I have a question for Atheists. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts (just like religious people).
belief is binary. you either believe in something, or don't. You can't choose belief.
Knowledge on the other hand, can be chosen. I don't believe in any god claim, while not knowing the truth.
I don't claim to know anything for certain.
gnosticism/agnosticism arent mutually exclusive to atheism/theism - they address different questions. one addresses knowledge, the other belief. you can pick one of either.
most christians i know are agnostic christians. they believe in a higher power but dont know. fundies are gnostic, and claim to know as well as believe. and those motherfuckers are crazy
OK, so maybe, big maybe, there is some superior being out there. Fine. Go nuts.
What I can say, with 100% certainty, is that all available data shows that the bible, the creation myth, all that shit? That's all flat out crap.
So what fucking difference does it make? I may not be able to say "OK, the Big Bang definitively wasn't caused by a higher intelligence". But are you telling ME that despite the overwhelming evidence contrary to the Christian mythology that you believe 100% in your particular flavor of bullshit?
If anyone believes in a god described in bible etc. then that person is a retard. However there could be the case that we were created by an intelligent race or something similar.
If you are Agnostic, you are an intellectual and emotional coward. You either believe (Theist) or don't (Atheist). If you can't pick one, then you are by default an Atheist. Congratulations, you are an Atheist.
I don't believe with 100% certainty that there isn't a god, nothing is ever 100%. I know I could be wrong. I didn't choose not to believe in God, I just haven't been able to bring myself to believe in one since I was 7, the same way that people don't choose to believe in god, they just do. It's not like I'm a fucking fedora-wearing neckbeard, I like religion, I just don' believe in God., I know that my belief relies on faith that I'm right, just like religion.
So, your assumption that Atheists are 100% certain is wrong. There are obviously some, but they are dogmatic dicks who ignor the fact that nothing is ever 100% certain
>belief is binary. you either believe in something, or don't
Good. I believe I truly don't know. Therefore I'm Agnostic. If you believe you do know, then I believe you're an idiot.
There's a ball in a room behind a closed door
Religion fags will argue there's a ball in the room, and fedora tipping atheists will argue "There's no proof of that, there isn't a ball"
Agnostics argue "Well we can't know until further information has been provided"
It's physically possible for a ball to be in a room. However it is physically impossible for a God to exist, as it is just a man made fairy tale to comfort the weak minded who fear death.
Is it physically impossible for god to exist, though? I'm not a physicist so I won't pretend to know, but we're only still just scratching the surface of things like quantum physics. regardless of whether a god exists or not, who's to say the CAPACITY for one to exist isn't possible?
Occam's razor shaves off god anyways. It is more simple for a stretch of space we call the universe to have expanded from a singularity, than a sky daddy making everyone from dirt, since all science backs the Big Bang theory, and none does with god, if any of that changes, i am sure that all atheists would start believing in god, but there is literally no evidence that it exists.
+1 op welcome to the light.
then they aren't religious or atheist...
are you saying nothing in the bible is true?
yes, retard for not believing bible but not retard for believing in xenu. ok. gotcha.
just because something seems possible doesn't mean it is possible and likewise just because something seems impossible doesn't mean it's impossible.
both sides are lacking in evidence, both sides seem possible. An intelligent person can not in good conscience make a solid decision with his brain and in the end would pick solely with their heart.
anyone who says otherwise is both a fanboy and not as smart as they think they are.
Agnosticism isn't a third position, you fucking moron. It's not mutually exclusive and in fact simply further defines the nature of your belief or lack thereof.
Giving up on finding a belief because you're too stupid or too much of a coward makes you simply that.
>How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God
Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms.
I'm an atheist because I do not believe in god.
I'm an agnostic because I believe it cannot be known with certainty.
I believe there may be a divine deity watching over us but my question to Christians, is God good? He continues to let his people, that he is supposed to protect, suffer. He let's children die of starvation every single day and what does God do? He let's his servants sexually abuse children. Having to grovel and sacrifice your life into service for some asshole that just fucks the human race over and over again is pathetic and ilillogical.
>inb4 hur dur it was Adam and eve's fault
No it fucking wasn't, God created Adam and eve in HIS OWN image obviously he should know they're gonna be curious little shits and he should have TOLD them the risks involved with taking the Fruit. God doesn't even give them a second chance, "We'll they ate my fucking snack even though I am a fucking god, guess I'm just gonna have to make their existance a fucking nightmare forever".
>inb4 Snake made them do it
God is supposed to know all the shit on this planet so God either knew that the Snake would tempt them in which case he's and asshole or he didn't know about the snake in which he's not a fucking god. Fuck God, he's been fucking us since day 0
>How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist?
Because that is not sound reasoning to believe in something. Everything that exists leaves evidence of its existence.
People would of discovered evolution regardless of Darwin ever lived or not. People would of discovered that we are on a planet orbiting the sun wether or not Galileo ever lived.
Would you ever discover God if nobody ever heard of him? No you wouldn't because nothing in your experience of life would ever lead you to believe there was a God, you would go for eternity without even thinking about it because God isn't real. You only believe it because other people said it's real.
That is a very interesting image. I work with a lot of modern art, and this is an interesting cultural reflection in a world which is full of post-mod wasteland crap. It's an interesting artifact of our times, the camwhore without a camera. It's especially interesting that the observer (ie the camera/phone) is absent from this image.
This is "new" art.
>inb4 fag fagtron etc
>source: art professor (Ausfag)
Occam's razor is more of a subconcious kind of thing, you use it every day, when thinking, it's an evolutionary instinct, that helped humans track animals and conclude the danger of the situation.
yes because science has reached its maximum potential and there is nothing left to figure out. nothing.
i would be seriously ashamed of myself if you considered yourself intelligent, i urge you to think before posting or go back to reddit where i am sure you will meet like minded chuckle fucks like yourself
Being an atheist, I am as agnostic towards gods as you are towards fairies and unicorns. Not being able to disprove something does not make it worth discussing if it defies all probability.
lolwut? you have no idea what you're talking about. thanks for proving you are another pseudo intellectual idiot that watched a pop sci doco and took something out of context.
Many of my friends are actually Christian but I don't go insulting them and questioning their beliefs. What my friends believe in gives them hope and empowers them to do the right thing, it's when religious people are aggressively trying to ram their religious hardons down my throat is when I get fed up
>What about Zues?
Remember him? 'God of lighting', or whatever... people worshiped him until science proved how the atmosphere actually works, so nobody cares about him anymore... he's literally labeled as 'mythology.
Give science some time and they'll figure it all out...
>unless we all die out before then
depends if i was accustomed to getting pounding in the ass, kinda like were accustomed to earths gravity. you only notice when the pounding stops, kinda like that moment of peace you get when your mum stops fucking the neighbourhood to warm up your pizza pockets, and as you bite into that crusty, warm, cheese filled preservative you know she's jumping righ back on trayvons BBC and riding the midnight train to orgasm city
I am not sure if there is an intelligence or a language barrier, or both, because what i said is pretty simple, When reviewing a situation your brain already choosing the answer with the least assumptions, because it was evolutionary beneficial, to be right.
and that's supposed to be proof that there is no God? What the fuck are you talking about anon?
huh, I thought that was atheism
while anti-theism was to believe that god does not exist
atheist: does not believe that god exists
anti-theist: believes that god does not exist
isn't it like that? and in that case, atheists can be agnostics, right?
p.s. i'm a pyrrhonist myself, sort of like the agnosticism idea except in "everything", not just when it comes to the question of whether god exists or not (not gonna bother to explain to much before I know some one's interested)
i never proposed that god exists, i am agnostic.
the scientific burden of proof falls to those proposing an hypothesis.
until you can use your magic science to disprove God, i would consider shutting my mouth if i was you.
sure they may even find out that zeus actually, is in fact, alive and controlling the atmosphere.
but untill then, i choose to not choose.
>I don't need to prove anything because you first have to prove he exists first.
Why? I'm Agnostic, I don't claim anything. If you state there is no God/God doesn't exist/probability of God existing is 0.056% etc, then go ahead and prove it.
>mfw u cant because you dont know either
to make a claim either way is to receive the burden. dont try your mental bullshit here friend it doesnt work
I'm pretty sure if he physically exists and still controlling lighting, satellites in space would have already seen him...
And how exactly can one man create so much lighting simultaneously all around the planet, not to mention, other planets and constellations light years away? Is he Hyper Lightning Santa Zeus?
>signs point to 'No'
I'm pretty sure if gravity physically exists controlling the earth, sun, stars in space we would have already seen it...
And how exactly can one force influence the entire planet, not to mention, other planets and constellations light years away? Is it some sort of impossible magical power?
>signs point to 'No'
Your belief doesn't matter because as I said, claiming God exists is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims are what need proof. Saying "you can't prove it" isn't an argument, it's deflection.
If you believe there is no god, you are a gnostic atheist. If you don't believe there is a god, you are an agnostic atheist. The two terms aren't exclusive of each other, and they're not exclusive to each other. You can be agnostic about a lot of things that you recognize insufficient evidence for.
The burden of proof belongs to those who claim the outrageous. You have claimed a being exist, so you must prove it. We didn't have your false god to deny the existence of, until you created him.
maybe he has a super quantum computer attatched to his wrist kinda like predators nuke thing but it can control particles with directed lasers that heat up anti matter and this ergo lets him create lightning merely by entering a simple code in his wrist thingy like predator, the code is probably something like thor and thats probably how norse mythology started.
Your belief doesn't matter because as I said, claiming God does not exists is an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims are what need proof.
Saying "you can't prove it" isn't an argument, it's deflection.
likewise that an all knowing all powerful being doesn't.
fml are you seriously retarded?
nothing but wheelchairs here
>one who believes that there is no deity
That's called a lack of belief oh shit.
you would still be ignorant to not believe there is a chance that there is a deity even though that chance is small.
I believe things which have proof or evidence of existing.
Athiests is not necessarily a belief god *doesn't exist.
Atheism is a lack of a belief that god does exist.
Now give me a reason to believe in a god.
See how that works?
Do you know what Occam's Razor is? You can't claim your argument is valid by saying that the opposition needs to prove theirs first, unless the claim is extraordinary. The Razor states that if two competing ideas exist, accept the simplest. Considering all the organization around God, I don't think accepting him is simple. But really, why doesn't He argue for himself? He's always described as logical and wise.
It's degenerated to this. Some faggot comes in and post the same shit that's been posted countless times. The conversations in the thread won't stop. The fighting won't stop. The thread won't be derailed. This lame faggot will just be adding photos to the thread that everyone will simply select the "hide post" option on.
you wanna be spoon fed? you actually want an answer?
or are you looking to flex your 'intellectual' muscles?
that's what i thought.
nowhere did i say you made a claim, i merely called you out for being wrong, again.
Op, how can you use the term "he" when referring to God? There is no proof that it is a he or she or even a potato. Why don't you refer to God as just God? Stop being a little twat and believe whatever the fuck you want, keep it to yourself though retard.
Because otherwise your whole life amounts to nothing in the end, you won't exist and you won't know that you ever existed so you might as well end it now, makes absolutely no difference.
It's impossible for a teapot the be floating in space, unless of course someone put it there, then it's possible. But God is still undefined and unknown, unlike a man made teapot.
tl;dr: that didn't help me make sens of anything
Atheists do not "believe" there is no god, they choose to not follow an idea blindly. Basically, they refuse to acknowledge God(s) due to the horrible quality and lack of "evidence" from "faiths and scripture". Atheists are more than willing to accept the existence of a God, it's just that so far there is a stupid amount of evidence, reason and logic which convinces them not to.
That's logic I will never understand. 'Life is meaningless, so I might as well kill myself'. Hell, I don't enjoy every day I am alive, but there sure are a lot of days I love being alive. Why would I ever need any more reason to live than that?
god is suppose to be all powerful, more powerful then you. he created everything.
to state he doesn't exist is by far a more extraordinary claim. im sure most would agree with this therefore by bringing occams razor into this you have successfully fucked yourself.
have a nice day.
also what is ad hoc hypothesis you philistine.
what OP fails to realize is that in a world of science the burden of proof lies on the person making the POSITIVE claim.
it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. No evidence is the same as evidence of nothing. Or to put it another way, the absence of evidence IS the evidence of absence.
So falling short of providing evidence of the positive claim, the safest scientific conclusion is that the object of said claim does not exist. Of course science also concedes that if positive evidence is provided then the conclusion may change with careful scrutiny.
God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, therefore it's existence cannot be proven or disproven. I think most atheists will acknowledge that in a universe of infinite possibilities a God could exist, it's just that based on our knowledge of the universe as we know it today, we see no evidence of it.
Agnostics are atheists and believers as well. Either you don't know and essentially don't care, or you don't know and live as if there might be. There literally is no in between. You either believe in something, or you don't. It's that simple.
You ignore my question and deflect. To claim something exist, you must prove it exist.
I can't prove that there isn't a giant black cock in your ass right now, but does that mean we should be left to assume there is?
You do realize that in agnosticism people still either believe in the existence of a deity or not. But they just don't take out the possibility of them being wrong. It all depends on where you put the burden of proof. Does the existence of a god need to be proven or dis-proven. In the end it still doesn't matter because being agnostic or atheistic or theistic still makes you live by rules others created for you in order for you to live your life a certain way. Then again if religious believes don't make you do that society will just force you to comply. What a nice world of free will and real choices do we live in don't we?
I believe that even if there is a deity, it has nothing to do with my life, and thus it isn't worth wasting what little time I have in this world worshiping it. If it wanted something from me, it would have let it be known directly.
I can tell you one thing with absolute 100% certainty: Any human being who claims to know what god is or wants is either a malicious liar or weak minded and desperate.
is that what theyre teaching you faggots these days?
burden of proof both philosophical and scientific falls on either party making the claim.
also i think that god is real is not the same as god is real.
to join either side of this debate is to make an argument from ignorance.
agnostics: 0x999FED everyone else: null
I believe without a doubt that there is no God, goddess, etc, that no religion on earth is right, I don't believe prayers go anywhere, nor do I belive in dragons or angels, I don't believe there is a god, especially not one in the sense that religious people believe. Being agnostic implies that you could believe in a god, in a religious sense, some guy up in wherever they decided they are, now that we've explored the skies. That decides whether your naughty or nice. I believe it's completely irrational to even remotely accept that as a possibility. Religion is just a filler for things we don't know, which used to be many, many things, but not anymore, we've refuted their evidence time and time again
>How can you believe with 100% certainty
>implying anyone does
it's clear you didnt read my post at all.
and conventional science demands proof of the POSITIVE claimant. Since it's impossible to provide evidence of a negative claim.
You really need to brush up on your scientific method.
There's More evidence that Ulmiglon the Almighty Aardvark exists than God. We know aardvarks exist but have never scientifically documented a godlike being or in fact anything supernatural. Do you believe that Ulmiglon might exist? How about boo boo the magic gorilla? No? You dismiss these creatures? Why?
I think you have the wrong idea what atheism is. MOST atheists are agnostic athiests, which means that they don't believe in a god but don't believe that the existence of one can be proven or disproven. I would fall into that catagory. There are also Gnostic Athiests that are 100% sure that there isn't a god. But I must ask, why should agnostics argue with atheists? Neither believe in talking snakes or a man getting swallowed by a whale so why can't we just get along?
so you're mad that other people have come up with definitions to which we call certain lifestyles or schools of thought?
are you mad all the time, it seems like you would be.
i mean you try to live your life different from everyone else, like completely different and original, there's a fucking word for that too. you can't escape. join usssssssss
Ok, allow me to ask a few questions that you can perhaps answer. As of right now, God is standing next to me and telling me he will step down from his place and put me as the new God. Can you prove, that isn't true?
I claim there is a two inch tall invisible genie that I keep on my mantelpiece, can you prove he doesn't exist?
I have the power to see into the future but the magic keeps me from divulging information or acting to change it. Can you prove I cant?
Furthermore, if I were to identify as agnostic, that would imply that the question of whether a god exists, is a huge question for me, something that I constantly have to think about but never have the answer to. Our entire concept of a god comes from previous iterations which we've now decided were. ridiculous.
Because to prove that something exists, or is true, you need empirical evidence to support the claim. You can't logically have evidence that proves or disproves the existence of a supernatural being.
We know there is a fourth dimension. We also know that any fourth dimensional creature would not be fully observable by 3rd dimensional creatures, just like 2 dimensional creatures can't fully observe 3rd dimensionals. I'm an atheist, but I believe that a god could definitely exist as a higher dimensional being
really? you learn that from your sociology class?
in real science it doesn't matter what you're trying to prove or disprove.
the foundation of your argument is based upon what some guy said once.
Agreed. We've studied the bible in all its translations and we've found it to be lacking in logic and fact. Even if by some stretch it was true, it's riddled with contradictions and loopholes. IF there is a god, then it's not competent enough to relay it's existence to its children after the last bible story was written.
the point is now we have a witness that god is real. if only we could find a few more...
then you would have to prove he doesn't exist...what a cluster fuck you would be in then, huh?
My point, is that the burden of proof is upon me to prove that what I have stated is true. These experiences that I claim to have had that no one else has had are up to me to analyze and offer evidence from. To say that the burden of proof is upon someone else to prove my claims are unfounded is preposterous. If you say something, then you must prove it.
Atheists - women who skipped gym class because "girl issues"
why's it been over 2000 years since they've had a real miracle, back in the day miracles be happenin every damn where you look, sooooooo much that they wrote a huge ass book about, then nothing for over 2000 YEARS
all you're doing is digging yourself deeper.
conventional science is conventional for a reason. It works.
Keep thinking one can prove a negative claim. It literally cant be done.
Insisting there could be evidence of a negative claim presupposes the existence of the claim, or of its prior existence. If something never existed there could be no evidence for it thus making it impossible to prove.
You're copping out of any logical discussion by saying "prove it doesn't exist"
Theists - Usually only theists because their parents are, regardless of why they are religious they're most of the time your average citizen, just trying to life their life as well as they can.
Atheists - Most of these are teenagers that are going through the "Im smarter than everyone" phase, not counting edgy teenagers they're usually just your average citizen trying to live their life, they just don't believe in a god is all.
Agnosticism - When being an edgy teenager evolves into adulthood, these people are unable to grow out of their edgy phase and will often provoke both theists and atheists because they think they're better than them. The average agnostic is easy to recognize because they will often try to get attention one way or another. Notice how most of the time they're unhyghenic
>higher dimensional being
Pick one? God is always implied to be much more than a 4-dim rock or something like that. It's usually supposed to be intelligent, a property unique to life on Earth.
I see it as this. I'm not obligated to believe in someone else's imaginary friend just because they can't handle life without it. They leave me alone, keep it out of my kids schools, and out of politics, then I'm fine.
Perhaps there are numbers you can't see. Perhaps you saw them, but forgot before you could draw a conclusion. Perhaps you don't fully understand the definition of a number. I can do this all day.
by that reasoning:
This planet contains no unicorns.
Step 1: check for unicorns.
Step 2: conclude based on findings
This universe contains no gods.
Step 1: check for gods
Step 2: conclude based on findings.
What you describe is exactly the line of reasoning science uses to posit the existence of god. Science hasn't found one after hundreds of years of observing what we can of the universe, and so conclusion based on it's findings is there is no god.
You're looking at it backwards op. The claim that God exists was brought forth, but no evidence of his existance was presented. Considering this, not believing IS the logical choice.
Your comment helped demonstrate something useful to my argument. I appreciate your input.
No evidence of numbers in your sentence = no numbers in your sentence. Perfect scientific logic.
No evidence of unicorns on planet = no unicorns on planet. Perfect scientific logic
No evidence of gods in universe = no gods in universe. Perfect scientific logic.
well, you can't really say there is no evidence of unicorns or god because the universe is too big and you check the whole thing.
I think your getting your abstractions tangled.
You define it that way probably because you are American.
Most people in north europe country don't believe in god. Only between 15 and 30% of the population believe in god. So when you argue that atheism is for edgyness, you are forget that the rest of the world isn't that retarded but hey, you are American, how could you know?
I live in France and no one gives a shit about religion. So far, from bar talks and parties, I've only met 2 people who are deeply religious and it's by far a minority.
Yes. Because you don't believe the claims people have made about them to be true. If you did, you'd acknowledge that they exist.
You don't believe people's claims about God, otherwise you'd believe it. You wouldn't say "I don't know" .
You agnostic types are so Afraid of being called atheists it's ridiculous.
if he expressed agnosticism on the topic of 'things inside boxes' i would be inclined to chuckle at your little picture there, as he didn't i'm afraid your attempt at defamation is only met with shock at your level of stupidity, yet surprise at your level of fine motor skills needed to operate MS paint. good job ace!
>Then why were our founding fathers mostly atheistic? Why did most of them deny the existence of God and they all agree that religion was to be kept out of our politics?
Freedom of religion -> spaghetti god
Freedom from religion -> safe harbor
but based on what we've observed so far those are some pretty safe conclusions.
Scientifically speaking those conclusions are not incorrect.
we will also keep looking for evidence until we find some too, wont we?
the moment we stop looking then you can cry foul and say "we cant know"
trust me, we're trying to know.
so if somebody says the human race will survive when the sun goes out in 5 billion years, and I say "well, maybe, I don't know" I will be in the category of people that rejects the possibility of the survival of the human race in 5 billion years from now?
Maybe if you got those cocks out of your mouth and wiped the cum out of your eyes, you could read the post I replied to and see that's exactly what's expressed in it, faggot.
There are no gods like the ones described in the Bible, quran or any other text. But you're right, some sort of God could exist, as there is no way to prove or disprove that theory. But science does not care about what cannot be proven, so the question is irrelevant. God's existence will not make what we learned completely false.
>pretty safe conclusions
that doesn't count as evidence though, right?
>trust me, we're trying to know.
trying to know what?
Our definitions of god are numerous and contradicting. My guess is they will all be obsolete as time goes by.
Nobody argues over zeus or odin anymore, either
what so many theists and whiny agnostics dont get is that we WANT there to be proof one way or another.
Scientists have been looking for god for centuries, pouring through history and scanning through the observable universe and come up with bupkis in the way of finding a god.
We have taken tremendous strides in understanding the physical universe in the process of looking for god, but have we found god? no.
Does that mean that we still could find one? Sure, in an infinite universe (assuming it's infinite) its however infinitesimally possible.
But given the information we have a available and with all of our current understanding of physics and the universe, its pretty safe to conclude that such a being is impossible.
Got evidence that demonstrates otherwise? Wonderful, it's what scientists have been looking for for centuries!
you're implying that it never existed.
i think you may be wrong.
i'm implying it could have existed or still exist.
i can prove to you that god exists, i cite the bible as a source. the source is extremely integrious and has many other accounts that prove accurate when compared to other texts of its time.
this poster - is making an awfully biased comment about things that go way over his head because he speaks on a topic he knows nothing about, or cares about, but likes to think he is enlightened because he may have more things than most people have and tries not to take them for granted but in the end comes across as a douchebag anyway and the only reason people put up with him is because they're lonely.
>and so conclusion based on it's findings is there is no god
In the observable parts of universe, yep.
Science is always developing so human knowledge of universe is never perfect. Not only will we find out new stuff, we will eventually prove some to be wrong, some which we believe to know at the moment.
>You don't have certain proof that there isn't a murderous thug waiting to kill you hiding outside your door, and yet you continue to go outside again and again.
That's not very logical, open minded and scientific of you, OP.
> Thinking adverbs are nouns.
There's only theists (who believe in a personal god) and a-theist, or not-theists (who do not believe in a personal god). Either group can be broken down in gnostics (those who claim to know for sure) and a-gnostic (those who do not claim to know for sure).
The noun you're looking for, for the dead in the center, can't proceed from one assumption or the other, is coward.
I'm not a very good debater. So while i feel like i have a decent logical stance, i have a tough time articulating it. My ideas and position are scattered through this thread in little snippets. mostly because i don't have a planned argument to spout. I just come up with something to say on the fly and say it. Obviously this makes me look like an idiot to skilled debaters. But whatever. I'm just tossing out idea, not really trying to prove anything to anyone.
I am agnostic.
The universe is so complicated and still so far beyond our understanding.
Our knowledge is almost less then nothing to one who might know everything.
I mean where the hell did the universe even come from...? Why do things even exist?
Imagine trying to answer those questions.
I remember as a child how in are I felt when I truly thought about it.
I can't feel that way anymore but I remember what weird places it took me too.
yes but not the topic he expressed, which is exactly my point, which is wh-
forget it youre clearly trolling.
the bible is believed to be a written account of actual events that people believe is true, some fat neck beard wrote spiderman out of is own imagination, and sure, you are completely entitled to believe it as fuck (though you might have down's syndrome).
>by bible i mean new testament. idk what the fuck is going on in the old with fkn hydras and shit.
There are numerous biblically related artifacts in the British Museum located in London. They are breathtaking to see. Even though you may never be able to go to London, it is possible to log on to the museum website (www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk) and see pictures of the artifacts. Here is a short list of some of the more important treasures of antiquity:
The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858-824 B.C.) shows Jehu, king of Israel, bowing before the Assyrian king. This is the only known picture of an Israelite king.
Tablets from the time of Tiglath-Pileser (744-727 B.C.) state that he received tribute from Jehoahaz of Judah. This is the full name of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7).
A wonderfully detailed limestone relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh shows the siege of Lachish.
One of the most important is the cylinder of Nabonidus (555-539 B.C.). He was the last ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. This stele proves that his son Belshazzar was co-regent with him (Daniel 5; 7:1; 8:1). Scholars previously scoffed at Belshazzar’s existence.
the point of the post went over your head, clearly.
He's simply saying that they are both equal parts fiction.
The story of the messiah is an anecdotal account of several different men that lived in that time across the middle-east.
Monty Python's life of Brian is closer to the truth than you'd think.
>yes but not the topic he expressed, which is exactly my point, which is wh-
Both sides in an argument can use the same metaphor to express a "topic", faggot. Are you even trying?
If that was your post, I somewhat agree with you.
However, when you say "its pretty safe to conclude that such a being is impossible", that may be true, but safe to conclude ideas have been disproved in the past. While I agree that at this point humanity can't prove the existence of God, I think that doesn't prove he doesn't exist either. There was a point in history when we couldn't prove existence of atoms, sound waves or gravity, but eventually we did. Who is to say we won't prove God at some point aswell?
Life doesn't mean anything. You're no more significant than a rock. When you die you're dead. Anyone who disputes this is literally retarded.
what? you realize people can just check themselves out in the mirror without taking pictures, right? This is a picture of exactly that happening.
Not some pseudo-deep, socio-critical shit about selfies where the camera's missing.
> mfw retard OP doesnt understand agnostic means they're on the fence
Did your parents not vaccinate you, OP?
Thats literally the only way we have been able to expand and improve our understanding of universe though.
We build on our knowledge based on new observations and compare them to old conclusions we've drawn from past observations. Those conclusions can be modified if the new observations work in a predictable and reproducible way.
Unless someone finds a way to achieve total understanding with a single piece of data, there is no other way to build our understanding of the universe.
Of course we've had bad ideas or wrong ideas in the past. Thats an unfortunate side effect of early science. We could only work with what we had at the time. Now that our tools have improved, so then has our ability to observe and understand those observations.
We cant help but work with the tools and data we have and draw conclusions based on them.
In the future, yes we might find something we may observe and conclude to be a "god" by whatever definition.
But based on our current model of what the universe is made of and what the observable physical laws are, we can safely conclude that such a being as is described as "god" doesn't/cant exist.
I don't think you read the question properly. Agnostics are not just people on the fence, it's a typical belief that shows you cannot denounce a deity due to the fact that they are impossible to to prove wrong, nor prove right. The majority of Agnostics believe that Science and all physical forms of life are real, but however there is a possibility (and proof) for a supernatural factor to be accounted for as well.
>bags on OP for not knowing what agnosticism means
>doesn't know it for himself either
>atheist brony faggot.jpg