Atheists are so proud to be rational.
When in reality they are just so proud of winning a lopsided argument over the burden of proof. It's hardly impressive argumentative ability or reasoning process being skeptical of something. You could be skeptical of any claims anyone makes without supporting evidence. Anyway, the thing is you can't prove the existence of God with deductive logic, at least even if you tried analytically to define phenomena properly, someone could always argue that that is not how it is. You must argue for the existence of God inductively. The atheist can just cheat, and ignore patterns and improbabilities in nature that signify the existence of God. Is it truly a rational position if your inductive reasoning is so deeply flawed you can't recognize the truth?
No, of course not!
Atheists are so proud to be rational
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Show me where the atheist touched you.
Triggered
>I was just trying to go to church unmolested
>took my wife, my kids, even my father and mother
>out of nowhere this pink haired monstrosity appears
>it begins ranting and raving about God and how I was oppressing my wife and kids by taking them to church with me
>It equates this to me keeping them drugged with opium
>the creature then gets on all fours and tackles one of my kids
>its absconds off with my oldest son
>my son has been liberated from my oppressive quasi-theocratic clutches by exploring his sexuality at age 12 and becoming trans
>the joys of libtertadtion
Induction still requires evidence, thus the burden of proof is just as relevant as it is with Abduction and Deduction.
OP, just admit there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
You can just call yourself an agnostic non-theist.
You're right. Many people who aren't particularly smart but want to seem so become part of the "skeptic community," which is full of exactly their type of people.
And no, I'm not religious. But I'm certainly not part of the "skeptic community."
>I can't find the game designer in the game or in the code
>the game coding probably wrote itself
>there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
by that logic there isn't any evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist either.
I highly doubt you will ever find a decently working product that doesnt have a significant amount of notes
I'm an atheist, but it doesn't bother me to say it has nothing to do with idolizing science or anything like that. I just can't think of any religion that I would want to join and would want to have me--honestly, that is. I'm a big fan of Christianity, especially the immanent atheist interpretation it's been given by many Hegelians, but I feel no kinship with many of its trappings.
Most of the reddit tier atheists aren't even real skeptics. They believe in all sorts of retarded bullshit.
Funny, how the same can be applied to God.
>Anyway, the thing is you can't prove the existence of God with deductive logic
God is observable - just not the "god" of Moses because it doesn't exist and never has and never will.
The universe doesn't revolve around humans or Earth or the solar system or the galaxy so humans just forgot that they are insignificant to gods in the grand scheme when they decided to rebel against them and subsequently started wondering why they have no evidence for any gods.
>in science we trust
>classes humans by races to justify genocide
>except when (((they))) get genocided
>oy vey da shoah
Seriously I've never seen an atheist concede that 1800s scientism was a direct cause in the political treatment of thirdies and eventually led to genocide. Meanwhile religious people were at least trying to be humane.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
None of that does anything to change the fact that god isn't real.
>Rick and Morty
>>in science we trust>classes humans by races to justify genocide
Wrong, scientistd know that there are no human races and science never supported racism.
Try harder next time retard.
Laughed heartily at your presentism
>Le retarded analogy
Because a game is exactly like the universe, right? Are you aware that in the same way that many things are made by a creator like a game, there also many things formed by natural means like rocks? There's nothing that implies the universe is non-natural like a game. Only theists like to claim that because they can't grasp the concept that universe is natural just like when believers couldn't understand how thunders happened so they assumed it was the Gods manifestating themselves.
The problem is that evidence, empiricism, and the concept of proof are all rooted in the natural world. Of course there’s no evidence for anything supernatural, otherwise it wouldn’t BE supernatural.
What is wrong with a materialist or naturalist view of the universe? Even if it has flaws it can't possibly have more flaws than a supernatural interpretation...
>to be rational
>to be
Just because you call yourself something, doesn't mean you are. If you were rational, you would understand that.
>patterns and improbabilities in nature that signify the existence of God
Name a few bc I can't think of any
If both answers are equally flawed, why not choose the one that saves you from eternal torment on the off chance it’s right?
>religious people
>humane
top kek user
>Atheist genocides carried out in the 21st century:
>Mao
>Stalin
>Hitler
>Religious genocides carried out:
>some slavs in the balkans
>?
Gott mit uns
Fewer people describe themselves as atheists relative to those who merely aren't religious
I think the group of fools who desire conflict on this issue, i.e. vocal atheists on the internet, are really receiving an undeserved amount of attention.
what about the muslims though, they definitely seem fucked up like the commies
>If both answers are equally flawed
But they're not.
>Wrong, scientistd know that there are no human races
really? If I asked a scientist if two nigerians can produce a korean or a chinese person or a norweigan, what do you think they would say?
This is actually a good argument against those fedora edgelord, science does not make any moral judgement nor does it have anything to do with metaphysics.
If we take their scientism to it's logical ends then eugenics is an acceptable outcome regardless of ethics and whatever humanist bullshit they subscribe to
but user! atheism is not an ideology!!!!
>what do you think they would say?
They would say that you need to go back to Biology 1.01
so they would think its a question coming from complete ignorance? because obviously two nigerians cannot produce a norweigan or a korean? so in other words race is real and based in the most basic knowledge of genetics and biology?
race in the political sense is different from the biological one, scientists would see the difference between a greek and a french and a norwagian, yet those three groups are lumped as "white" whenever it suits a certain groups political motifs, take for example how italians and slavs were not seen as white yet today they are.
user, you have a very deep and fundamental misunderstanding of biology and genetics.
While I agree that being an Atheist doesn't make you smart, you are wrong to suggest religion is unusual for requiring inductive arguments.
Pretty much every argument that isn't pure mathematics or true by definition ('all bachelors are unmarried') is inductive. All of science is inductive, the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow is inductive, I know that Trump is the president by induction...
We base almost all of our knowledge on inductive arguments and theists fail to provide any compelling ones.
If they obtain legal citizenship of those countries and have children there then yes.
well, you're not wrong I guess
>patterns and improbabilities in nature that signify the existence of God
>Jesus appearing on toast
checkmate atheists
None of those leaders killed in the name of atheism.
Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic.
Please feel free to name a mass murderer that did kill in the name of or because of atheism.
Genocides carried out by Muslims in the 20th century were motivated by ethnic hatred rather than religion
en.m.wikipedia.org
I’m an atheist myself but it is undeniable that the greatest mass murderers in recent history were mostly atheists
Natural phenomena and God are not mutually exclusive. God is who created natural phenomena and who designed how nature acts & interacts.
Again,
> name a mass murderer that did kill in the name of or because of atheism.
>that did kill in the name of or because of atheism.
I cringed when the Las Vegas shooter was cited as being an atheist. HereWeGo.jpg
>he thinks you can disassociate a person's metaphysical belief from his way of living
meant for
>The atheist can just cheat
Because obtaining a better understanding of the Universe is cheating, yes.
>and ignore patterns and improbabilities in nature that signify the existence of God.
There is nothing in the universe as a whole that signifies God existing. In this sense, I assume you mean the Abrahamic God's existence.
Implying that improbability of an event necessitates a god for it to occur is just asinine. Also, I'd like anyone to name a few patterns that prove there is a god that people have blatantly ignored.
>Because obtaining a better understanding of the Universe is cheating, yes.
Oh yes, a superior "understanding" in which a theist can be more knowledgeable of the natural world yet because he believes in God, it is an inferior interpretation of nature.
>There is nothing in the universe as a whole that signifies God existing
We use inductive reasoning as the basis for all beliefs about all of nature. You see our beliefs about phenomena are dependent upon the consistency of natural laws, which is not an absolute inference. However, all of the evidence adds up together to form a coherent, whole picture.
The same sense of inductive reasoning can be used to infer the existence of God.
There are many improbabilities such as the existence of life, the low-entropy state after the big bang and so forth. Not only that but the universe we find ourselves in is entirely purposeful, orderly and harmonious. Everything follows a set of rules to perform a function and it all works together. From quantum tunneling to the weak force.
People are missing the bigger picture here and usually make simple counter-arguments like the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life. Yes, true, but there are millions of planets that are hospitable to life in our galaxy alone, and that should be sufficient if God intends for a single planet to be peopled.
A universe without life and perfect orderliness is much more likely, and the best explanation for this improbability is God. In what other cases are instances of miraculous chances not indicative of another explanation. If someone won the lottery 100 times, would you say "Oh, that is probably just lucky chance." No you would think that it was probably a fix but might have been luck.
To try and assign immorality to the religious or irreligious is stupid and pointless. Cruelty and murder are staples of human history no matter the place or faith.
>fine tuning argument yet again
Good grief, don't you people ever get tired? Life exists because there are a lot of planets, multiverse/many worlds interpretation solves the issue with fine tuning of physical constants.
Do we really need to go through all of this again?
If you activity look for evidence of something and you just can't find it that's some pretty strong indication.