File: 1754625078092133.jpg (78 KB, 885x498)

78 KB JPG

But Mr. Lynch, atheists don't have a creation myth

fiath bad

>>18011322
i think they're about equal actually

Here's a list of theories with 0 proof that are accepted by atheists as fact:

>Evolution (0 proof of macro evolution)
>Abiogenesis (0 proof of formation of organic compounds from pure elements)
>Formation of universal clusters(no explanation outside of highly theoretical copes like quantum fluctuations)
>Emergence of human consciousness (0 proof of consciousness being an evolution driven trait and no animal ever been found with even a fraction of the cognitive ability of humans)

All of this brushing aside other questions in between like the hundreds of examples of fine tuning to sustain life on earth like athmosphere, magnetic field, chemical balances and many more.

It really does take more leaps of faith to believe we exist after hundreds of 1/9999999999 coincidences happened back to back.

>>18011461
Literally all of this is false BTW.
Macro evolution has been observed
Abiogenesis research makes breakthroughs all the time. A major breakthrough literally happened 3 weeks ago. They also found life fossils on Mars like a week ago. It's becoming clear that life actually common.
I don't know what you mean by universal clusters but quantum fluctuations aren't copes.
Humaj consciousness is entirely explained by the brain.

None of this requires faith. You just deny and strawman them and then claim the strawman is wrong.

>>18011461
You don't need to be an atheist to believe in evolution

>>18011467
>Macro evolution has been observed
no it hasn't
>Abiogenesis research makes breakthroughs all the time.
HAHAHAHAHAHA you either create life in a lab or you don't, there is no progress.
>Humaj consciousness is entirely explained by the brain.
t. midwit
>I don't know what you mean by universal clusters but quantum fluctuations aren't copes.
he means you can't explain why there is something rather than nothing or why the universe exists

File: 1755480052529963.png (57 KB, 662x417)

57 KB PNG

>>18011486
>he means you can't explain why there is something rather than nothing or why the universe exists
NTA but fundamentally nobody can, atheists are just honest enough to admit we'll never truly know instead of making up stories. We do however know that the universe was in a smaller and hotter/more dense state roughly 14 billion years ago because we can see the universe expanding and we can see the cosmic microwave background as remnant heat from this hotter and more dense state so we do have plenty of physical evidence for the big bang

>>18011467
>Macro evolution has been observed
No it hasn't lmao.
>They also found life fossils on Mars like a week ago
They find a trace of minerals that are classified as a potential biosignature that need years of research and pseuds the world over call it a fossil. LMAO
>I don't know what you mean by universal clusters but quantum fluctuations aren't copes.
No sign of electrons being generated from quantum fields has ever been observed or replicated. Try reading papers and not only titles.
>Human consciousness is entirely explained by the brain.
It's not. Some brains function without cerebellum. Some function after being cut in half in surgery and none of them can be mapped out or even be expected to react the same to psychotropic drugs because they all work differently. Also you can't detect psychopathy or any other mental disorder no matter how much you scan the brain. Whoever told you that is either retarded or you didn't understand them but there are hundreds of emergent features of consciousness that can't be traced on the brain.

>>18011494
>so we do have plenty of physical evidence for the big bang
That just means the bible was right this whole time. And of course no one can know; but one can know that One knows.

>>18011494
Foundationalism is correct

How does God explain all of this?

>>18012722
Apparently with ambiguous, even absurd riddles that dont seem to have clear noncontradicting answers

>>18012722
In broad terms:
- The clearly deliberate design of the universe points to a creator
- The existence of life uniquely on our planet and no other points to an intent of the creator rather than a broad intention of life in the entire universe
- The existence of one and only one sentient species in the entire planet points at an intention of design of that particular species for a purpose
- And that species having an objective moral center that allows them to thrive and rise above all other humans as a group as well as become self-realized as individuals when following said moral laws prove that the purpose and intention of their creator was both just and loving.

Christianity built objectively the most moral, most advanced and most prosperous civilizations in all of history. All of this is not a coincidence no matter how hard militant anititheists want to trivialize and paint it otherwise

>>18012773
what would be a coincidence in this context?

>>18012773
>The clearly deliberate design of the universe points to a creator
Immediately wrong and shows you don't understand anything about reality.
The universe looks exactly like a random uncreated universe would look like. And no, you don't know what "fine tuning" means.
Life is now known to be all over the universe. Humans are not special.
Morality isn't real and isn't objective.
And no,Christianity did not build the most moral, advanced, or prosperous civilization. Christians have killed more people than any other ideology and the modern west was built after rejecting Christianity during the Renaissance and moving towards naturalism and even pseudo paganism.

>>18012787
>Life is now known to be all over the universe. Humans are not special.
Still waiting for proof. Are you the same retard that thinks they found fossils in mars?

>>18012784
A coincidence would be Mark Twain's birth and death aligning with Halley's comet. Or you meeting someone with your exact name at Starbucks.

If your argument is "life is a coincidence" then again, you're having more blind faith in multiple one in a trillion miracles happening back to back until the creation of human beings all of which happen because of chaos and all of them happening exclusively on earth for no explainable reason.

>>18012787
dont see how killing people goes against civilisational advancement or prosperity, it seems to corelate quite well, even if its not what >>18012773 wants to get at, but it perfectly fits the thread, apparently part of how the world works is that mass murder is one practical solution for many problems, and was often succesfully used by what some could call prosperous advanced civilisations by whichever metric, its almost like a highscore

>>18011461
>Here's a list of theories with 0 proof that are accepted by atheists as fact
Doesn't justify to the Christian.

If you looking at the facts and only at the facts, you will see the following:
The main story of the most monotheistic religions looking suspicious like wishful thinking. With a all-loving creator etc.
The so called "atheist mythology", on the other hand, doesn't has this disadvantage.

>>18012818
that dude thinks there's little green men in mars. Don't bother trying to entertain his dumb opinions

>>18012855
You could turn your entire post around and say:

> looking suspicious like wishful thinking
Doesn't justify atheism.

If you looking at the facts and only at the facts, you will see the following:
The main story of the most atheistic movements looking suspicious like wishful thinking. With completely self-determined meaning and existence etc.
The so called "Christian mythology", on the other hand, doesn't has this disadvantage.

Obviously there is more to secular ideas, just like there are many elements of Christianity that aren't anyone's wish at all.

>>18012773
>- The clearly deliberate design of the universe points to a creator

Has been dekuned since the early discussions on the internet.
The residual of it is the discussion surrounded by the anthropomorphic principle, that, honestly, cannot be debunked at the same degree as the usual shit.

Yet, the argument around it is far more complex.

>The existence of life uniquely on our planet and no other points to an intent of the creator rather than a broad intention of life in the entire universe

Non sequitur.

>The existence of one and only one sentient species in the entire planet points at an intention of design of that particular species for a purpose

Non sequitur.

>And that species having an objective moral center that allows them to thrive and rise above all other humans as a group as well as become self-realized as individuals when following said moral laws prove that the purpose and intention of their creator was both just and loving.

Ex falso, quodlibet.

>>18012864
>Doesn't justify atheism.

It is not a proof in the sense of "it ruled out any other possibility" like in the definion of the logical inference. Yes.
In terms of probability, you got another meaning.

You needs to be more critical against desired outcomes if you recognise that you have the tendency to believe in something solo because it makes you feel good.
Your day to day experience clearly indicate that wishful thinking is a powerful scource of error. Therefor, it is obligated from a rational point of view to avoid it at all costs.

The atheists perspective of the world is not inherently wishful thinking. Yes, of course, you do not have to deal with the fears of demons and hell and so on. Although most Christians reject this anyway.
The atheists viewpoint has nothing inherent compfing, no notation of salvation. Therefor, the burden of wishful thinking doesn't lie on their side.

>>18012864
>>18012897
>With completely self-determined meaning and existence etc.

Not true at all. The story about "creating your own meaning" is frequently not the desired outcome. A lot of people would be more happy with a pre-determinated meaning of life.

>Obviously there is more to secular ideas, just like there are many elements of Christianity that aren't anyone's wish at all.

Nope. You omit your critical thinking at this point.

>>18012899
>The story about "creating your own meaning" is frequently not the desired outcome
Creating your own meaning is one of the main benefits atheism provides in general. That there are still some people sensible enough to not fall from it doesn't detract from this point.
>>Obviously there is more to secular ideas, just like there are many elements of Christianity that aren't anyone's wish at all.
>Nope. You omit your critical thinking at this point.
And just to make it explicit - the lack of critical thinking is in the fact that I read you critically?

>>18012912
>Creating your own meaning is one of the main benefits atheism provides in general. That there are still some people sensible enough to not fall from it doesn't detract from this point.

If you seriously asks "what is the meaning of the life", then the answer "you must creat it on your own" is not satificating. It may feel better under some circumstances, e.g. when you strongly dislike the suggested meaning, but the argument that this is wishful thinking is not compelling.
It is also inconsistent with our observation of the history of ideas. A unbiased spectator would quickly note that the first people who made a point of it, the Existentialists, has been seen as dark and hopeless people.
Doesn't sound like the people want this outcome, right?

>And just to make it explicit - the lack of critical thinking is in the fact that I read you critically?

Just lets start...
The question we are actually interesting in is the following: "Is atheism more believe than faith?"

You quickly leave this question and change the topic to "atheistic movements" or "atheists".
Yet, by doing this, you change the subject of the question crucial.

While atheism is a intellectual position that stated that there is no devine being, atheists are either people who adopt this view or people who self-identify with atheism. For the later, I would suggest the use of a captial a.
No matter if atheist or Atheist, the person in question is usually not just that but e.g. believe in other things...

>>18012912
making meaning is something people had to engage in on a regular basis since before anyone remembers, its a basic function, figuring things out in situational contex referencing desired outcomes, how else would menaing even exist or what else would it be

>>18012952
>the answer "you must creat it on your own" is not satificating.
Nobody said you "must". There is no compulsion, that's the point. If you don't understand how an offer of existential freedom, as illusory as it is, is a massive benefit and subject to volumes and volumes of wishful thinking (now and in history) then I don't really know what to tell you.
>"Is atheism more believe than faith?"
>You ... change the topic to [evaluating atheism and secular ideas]
Not much of a change there, friend. It really sounds like you're playing the "but an atheist doesn't HAVE TO believe in xyz". Yes, maybe they don't have to. But they generally do. So when comparing atheism against theism as pragmatic options, these points of comparison are obviously relevant.

File: 1756657156647734.png (50 KB, 382x396)

50 KB PNG

>you clearly have the more attractive belief
>no you clearly have the more attractive belief!

>>18012952
>No matter if atheist or Atheist, the person in question is usually not just that but e.g. believe in other things...
... other things like the truth of the world we experiencing or that we humans has the capability to recognise facts about reality etc.

Atheists often share some boarder believes. For instance, a lot of Atheists reject any believe in things like ghosts, UFOs, immaterial souls and so on, too. They pleaing for a naturalistic worldview, centered around science and critical inquiries. Their moral system is more often than not just unreflective adapted from the society around them.
Since any Christians use moral as a argument for the existence of god, some of them engainge in some ethical theory. I note that Atheists often prefered Utilitarism or a kind of Contractualism, based on the assertation what a rational individual would want.

Atheists without the capital a are a bit different. We talk about people here who subscripe to atheism but do not think about themselves as "Atheists". Although some atheists are socialists, communists or something like that, there ar some radical individualists etc., too.
In contrasts to Atheists, atheists sometimes doesn't even subscripe to a naturalist or scientific worldview. Sometimes, they believe in spiritual energys, atlantis etc.

The takeaway for you is: Atheism as a viewpoint does not imply the believe in Darwinism or big bang theory.
If you asks a atheist "what caused the universe", the answer could be simply "I don't know, just not a God".

>>18012968
There realy is no choice, all meaning is made up, you accept ready made systems of meaning you get taught along the way then develop your own as you learn from experience, thats called being a well adjusted person, thats simply how it works, same as hypertext were using right now, its all man made for practical purposes

>>18012968
>If you don't understand how an offer of existential freedom, as illusory as it is, is a massive benefit and subject to volumes and volumes of wishful thinking (now and in history) then I don't really know what to tell you.

As I said, get to know your history. Satre for instance describe the human being as "sentenced to freedom".
Does this sound like a great thing you want for you?
Of course not! They just make the best out of their sad position.

>It really sounds like you're playing the "but an atheist doesn't HAVE TO believe in xyz".

See >>18012987, where I go deeper into it.

>Yes, maybe they don't have to. But they generally do.

At this moment, we do not talk about atheism anymore but about atheists.

You change the subject of the question. Atheism is defined as the (philosophical) position that no devine being exist. If you assum this assertaton, you cannot logical infere that e.g. big bang or evolution needs to happen.
As Darwinistic evolution, big bang etc.are no logical implications of atheism, atheism is not necessarly fase if you deny one of this things.

History show that I'm right. Look at atheists of the 18th century. They often deny the claims about the existence of god but cleary cannot come up with Darwinism or big bang!
Look at d’Holbach or even De Sade's "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man".
They has had no idea about big bang, no idea of evolution etc. Still atheists.

>So when comparing atheism against theism as pragmatic options, these points of comparison are obviously relevant.

There are, of course, other options.

Look at Spinoza's viewpoint or Schopenhauer's or the old Chinese views. They explain the world without a monotheistic creator.

Even Plato gives a example of it. He claimed that matter exists at the beginning aside of the creator and the creatore merely gives the matter a order and rules.

>>18012897
>>Has been dekuned since the early discussions on the internet.
So debunked you can't even bring it up because you know it's shallow reddit rhetoric.

The rest of your post are typical irrational non-arguments like quoting fallacies you don't even understand and more importantly not presenting any arguments because you know yours don't hold any water. Instead you dance around the semantics of another anon's post.

>>18013013
I would disagree. I don't think any meaning is "made up". You might take great part in its cultivation, but it's like to say that information on any photo is "made up" because it takes a subjective perspective and is guided by systems of aesthetics. There's a great deal of subjectivity there, but in the end it's a carrier for something that transcends your own means of creation.

Though if you can change the meaning of your life like one could change a hyperlink, I do envy you. Imagine programming yourself that staring into a blank wall until you starve to death is the peak of meaning and then just doing it in extasy... sounds fresh af.

>>18013034
>get to know your history.
>Satre for instance describe the human being as "sentenced to freedom".
Get to know your own sources. Sartre saw great dignity in existentialism and so did the rest of the school of thought. You're grasping straws.
>>>> “[T]his theory alone is compatible with the dignity of man, it is the only one which does not make man into an object.”

>At this moment, we do not talk about atheism anymore but about atheists.
We talk about atheism as it exists in the world today. It's concerning that this is an issue for you.
>Look at Spinoza's viewpoint or Schopenhauer's or the old Chinese views. They explain the world without a monotheistic creator.
They definitely try.

>>18013035
>So debunked you can't even bring it up because you know it's shallow reddit rhetoric.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

Have a good read.

>The rest of your post are typical irrational non-arguments like quoting fallacies you don't even understand

You have no idea what I understand and what not.
You make up bullocks in order to immunize yourself form the argument.

>and more importantly not presenting any arguments because you know yours don't hold any water.

What arguments, please?

As I said, we need to be more critical against wishful thinking than against unwelcome consequences.

> Instead you dance around the semantics of another anon's post.

What are you argument?

>>18011327
>>18011467
>My father was a fish
Perhaps you should worship a fish God.

>>18013055
>Get to know your own sources. Sartre saw great dignity in existentialism and so did the rest of the school of thought. You're grasping straws.
May were still be seen as somehow dark...
>We talk about atheism as it exists in the world today. It's concerning that this is an issue for you.
Nope. We talk about ATHEISTS today, not ATHEISM.

OP stated: "It takes more blind faith to believe the atheist creation myth than the Christian one. And it's not even close."

There is no atheists creation myth. Period.
Some atheists adapt the current scientific theories like evolution, big bang etc. The point is, they rearly do this because the idea of natural selection is so compfy... They adapt this view, because they believe it is the best explaination aline with the facts.

Yet there may be some atheists out there who doesn't even believe in evolution but in other theories. Maybe even with creators. As creators doesn't need to be deities for any reasons...

>They definitely try.

Fair point.