What is your answer when a religious person asks you the atheist to answer "Why is there is something instead of nothing?"
I wasn't satisfied by Ricky Gervais' answer to Stephen Colbert asking this. I want to be prepared for when I come across this question.
My answer would basically be that nothing can't exist.
We don't know and religion doesn't simplify the problem. It just adds another layer of complexity that makes the problem even more unbelievable.
>What is your answer when a religious person asks you the atheist to answer "Why is there is something instead of nothing?"
Simple. This:
Nigga. Do you know what the word atheist means? It simply means that I do not believe in a fucking god. Where in that simple definition does it say:
I don't believe in god... AND HAVE A COMPLETE ALTERNATIVE PHILOSOPHY THAT REPLACES MODERN RELIGION
I fucking don't. I am a man who passes out at 10 and wakes up at seven. Fuck you. I don't give a shit about any of that. Go ask a physicist.
Actually atheist means you believe there is no god, big difference between belief in something and disbelief. Agnostic is the word you're looking for.
>Actually atheist means you believe there is no god
It is really the same. But this definition is more explicit so just inser this in what I said.
>Agnostic is the word you're looking for.
Nope. Agnosticism is a claim of knowledge, atheism is a claim of belief.
Agnosticism means that you believe that the existence of a god is unknown. We can't or don't know it. It is not a belief about god, it is a belief about the belief in god.
A non-thing (non existing thing) cannot exist.
But it might?
Dude you are so fucking autistic
And you are willfully ignorant about what atheism is.
>Actually atheist means you believe there is no god, big difference between belief in something and disbelief. Agnostic is the word you're looking for.
That's what they have trained you to think.
They make you wear a label like you are the weird one. But, if you think about it, the labels don't make sense. Do I need a label for everything I do not believe in?
Aleprechaunist? Aunicornist? Atheist?
I tell them to read this
>Why is there is something instead of nothing?
I don't know and I'm fine with not knowing it.
That makes you dumber than Ricky Gervais, who claimed he was agnostic.
>That makes you dumber than Ricky Gervais
>dumber
Why? Where is this value judgement coming from?
Also, you can't really be just agnostic or just atheist. Or just gnostic or just christian.
If you are christian then you have 2 positions
1) You believe in god
2) You believe that you know that a god exists, your god.
You can't believe only 1. In this case, if you believ 1) then you also believe 2).
Or you could be an agnostic christian. You
1) Don't know if a god exists
2) Believe that the christian god exists
Most moderates in any religion, those who do not go to church, fall into this category.
Or you could be a gnostic atheist. You
1) Believe that you know that god doesn't exist.
2) Believe that god doesn't exist-
Or you could be the usual agnostic atheist combo, which describes most atheists:
1) I don't know if a god exists or not
2) I believe a god doesn't exist.
Now that I just learned you some words, it is time to go back to your little christian forum to have another brainstorm about how to rek those pesky atheists.
>What is your answer when a religious person asks you the atheist
This isn't >>>/reddit/atheism
You tell them that it would be better if there was nothing instead of something in any case, and cite this thread as evidence
I used to care about these labels. I thought agnostic atheist was the most qualifying description.
But these labels are stupid and no one really understand what they mean anyway (i.e. you have to explain the nuances of the words every time you use them, like you are doing right now).
Do yourself a favor and just abandon these labels since they are so ridiculous in the first place.
>But these labels
These labels, are called words.
>I like chocolate
Oh wow. Yeah. I also like stuff. No need to label things you like lol.
Again, it is called words.
> you have to explain the nuances of the words every time you use them, like you are doing right now
I explain them because you clearly don't know shit.
>Hey teacher. If science is so useful then why do you have to keep explaining it lol? You always have to explain what things mean!
>Do yourself a favor and just abandon these labels since they are so ridiculous in the first place.
I never engage in discussions about atheism or religion or whatever. But I am not a fucking retad, like you. I know what words mean. I simply decided to do you a favor by teaching.
Some people, though, are too retarded to learn.
Veeky Forums's minimum IQ is clearly way above yours. Please go back to the brainlet nest you came from.
> why is there something instead of nothing
> Idk
> atheist btfo
Atheism means lack of theism, the belief in god. Amoral doesn't mean immoral.
Agnosticism is lack of knowledge of God's existence. Gnostics claim to know that god exists, not just believe it.
"Why is there God instead of nothing?"
Both sides have the same fundamental issue
this
/thread
Why would there be nothing? Why is nothing the default? And what does this have to do with god anyway? You might as well ask why there is god instead of no god...
>I explain them because you clearly don't know shit.
I am a different user, so you are misplacing your anger. You probably should take some deep breaths anyway though.
>These labels, are called words.
What's the point of words that just obfuscate communication?
Plus, as I mentioned before, these words automatically imply that theism is the default and atheism is the abnormality. So, if you use the word atheist, you already lost the first argument by labeling yourself with a negative connotation.
>retad
That's a little bit funny that you misspelled that word.
Anyway, I suppose you should do whatever floats your boat, but I personally think using the word atheism is stupid and akin to using the word aleprechaunist.
>Calling someone autistic
>On Veeky Forums