Anti neo-atheism thread

But everything is usually based on something. I know unicorns and dragons don't exist, but they are based on real animals ( in case of the unicorn) or real extinct animals (in case of dragons, perhaps even unicorns). So the elephant god is based on God (real) and elephants (real)

Yes and that is also true for God. God Ganesh is based on elephants (real) and the Abrahamic God Yahweh is based on man (real). It says in genesis that man are akin to God.

>and the Abrahamic God Yahweh is based on man (real)
You are mistaken it is the other way around, man is based on God who created humans.

God is what you cannot prove, but believe in. But if you want proof, it's in existence. What doesn't exist, leaves no proof. What exists, leaves proof of existence.
The Abrahamic God is a God of doing. He is a creator, but not created. He doesn't exist passively. Passive is what he created. Everything created is evidence. God is creation.
Bon appétit

>Islam saving Europe from war and crime
>Islam preserving non-Islamic heritage

>God who created humans
The theory of evolution is well-established and has an enormous amount of evidence backing it up. How much evidence is there for your claim?

God created evolution and though it man

>The flying spaghetti monster is what you cannot prove, but believe in. But if you want proof, it's in existence. What doesn't exist, leaves no proof. What exists, leaves proof of existence.
>The Abrahamic flying spaghetti monster is a flying spaghetti monster of doing. It is a creator, but not created. It doesn't exist passively. Passive is what it created. Everything created is evidence. The flying spaghetti monster is creation.

Amazing conversation...

How do you know? My bible says the universe, the earth and man were created within 7 days. Is Gods word not reliable and trustworthy?

if god doesn't exist how come lebron won the championship?

atheist on suicide watch

>My bible says the universe, the earth and man were created within 7 days.
Evolution goes that fast

Alright, thanks for the discussion user.

you losers need some kierkegaard in ur lyfe

Read this book, ignore Dawkins et al and the other wrongist evolutionaries

This.

God is the universe in its infinity, everything that ever was and will ever will be. God is the essence that created you and I, where we came from and where we will one day return. God is everything you can imagine and more. God is nature, science, love, hate, life and death. God is dirt and rocks, and the sky and the sea. God is everywhere and nowhere. The abrahamic idea of god as a person is only a metaphor. If you're alive, you believe in god. Proof of god is all around us. It's not about it being a verifiable entity. You have to understand that our nature is that of god, as is everything else. There is no believing or disbelieving. God is eternal and cannot be conceived of by the human mind. There is no need to try to think of him, just accept the reality of our existence which is that of God, and nothing else.

>The flying spaghetti monster is the universe in its infinity, everything that ever was and will ever will be. the flying spaghetti monster is the essence that created you and I, where we came from and where we will one day return. The flying spaghetti monster is everything you can imagine and more. The flying spaghetti monster is nature, science, love, hate, life and death. The flying spaghetti monster is dirt and rocks, and the sky and the sea. The flying spaghetti monster is everywhere and nowhere. The abrahamic idea of the flying spaghetti monster as a person is only a metaphor. If you're alive, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Proof of the flying spaghetti monster is all around us. It's not about it being a verifiable entity. You have to understand that our nature is that of the flying spaghetti monster, as is everything else. There is no believing or disbelieving. The flying spaghetti monster is eternal and cannot be conceived of by the human mind. There is no need to try to think of it, just accept the reality of our existence which is that of the flying spaghetti monster, and nothing else.

The flying spaghetti monster can be understood as God if you want it to be. But isn't your post equally not an argument? You should try to understand what I am saying - that god is not a provable concept, that god is merely everything and is an undeniable truth. Do you know what I mean by this? Forget about god as a person. It's not that, it's the all pervading spirit of the universe. You can think of it in scientific terms if you want. It's everything. Do you get it now?

>Virgin shaming, over-generalization, relativizing to one's own culture

Sounds like your average guy on /pol/, really.

Regardless of who he is as a person, you can't deny that the words he puts on the page are dead serious and perfectly describe his feelings. He went from Marxist to a somewhat right-wing figure, always hated the Clinton family, supported the War in Iraq, and such.

Whenever someone tried to poison the well in a debate or downplay him in an unfair way, he didn't have a single fuck to give about staying polite. Raw, unfiltered, original opinion is in short supply in the age of memes.

Which is why a brand new species with the equivalent evolutionary heritage of man appears every single week, of course :)

>Endorsed by Deepak Chopra

Place this book in the recycling bin, please

This would be hilarious and terrifying.

It talks about different brands of evolutionary thought including theist evolution.
You are mistaken. Evolution slowed down, and now we only see microevolution.

Are you saying all named gods and all named mythical creatures exist so?

...

Some might be based on a SINGLE being

Yes, my post was not an argument. I just wanted to show you that yours wasn't one either.
>Do you get it now?
I get where you're coming from. You believe in a pantheistic God just like e.g. Albert Einstein did, and that's something I can totally respect.

However, what bugs me out:
>that god is not a provable concept
>god is merely everything and is an undeniable truth
How can something unprovable be undeniable? My worldview is that I only believe things for which I have compelling evidence (not proof, merely evidence). However, I have not seen compelling evidence that God is everything nor that there's any pervading spirit anywhere, let alone everywhere. Therefore, I chose not to believe until new evidence comes in.

See this

If this is true it still places every organised religion in the world in the wrong as most believe god to be a separate entity to the universe and nature.

If you want to define God as of the natural universe and existence then nobody would deny that the universe exists so it's merely a matter of you naming it something different.

The argument is whether or not a being exists that deliberately created the universe and whether or not that being is actively engaged in the running of the universe.

Wow, I can compile 12 different lines of thought I didn't come up with!

Fuck, I need to become an author right now if it's this easy!

that doesn't really answer my question.

I just wanted to show the different thoughts of evolution, which include theist evolution.
Not all exist because some are based on a single existing being, like I explained above

God, defined as a being with infinite capability, is an impossible object and has a 0% chance of existing as we understand it.

To suppose otherwise requires logic to not apply to things we don't want to apply it to.

have you ever played The Sims or Civilzation? you exist as a god in that universe so why do you assume there is nothing above the universe we exist in?

we are far more likely to exist as a simulation of something than as a "natural" thing.

>Not all exist because some are based on a single existing being

why is that more likely than thousands of separate gods controlling various parts of the universe?

>more likely than thousands of separate gods controlling various parts of the universe
They would fight a lot, I think. So one makes more sense.
But maybe it shouldn't be ruled out that there are various Gods just yet.

You would make an interesting theologian by the way

why is it unlikely that they fight?

I said likely. Even humans have hierarchy, and I just don't see very powerful beings sharing their power.
Remember what happened to Satan? He tried to take over and God sent him to hell.

But that's my point. Are we to believe that all named Gods exist because we have names for them as per the original argument that why would we have a name for God if it didn't exist.

Also are we to believe that all mythical creatures such as minotaurs, centaurs and sphinxes exist too as we have names for them.

>Are we to believe that all named Gods exist because we have names for them as per the original argument that why would we have a name for God if it didn't exist.
It only tells us that something must be based on Gods which could be God or like that user said humans but I refuse to believe that.
>Also are we to believe that all mythical creatures such as minotaurs, centaurs and sphinxes exist too as we have names for them.
They are based on real things. A true skeptic would think so and would likewise think that we cannot conclude they do not exist just yet.

Not to say I think the existence of a creator god is more likely as mythical creatures. But there is stuff like dragons based on dinosaur fossils so who knows?

I will believe we exist in a simulation when there is proof, such as the rules of it being hacked by "agents" or such.

Maybe God is just a programmer and Satan a hacker

>being a virgin

Do you believe that at any point in the future (millions of years even) we or some species will be able to create a simulation that can exactly replicate the conditions of the universe?

If so do you believe there will ever be a set of circumstances to run more than one simulation?

If so then as soon as there are two simulations you are more likely to be a part of one of those simulations than of whatever the top level world is. Chances are that vastly more than two would be run in much so your chances of being "real" drop constantly.

Can you provide any logical reason that we are more likely to be real than part of a simulation?

I do not believe so, because, as far as I can speculate, it would require more information to compute a replica of our universe than there is information in this one.

Entropy dictates that order never increases on the largest conceivable scale. How would you successfully run an incredibly ordered computer that could perfectly simulate every possible configuration of an entire universe and fit that computer into this one?

Think about how many possible configurations of atoms are even in your kitchen. Incalculable trillions and trillions of possible states. Perfectly representing even the atoms of one human body in a digital format would require inconceivable bytes.

It just seems to be a problem similar to: How do you fit two identical sized buckets into each other?

Atheist here, agree, the description is just unacceptable for an atheist figurehead. Those idiots make us look like we are all egotistic bigots.

Sadly, that has proven to be true. Remember the greeks? It wasn't all thanks to irish monks.

It doesn't need to be exact. Only exact enough to convince anything living within it that it is real. Which, given no alternative with which to compare, doesn't need to be particularly exact at all.

The simulation-hypothesis is often presented as us living in a very good simulation of reality when in fact it's more likely we are living in a very poor simulation of a very complex reality.

Atheism is sometimes not a choice friendo, we've just been awakened to the constant proves of a contradictory non-existant god.

Aha, that is a good question. But there is this thing called science fiction we would not consider to exist in real life, but we can imagine.

>But there is this thing called science fiction we would not consider to exist in real life, but we can imagine.
Science fiction is still based on science. It just extrapolates stuff.

If I plugged you into a universe that were much simpler than this one, it might seem normal at first, but once you attempted to study science at the smallest scales, you would notice that several shortcuts are being taken, laws of logic are being broken. It's like examining a shittily compressed JPG up close.

Nonetheless, quantum physics in our universe DOES have equations that do not violate mathematics or logic and still successfully predict the probability of a state.

Now, you might argue "Well, all that needs to happen is that the universe simulating our universe needs to be much more complex to fit all the computing information in it."

Yeah, and the universe simulating us could also be entirely made of circuit boards, or maybe it's an endless brain, or whatever, but how are you supposed to show that one huge assumption like that is any more likely than an equally huge assumption?

This is why we have Occam's razor, to prevent Cartesian fever dreams like this from being taken seriously just because they make sense internally.

Yeah, but you wouldn't say that FTL exist, you just say "it might".

>Atheism is sometimes not a choice friendo, we've just been awakened to the constant proves of a contradictory non-existant god.

I truly pity people who think they can, are, or should be living their lives according to "logic".

The problem with that is that we don't see any interference. Everything follows the laws of physics, there are no miracles. At best you have a god that started the world (big bang) and then stopped giving a shit

This.

Gnostics got it right. They are among the most I respect.

>If I plugged you into a universe that were much simpler than this one

I'm not talking about being plugged into a simpler universe. I'm talking about being a part of it. I don't mean we are in something like the matrix where our physical bodies exist elsewhere i mean that we simply are part of something that has been created by some higher lever for the purposes of simulation.

> how are you supposed to show that one huge assumption like that is any more likely than an equally huge assumption?

It isn't about any of the assumptions being more likely than the others but rather that there are more possibilities for us to be a "lower level" universe than the top level. Most of these would involve something above us that would for all intents and purposes be as powerful as god.

If there is any possibility for a less complex universe to be created by a more complex one then our chances of being the one without a creator begin to decrease. I'm not proposing any specific set of circumstances for that to happen however.

How would one determine there is any interference?

If I watch a video on YouTube and it begins to skip I can tell that it's skipping because I'm looking at it from the outside. None of the characters in the video can tell anything untoward is happening whatsoever.

This thread is a good chance to talk about good atheist ideals ("ideals" in the good sense).

"The Good Book. A Humanist Bible" seems like a book filled with good intentions. He put in a book secular ideas worthy of sharing, these people more attention than the bigots often mentioned.

>He put in a book secular ideas worthy of sharing, these people more attention than the bigots often mentioned.

Either you had a stroke while writing this or I'm having a stroke while reading it.

we have a thing called causality

>None of the characters in the video can tell anything untoward is happening whatsoever
they can't "tell" anything

you're assuming you'd actually notice a change in the fundamental rules of the universe?

you think if causality stopped working you'd spot it?

i wish i was this arrogant. i bet you think you're a rational person too.

lets just pack it up and go home, nobody can tell anything

Gnosticism would be the preferred religion if I were religious. In the context of Christianity, it might explain why God is such a bastard. He's not actually God, he just convinces Man he is because he's autistically screeching about his world sucking anus.

>virgin shaming
oooh bet that one hurt your ego why don't you get out there and resolve that
>over-generalization
hardly there is a mass (heh) amount of evidence that infers that molestation is widespread among the Catholic church.
>feminism
you can still be opposed to the proponents of the movement and still disagree how they are approaching the issue (see Camille Pagilia)
>i feel its wrong
literally every christcuck uses this argument and then feebly tries to use god or scripture as a source when it holds nothing but dead air
>hedonistic
cmon we all like a little fun now and then, didn't impede him whenever he went to dangerous places like Iraq or Bosnia while doing something of merit

>Implying that the audiovisual data of a Youtube video has sentience

If the universe is simulated, we're not players, we are just data, no more self-aware than a JPEG. If consciousness is merely run by the simulation, we're not players, we're NPCs.

>hardly there is a mass (heh) amount of evidence that infers that molestation is widespread among the Catholic church.

different user but to add to this the issue of the cover up of sexual abuse and the lack of recognition from the catholic church puts the entire organisation and anyone who chooses to remain a member of it at fault.

> Implying that's not the point I'm making.

We're hitting tautology levels that shouldn't even be possible

If existence is predicated on a fractured godhead, the demiurge may be the lobotomized godhead trying impotently to reconstitute himself.

Really makes you think when you really think about it.

But there is no difference. We are not "players" if we happen to not be in a simulation. Any sufficiently complex structure is conscious, whether "real" or not

>We are not "players" if we happen to not be in a simulation.

I agree with this and don't see us as being "players" even if we assume we're real or top level or whatevs da fuq

100% agree, made me laugh too

Well, you can call it the flying spaghetti monster of you want, but the rest of the world just calls it God.

There's nothing wrong with the vast majority of virgin shaming. You aren't virgins by choice.

Nothing changes if you have a pantheistic world view. It's just a pathetic attempt to explain a problem you can't even properly comprehend.

You're the only one claiming there is a problem.

"Really makes you think, when you really think about it."

Is now my favorite sentence I've ever, ever heard on Veeky Forums.

Christopher is for when you're a kid

Peter is for when you've become a man

You are too much of a rationalist to speak about truth

>as an atheist

Pantheism is like a babby version of vanilla religion. As a belief, as art, epistemically. As everything. I believe in reversed subject-object pantheism with inferiority issues. The pantheistic God is everything, only really crappy and boring.

How the story tends to go: There's a creator, he created everything. Then-- Nope no "then" with pantheism. God created everything so he is everything and that's that. How is that even supposed to function as a *belief* when you don't define and contrast God and his actions/plans to something else or argue whatsoever why pantheism is preferrable instead of relying on vague, preexisting notions surrounding the word God? But I'm getting ahead of myself.

So usually it goes "But then humans/angels/demigods fugged up" etc. because obviously there's things in life which objectively suck ass and by means of metaphor and contrast to the perfect dude in the sky we can find a way to come to terms with it (since we will never see the whole picture because the universe is too complex and ever expanding so TRU RATIONAL ATHEIST KNAWLEDGE to find meaning is out of the question since it will always be unsatisfying which is contradictory to meaning). So we conceptualize and aestheticize meaning created by a good penman because that's what our psyche is prone to: Good fucking lit.

And I think even as a de-facto atheist such a belief is a fine way to ground oneself in reality while also staying optimistic. Not in the mode of rational inquiry but as an aesthetic that encompasses one's being. It's the best self-help book ever: All the good feels and none of the cringy pseudo-science.

You get nothing of this sort with pantheism. You can't derive any such claims from it. "Everything is God". All that tells me, if I'm being charitable, is that everything is connected. If everything is connected there is not one independent/free thing in the universe. And if that's true, we aren't free either.

There's another name for this utterly bland and unaesthetic worldview but with more convincing epistemology. Determinism.

So I have to correct my original allegation: Pantheism is actually babby's determinism plus the lofty predicate "God" applied to every conceivable thing in the universe. Which, if we cancel it out, leaves us with no lack of comprehension for any claims derived through pantheism about any conceivable thing except the meaning the pantheist has put into "God" beforehand by other means than his claimed worldview.

Perhaps the meaning they got from good fucking lit?

>we've just been awakened to the constant proves of a contradictory non-existant god.

if you think science is the only way through which we can know the "reality" of our universe I pity you

>And I think even as a de-facto atheist such a belief is a fine way to ground oneself in reality while also staying optimistic. Not in the mode of rational inquiry but as an aesthetic that encompasses one's being. It's the best self-help book ever: All the good feels and none of the cringy pseudo-science.

I remember when I was this arrogant.

Veeky Forums - Literature