He believes in God

Except that science is actually really looking for a cat, the rest are looking for the meaning of life. EH??

Couldn't agree more OP

>not just saying "here kitty kitty"

Sometimes science just overcomplicates simple matters. Don't be so insistent on finding the "true" way of things

...

>Universe just began XDDDDDD
>just randomly popped into existence pham :D:DDD:D:D
>even though everything within the universe has a cause, Universe itself just booped and started lel :)))))))
Atheists, everyone

>we don't know how the universe started therefore god exists
wew

We don't know how the universe began so god might exist

This is the rational perspective.

Anything *might* exist. A rational person needs a reason to believe in something before he believes in it.

>>not just saying "here kitty kitty"
Supposing truth is a kitty — what then?

Then no rational person would be an atheist since it would be irrational to hold an affirmative belief that nothing created the universe

Also rationality and reason is based on faith in first premises

You pet it of course

ok. let's pretend for a moment that you really are a retard. a cat that can't be observed isn't a cat. stupid fuck.

Define atheist please.

It's not an affirmative belief. It's the LACK of belief. In the same way that I don't believe that there is a planet of giant sea-monsters halfway across the universe, I don't believe in god.

>tfw Humanism was only possible because of incarnation theology
>tfw 21st century "humanists" hate on Christianity even though without it their entire worldview would never have developed

>a cat that can't be observed isn't a cat
A cat that can't be observed is simultaneously a cat and not a cat.

That's agnostic.

I actually think it's pretty likely such a planet exists somewhere in the universe.

back off, leaf
we can sense your kind even without flags enabled

Because you have a faith based belief of what constitutes a cat

>A rational person needs a reason to believe in something before he believes in it.

What is your rational reason for believing in this axiom?

No, that's atheism. "a-" meaning not "-theism" meaning belief in god. Nobody identifies as agnostic for any other unprovable claim.

>all these edgy Christfags denying basic arguments when the catholic church has agreed with the theory of evolution and big bang

parrot Christians is what y'all are.

So what should you call someone who affirmatively believes that the Universe has no creator?

I guess none of the self-proclaimed atheists in this thread believe that.

you grossly misunderstand schrodinger's cat

>implying everyone that argues against the fallacies of atheism are Christian
>implying the Catholic church represents all Christians

Rationality doesn't have to be objective to be useful.
Why does it matter? What's the practical difference between someone who lacks a belief in Santa Claus and someone who affirmatively believes that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

No, I use a language that defines a cat as having observable characteristics.

Atheism is "there is no god". Agnosticism is "lol idk".

Is there a planet where a creature that looks like Cthulu exists? lol idk

Does a creature that looks like Cthulu exist on this planet? no because if there was we'd expect evidence but there isn't any.

Same thing with "does God exist" vs "does YHWH exist".

Double slit experiment clearly shows that the universe on a quantum level has intelligent design behind it.
Get rekt atheists

Hey man, with love comes hate and with cars comes break. I'll let you figure out the rest.

I was just shitepoasting.

Big Bang theory was actually developed by a Catholic.

I did that expirement with your mom and your sister and my dick went in both lmao

thank goodness

Agnosticism is a meme. Someone who says "lol idk" and someone who says "no it doesn't exist" don't really differ much in practice, except the first guy is an indecisive cuck.

And they're both wrong haha

> What's the practical difference between someone who lacks a belief in Santa Claus and someone who affirmatively believes that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Under your pragmatic axiom of rationality, the former is rational while the latter is irrational, and apparently "rationality" matters to you since your criticism of religion is the irrationality of it

>Rationality doesn't have to be objective to be useful.
Surely you can understand that when you make declarative claims, readers would assume you are making truth-value statements rather than just statements that could be useful to achieving ends if held as self-evident

Yet you have faith in an axiom of consistency that cat consistently means the same thing. Yet you have faith that empirical observations are reliable. Yet you have faith a cat exists and is not just in your brain.

The other way they differ is that the atheist is a lazy, deceitful pseud who preys on the implications that are reasonable for a trusting reader to assume from the atheist's lack of description and idiosyncrasies where the agnostic takes a second to further clarify his position.

No wonder it's so shit

It takes a special kind of delusion to be religious in the current year

damn thats a solid argument

Not taking a side in an unprovable question isn't indecisive.

>first year philosophy student: the post
Agnostics are stupid because it's perfectly reasonable to take a negative stance on something you have no reason to believe in. Is the agnostic agnostic about all unprovable claims or just god?

Do you believe in either of the following
>courage
>love
>passion
>dreaming
>brotherhood
>aspiration
>compassion
>morality
>etc
None of these things can be proven with science. In fact, most of human existence is quite baseless

>unprovable question
Unprovable questions are worthless.

Prove me wrong.

gorgonbungalo is the only real god because he is defined as being able to eat all other gods and absorb their powers. the reason you don't see much evidence of him is because he's smart and doesn't leave a trail that leads back to his godly den. the other religions are his traps he uses to catch and eat other gods.

>disbelieving in something you can't experience = disbelieving in your own emotions
And yes, emotions can be shown to have a scientific/evolutionary cause. And atheism != positivism.

Therefore god exists? What a legitimately retarded thought.

Those are all social constructs by the way.

Your life is an unprovable question

He's right. Even a cursory look at how the major religions came to be shows that it's artifice stacked upon artifice.

It's all fake.

you have an extreme confirmation bias regarding the subject of faith.

So?

whynot.jpeg

This is the most retarded argument ever
>if a god exist it must be the Judeo-Christian god
>there is no other possible god

Damn...... This caused great cognition on my part

because of integrity and the desire to have a fully functioning brain etc

Subjective worth does not determine truthfulness or lack thereof.

I have no reason to believe in your statement of
>"it's perfectly reasonable to take a negative stance on something you have no reason to believe in"
therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to take a negative stance on it.

Again, here we see the ever euphoric New atheist conflating all beliefs in creators and deities with traditional, orthodox religion as well as having an undutable faith in empiricism

You have no argument

*tips*

What if god punishes those who believed in him and rewards those who didn't?

If you don't believe in God you're an SJW.

if you're talking about the show that was probably developed by Jews.

You're being obtuse. It's not retarded to disbelieve in something for which there is no real evidence for
>inb4 but why do you need evidence rationality is a spook
Because otherwise I'm deluding myself

>It's not retarded to disbelieve in something for which there is no real evidence for

You keep spouting this premise without proving it using evidence

If you were truly rational, you would require evidence for this claim and you wouldn't delude yourself with this faith based belief

You had no argument first, bro. "You have faith in consistency," isn't a sensible argument. As long as the definition of a cat is consistent, my discernment of cats will remain consistent. Yes. I'm sane. You caught me.

Are you a prophet of gorgonbungalo?

I never said I was rational. All thought is ad-hoc, that doesn't make it invalid.

Yes and thats why the church accepts it. But tell that to any hardline follower and suddenly Georges Lemaître is a devil worshipping homosexual.

>tfw Christianity is only possible because of Judaic monotheism
>tfw "Christians" hate on Judaism even though without it their entire worldview would never have developed

>tfw Judaism is only possible because of Semitic polytheism
>tfw "Jews" hate on Paganism even though without it their entire worldview would never have developed

Nice logic

I only posted it here because nobody will believe you. He doesn't really want to be known.

>None of these things can be proven with science.
Of course they can you dolt

All this proves is that hate is irrational :^)

Your faith in an external world and faith in the validity of your senses are not rational.

Then surely you have no problem with religious people

things don't become irrational just because you say so. you have too much faith in your "faith" buzzword.

it's overwhelming sometimes, i have to be candid with god when i pray, i mean, the guy knows me. he knows how hypocritical i am all the time, how i wonder if he even exists, but in the end, i ask for forgiveness for my stupidity, ask him to wash away my sin, and pray for the safety and care of my loved ones. in the end, it feels good, it feels like in some ways i've missed it in my life, and that it's good to come home.

Things are "rational" just because you say so

You do not have objective a priori knowledge of reality. You ASSUME a priori knowledge to make conclusions based off of. All knowledge is predicated on faith.

How does it feel to be a frogposter?

aren't*

Why do you have faith in Yaweh and not Zeus or Ganesh?

I'm not Christian. Jewish or Muslim

no, things are rational if they are based on or in accordance with reason or logic. what you don't seem to understand is that these are things that exist in human minds, and not just mystical abstractions from another dimension.

>Catholic Church
On Sunday we go to an old building that used to be a Winn Dixie. The church bought it and made a stage with JESUS in big light up letters in the background. Up on stage the band plays songs using guitars, bass, and drums. Before and afterwards we talk with members of the community and exchange hugs out in the lobby.
>Meanwhile atheist-user is laughing alone somewhere. He wonders why sometimes he is stricken with a sharp and deep pain. Deep in the core of his body, as if in his very essence he hurts.

pic

Not an argument