belief is not convincing to this person, you instead call that other person stupid or evil for not believing in your belief.
Because like it or not it's still considered impolite in our society to question people's deeply held beliefs.

When will you atheist admit that you lack fundamental ideas of the good?

I'll bite, explain it >too me.

Means bro, means

>the good

Oh man, are you practicing your ghost stories for Halloween already?

Define life.

I like this post. Now the issue is SHOULD people question others deeply held beliefs? I'd say no because who gives a shit if anyone believes in religion, it makes them happy.

>that thread that made you realize christcucks are the real fedoras

I've been in your position. It's lovely how your entire ideology originates from arrogance. You people are so furious that there could be something bigger and infinitely more powerful than you out there.

>le humans are animals so we're not special XDDDD meme
Yeah, duuude. Every other animal has consciousness and self-awareness. Fuck off, atheist idiot.

>That thread where you realize 99.99% of atheists are scientific pseuds and Christians can logically outwit them any day of the week

This meme is getting more and more ridiculous, but it still cracks me up everytime.

One of the plights of our time is the fedora that ignores all scientific literature arguing in favor of the existence of god, such a person will deliberately ignore both old and new publications and will argue in front of laypeople how they should do science while he protects himself from having to perform any science purely on special pleading.

>to intelligent to meme

Why not just put God in the graveyard with all ththe other deities already, damn.

Just because the people that hold position A aren't able to argue their position convincingly doesn't mean that position A is wrong, and vise versa.