Discuss

The existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove, so arguing about it is a pointless waste of time. Both theists and atheists are wrong because they are taking a position on something that they are not capable of knowing the truth of.

Of course not, just the majority. Using the "Not all x!" defense is a reaction to your personal pride being stung. We're allowed to use generalizations.

You're making broad generalizations that I know from personal experience to be wrong. I live in Iceland and I don't know a single person who believes in God, and they're just regular people. You're using stereotypes and mockery because you've not got a proper argument.

strawman

>I know from personal experience to be wrong
Very scientific

I'll take the bait.

I really could not care less what others believe, with the caveat that they do not bother me with their beliefs. When objectively erroneous beliefs are used as a basis of public policy, or to establish social norms, it causes tangible harm to everyone.

You want to believe in a deity? Fine, go right ahead. Believe in a dozen or more if you prefer. I do not care, and it's none of my business. I'll even defend your right to believe whatever bullshit you want to (regardless of if it happens to fall under typical religious beliefs or not, I find the distinction largely a meaningless cultural artifact). However, if you bring it up to justify a policy decision, you are to be laughed out of the room: Your argument is utterly worthless.

>The existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove,

So why hasn't God just show up on TV and say "here I am dummies"?

He isn't wrong.

>When objectively erroneous beliefs are used as a basis of public policy, or to establish social norms, it causes tangible harm to everyone.
I agree but how do we convince people blacks have lower IQ than whites when research on the topic is taboo?

>saying stereotypes are facts
>while criticizing someone else for using personal experience
No self awareness.

>the sky is red!
>I just looked outside, it's blue
>that's unscientific!
Is atheism so threatening to your beliefs that the only way you can handle it is by strawmanning?

>When objectively erroneous beliefs are used as a basis of public policy, or to establish social norms
This'll be good. What objectively correct beliefs do you have that guide your opinion on what policy is good for society?

>no replies for 43 minutes
>after this, no more replies for 16 minutes
>after this, a flood of replies
I have a theory that 2 replies is the threshold for shit threads to get started. When people see bait this low effort and it has no replies, they don't really want to reply. They know it's a terrible thread and hope it will just slide off the board. But each post makes it more and more tempting. Just seeing that a thread has more replies makes it more enticing to click on it. There's more to respond to and less of a feeling that you're contributing to the problem because your post is just a drop in the bucket. And in my experience, two posts is what it takes to get the ball rolling. It helps if they're original of course, but I've noticed that even if the first few replies are just OP blatantly bumping his own thread, it'll usually take off after two replies.

>I think it's pretty obvious that they're wrong because clearly they use their atheism as a way of validating their identity as an intellectual person who is above the hoi polloi.
What does that have to do with them being wrong though? You just sound like you're insecure about your beliefs.

go back to /pol/

>What does that have to do with them being wrong
Anyone who maintains a position because it makes them feel good about themselves is wrong.

The existence of unicorns is impossible to prove or disprove, therefore people who don't believe in unicorns are wrong?

The existence of dark matter is impossible to prove or disprove, therefore people who don't believe in dark matter are wrong?

The existence of self awareness is impossible to prove or disprove, therefore people who don't believe in self awareness are wrong?

>Stupid atheist, believing in facts!

Then theism is wrong and atheists are correct.

strawpoll.me/15013332
strawpoll.me/15013332
strawpoll.me/15013332

You should base your position on the facts available and more facts point to the existence of a higher being than do not. Scientifically we're at the point where God is more likely than a natural universe.

>The existence of dark matter is impossible to prove or disprove
Wrong. arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Like any scientific hypothesis, it's falsifiable.

>Scientifically we're at the point where God is more likely than a natural universe.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? There is literally no proof whatsoever backing creationism.

The existence of self awareness is self-evident.

Are you retarded or do you just not understand how analogies work?

>more facts point to the existence of a higher being than do not. Scientifically we're at the point where God is more likely than a natural universe.

There is more evidence supporting a creation hypothesis than there is for a spontaneously created "natural" universe.

...

How does this relate to science or math?

Is that what Praeger U told you?

>“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”