>>539875995
It isn't really "science" that drives these arguments but rather a desire to be a consooomer and a kikeslave. They're justifications for being a faggot, basically.

>>539875995
>blue rock
That's water.

>>539875995
This is somehow worse than thinking life is just a test so you can worship a Jew in heaven for eternity?

>>539875995
Yet these people that believe this shit try to shame you for wrong think and say shit like "it's called being a good person". Fuck you faggot, you should be an amoral nihilist if this is your foundation.

>>539875995
so evolution is a thing and galileo was right but this doesn't necessarily refute the man made concept of "god" it just challenges the abrahamic subtext

I’m quite a hairy monkey.

>>539875995

>>539875995
Stop using products that only exist thanks to science. Means: Fuck off the internet and spare us with your retardation.

Greentexting facts doesn't make them untrue.

>>539875995
Yes. Why are you so upset about that?

>>539875995
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlSvNg8ZZug8raWfRvUQm2j2-pzWe9Iib&si=Z_l_SfHhcio4qyow

>>539875995
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhqj8hlCFT2fWOC34_FanlZH-CUzvadDX&si=TuPMAj_pQk9yG7K9

>>539875995
Some fucking retard sees this and thinks MY SANDNIGGA LORE THOUGH.

You absolute retard with the mentality of a Nigger. Some Jew isn't a prophet and it's all fake. Spirituality for NPC's God can be real, but it's not the sandnigger demon version that decided to cut your penis as a baby.

>>539875995
I'm no kin to a monkey no no no.

https://youtu.be/dV8x5WWDcNgvnEhZz6KJceEDRqx

>>539875995
I don't say that
I don't look like that

>>539882494
Good lad.

>>539875995
This is the only life I'll ever have, Earth is our only home - Nothing could possibly be more significant to me

>>539876419
You can accept the fact that we are material beings in a material world and still care about shit. It's just doesn't matter because of some divine order it only matters because you care.

>>539884767
No, you can't. Materialists also reject the existence of truth, justice and logic. The rational approach is to realize that we are in fact mental beings in a mental world. Matter is an illusion that exists as a consequence of mind. Mind does not exist as a consequence of matter. That's what actual logic and actual science points to. Materialism is just a low IQ superstition.

>>539884954
Logic and lower case t truth certainly exists in a materialist worldview. Justice is more abstract but you can be a materialist and have a sense of justice.

>Mind does not exist as a consequence of matter. That's what actual logic and actual science points to.
That's new to me.

>>539880850
But science was funded by the church? Are you aware of how many universities they founded? This misconception that religion opposes science is a really ignorant and midwitted take. A priest literally came up with the idea of the big bang.

>>539882598
Yet here we are paying taxes to jewish pedophiles

>>539885265
>Logic and lower case t truth certainly exists in a materialist worldview
They don't, acknowledging objective truth and objective logic would be the same as acknowledging something that isn't material, so materialists are almost always driven to the hypocritical and nonsense position of "there's subjective truth and subjective logic", which can't sustain itself because it's a contradiction in terms. Truth and logic cannot exist unless they're objective, because an existence independent of their observer is their defining characteristic. If truth and logic were objective, we would simply be able to decide what's true and what's reasonable on a whim and it would actually become true.

>>539886069
If truth and logic were not objective*

>>539885872
It's been a back and forth over the years. Plenty of times the church or people in the religion were against scientific progress but other times they were leading it or at least involved. I don't know their motives all the time though. I've heard plenty of people say the big bang proves God but others are completely against it because it's anti-god. So that's probably related to them accepting or denying scientific things.

>>539886069
>because an existence independent of their observer is their defining characteristic
How is God not an observer making these things subjective? People act like a God existing means objectivity but they could be subjective from the perspective of god.

>>539875995
>We are insignificant
Yes we are. What are you, prideful?

>>539886069
>They don't, acknowledging objective truth and objective logic would be the same as acknowledging something that isn't material
Things can be true independent of an observer, logic is something that is built and there are various systems of logic in math. I don't think that conflicts with materialist beliefs you can still believe in things like "happiness" and math or logic as a materialist. It's just logic and happiness exist in a material brain. And for truth it exists in a material form aswell whether as a belief in another person's brain or an actual physical thing in the world.

>>539886222
All theists, whether Neoplatonist or Christian, would assert that God is truth itself. For one, because God is pure actuality and existence, which is the same thing as being pure truth and reality. And two, because nothing can exist prior to truth because it must be true that something exists when it exists. Meaning God can't be an outside observer of himself. He simply "is", and he's the only thing that actually "is", while everything else is merely a consequence of his "isness".

>>539875995
They never mention that the reverse is true too, that our bodies are colossal on a microscopic level, that we are some of the most complex things ever discovered, that the universe is just as small as it is large

>>539886542
>logic is something that is built
Logic wasn't built, it was discovered. If man made logic, math and geometry then logic, math and geometry would be subject to man's whims. There would be no objectivity in it.

>It's just logic and happiness exist in a material brain
That's impossible, for the reasons stated above. A cause always has authority over its effects. If matter were the cause of mind, then matter would always have authority over mind. But that's never true, and the inverse is always true. Mind is always the mover of matter, matter is never the mover of mind. If man was the author of logic and truth, then he would be able to change logic and truth as he sees fit. Likewise, if man's beliefs simply existed in the brain then man's beliefs would be subject to matter. It would actually be possible to force a man to fear death through material means. But that isn't possible at all, as evidenced by the thousands of historical examples of men being fearless in the face of death. Mind must be prior to matter because matter has no ability to influence mind without mind's permission.

>>539886069
>Manmade concepts must exist outside of mankind collective mind
>Just because, okay?
lmao

>>539886940
This is a perfect example of a hypocritical materialist rejecting the authority of logic and reason. Asserting that logic and reason are manmade is the same as asserting that they don't exist. Your claim is that they're figments of imagination, and not realities. And if they aren't realities, you're saying they don't exist. Thus all materialists reject the existence of logic and reason, and thus of truth, and thus of science. Materialists exist in a perpetual state of self-refutation. Materialism is a blind, irattional superstition, not a legitimate belief.

>>539887077
>My strawman is so dumb
>I bet you feel dumb too
yes I do. You got me, lmao

>>539884954
>>539886069
>>539886617
>>539886905
>>539887077
I'm curious anti-materialism anon, do you reject naturalism outright or JUST materialism?

>>539887195
That's not a strawman, you called logic manmade yourself. Logic being a figment of imagination, and thus non-existent, is the logical conclusion of it being manmade. You cannot refute this basic fact, so you're now attempting to obfuscate. In order for something to be objective, it must exist.

>>539887380
>Logic isn't a manmade concept
>Because it just is, okay
lmao

>>539887234
It depends on what you mean precisely by naturalism. If you mean the idea that existence stems from a common cause without a wise and benevolent overseer creating anything on purpose, I would say that this view already has nested within it the presupposition of a wise and benevolent overseer whether it wants it to be there or not. The reason for this, is that wisdom is the same thing as likeness to truth. Nothing is more like truth than truth itself, meaning the natural cause of existence, which is necessarily truth itself, must also be wisdom itself. In fact, it would need to be all of the virtues in itself because all virtues are from truth and wisdom.

>>539887661
By naturalism I mean the idea that this is all just a big cosmic accident that happened by chance

>>539887647
Logic can't be a manmade concept for the same reason that the laws of physics can't be a manmade concept. Man does not invent these rules, he discovers and obeys them. If he invented them, he would have the authority to change them. Man could simply decide that modus ponens is no longer a valid proof, and it would no longer be valid. But he can't do that, so that means he didn't invent modus ponens any more than he invented gravity.

>>539887787
Anon hes just fucking with you at this point

>>539887742
In that case that would be absolutely against all logic and reason. There's no such thing as chance or accident anywhere in existence. Everything moves and acts according to cause and effect, meaning existence and order are the same principle. So much so, that it's actually not possible for anything random to exist. Even when we attempt to generate random numbers with a computer, those numbers have to be seeded with something that isn't random. Anything truly random would be truly non-existent, meaning it doesn't exist. If it can't be found within existence, then it can't be the source of existence.

>>539887077
>Asserting that logic and reason are manmade is the same as asserting that they don't exist
I guess bridges and roads aren't real then.

>>539887787
>Logic: two opposites can't be true at the same time under the same circumstances
>Also known as the principle of non-contradiction
big discovery, buddy

>>539887855
I know, I posted it anyway for the benefit of anyone lurking who wants to understand the world a bit better. Him embarrassing himself with grade school arguments just makes it all the more obvious that materialism is by necessity irrational.

>>539888013
I can touch a bridge, I cant touch logic. I can invent fake rules for a game, I cant invent fake rules for the universe

>>539886905
>If man made logic, math and geometry then logic, math and geometry would be subject to man's whims.
It kind of is? There isn't one all encompassing Capital L Logic.

>That's impossible, for the reasons...
This entire thing is just nonsense. I can't think my way into an ice cream appearing in my hand. You seem to be saying the entire world is a subjective hallucination an there is no such thing as material reality. That's boltzmann brain territory. I don't think I am a boltzmann brain because reality appears to be consistent.

>>539888013
They wouldn't be, if they didn't obey logic. All manmade constructions owe their success to something that isn't manmade. Or in other words, they can only begin to exist on the back of something that already exists. Without the laws of physics, and without matter, a bridge would remain a figment of imagination. So this proves my point excellently. If logic did not actually exist, it would merely be a figment in the same way that an unbuilt bridge is a figment.

>>539875995
True, which is why it's important to find meaning in life. Some people are able to do this on their own, and others have to use someone else's system.

>>539888298
>If logic did not actually exist, it would merely be a figment in the same way that an unbuilt bridge is a figment.
Yeah no, the world just is the way it is. The common (not obscure abstract math logic system) logic is just how we make sense of how the world is. It isn't the thing itself it's a description.

>>539888147
>You are a materialist if you bully me
>Here's what my strawman (you) believes in
>Aren't you silly?
You are full of pride and not rightfully so

>>539888174
>I can't think my way into an ice cream appearing in my hand
Exactly, that supports my point and refutes materialism. According to materialists, logic and truth are subjective. According to them, you should be able to think an ice cream in your hand. My position is that truth and reality are objective and foundational. What's logical stems from what's true, and truth is what exists. Truth and logic, which represent the immaterial, exist first, and then matter exists ontologically posterior to those. Logic, truth and mind are all closer to existence than they are to non-existence because they have abiding being. Matter is closer to non-existence than it is to existence, because it lacks abiding being.

Nothing matters but don’t you dare do a heckin racism

>>539888470
The world is the way it is as a consequence of cause and effect. Which is another way of saying as a consequence of logic. Logic was forming the world long before we existed. We did not invent cause and effect. Simply pretending not to understand that your argument has been refuted and then reasserting your position isn't going to get you anywhere near the truth.

>>539888656
>The world is the way it is as a consequence of
No, it just is. That is the base line. Logic is an adhoc thing that happens in a human brain to make sense of how things are. The universe doesn't think, when a ball rolls down a hill there is no logical thinking happening. We do that and the logic we have is for the way things are.

>>539888656
You just take it for granted because it's already a built and finished system.

>>539888977
I think your disagreement with anon is over the word "logic" I think his point is that the universe runs on laws of cause and effect, which is a refutation of the naturalist argument that complexity can randomly arise from nothing for no apparent reason

>>539888977
You're confusing logic for thought. A ball rolling down a hill doesn't need to think to do so, but it is obeying laws all the way down. Those same laws were responsible for creating it in the first place. Everything in existence is cause and effect. Cause and effect is the law of existence, and is what everyone means by logic in a philosophical context. Our thoughts are logical insofar as they obey the laws existence, or cause and effect. To say that cause and effect doesn't exist outside of the human mind is absurd.

>>539889217
No, that's precisely what you're doing. I've read all of the ancients who first started mapping out the rules of logic, that's why I'm able to explain these things in depth and with certainty. I know how it was discovered because I've looked into the particulars. You, on the other hand, are assuming that logic is merely a man made thing like a bridge or an airplane, because you've never looked into how any of those things are built. You take it for granted that man can make anything he wants on a whim, without stopping to consider the fact that everything man has ever made has been a matter of his obedience to universal law. A house that doesn't obey logic is no house at all, it's merely a pile of materials. A house only becomes a house insofar as the man building it is in obedience to reason.

>>539889234
I'm not sure how true that is honestly. The term random is mostly just a human description of something we can't make sense of. A person doesn't get cancer randomly. It's due to cause and effect at some level even if our current knowledge doesn't allow us to see the entire chain. Same with things like evolution. The term random mutation is used i believe, but it's not random in the grand scheme of things. There was a causal chain going all the way back (even for how the big bang happened I'd imagine) that explains why you are here, but we're just not capable of seeing or understanding it all.

>>539889277
>but it is obeying laws all the way down.
No it isn't you've already inadvertently assigned agency to the ball by saying it is obeying laws.

>>539889595
The ball has no agency because it has no choice but to obey. When you drop a stone it obeys the law of gravity, and it can never do otherwise. It would only have agency if it could decide to do otherwise.

Also, if you're really going to get this pedantic and try to split hairs over something like that, you may as well just concede the argument and admit you haven't read up on this subject enough to carry on a conversation.

>>539889716
The stone falls to the ground because that's the way it is. The law of gravity is what happens when we see this happen a few hundred times and want predictive and explanatory power.

>I'm not a monkey!
And yet you act like one. Curious.

>>539875995

Try dmt

>>539889960
>The law of gravity is what happens when we see this happen a few hundred times and want predictive and explanatory power.
Observing it happen a few hundred times allowed us to measure what the law really is, that being that the mass of objects warps space-time around it
It exists independent of our observation but it's still a law

>>539876311
Checked and correct pilled
A power structure with morals and rights that derive from god is too difficult for them to climb because it doesn't allow the decadence which is used to lure and blackmail. It all boils down to people lacking resolve, mental fortitude and discipline wanting the power of force without having the might to take it.

>>539889960
>The law of gravity is what happens when we see this happen a few hundred times
No, the law of gravity is what we see happen. There is a distinction to be made between "the law itself" and "our understanding of the law", because we can be in error. But you cannot claim that the law itself does not exist independently of our understanding of the law, without also claiming that reality itself is subjective. You've doubled back on yourself and are now claiming that you actually CAN imagine an icecream cone and materialize it into your hand, because that's the reality you're describing if you think that laws do not exist independently of us.

>>539890054
Okay but the universe isn't following any metaphysical rules or laws it is self contained within the universe. And when a human being formalizes these rules or logic this is just a description not some divine platonic immaterial reality.

>>539875995
All true

>>539890350
But why are the laws of our universe the way they are and not some other way?
Who wrote the laws? Was it just random chance?

>>539890350
The universe is law. Existence and order are the same principle. Nothing would exist without law, thus nothing would exist without the immaterial. That's why materialism is by necessity devoid of all sense and rationality. It asserts that there is existence without principle, despite the fact that everywhere we look we see nothing but evidence of principle.

>>539890431
This line of argument always results in asking who created the God that created the universe but the other side says, with no reason or evidence, that the chain of causality starts there and doesn't go back further.

>>539890502
>He's still schizo rambling
Damn boy

>>539890866
Yes, the argument will always devolve into if the universe has a first cause, does it need an uncaused first cause to kickstart it? It goes back and forth forever at that point.
From an empirical standpoint we can't possibly know.

>>539876419
This is the part that gets me, if life is as meaningless as they claim, then why aren't they going around killing people and stuff?

>>539890431
>But why are the laws of our universe the way they are and not some other way?
There is nothing we can currently do to figure out the answers to that question.
>>539890502
If the universe exists and logic is just a description of how it is there is no contradiction. Any logic that didn't capture "how it is" would be illogical and everything would correct itself. I think also maybe you take for granted that we spent millions of years evolving minds that were optimal for making intuitive sense of the world around us because of course that helps survival.

>>539891116
You don't need a larger being keeping an eye on you to not want to cause other people pain or suffering. The idea that religious people seem to imply that they would go on a rape and murder spree without their religion is very bizarre to me.

Science is the religion of the atheist. It's also an attempt to explain the natural world by observing phenomemon and repeating it. There are some things beyond our comprehension. Simple as.

Nothing more.

>>539891255
The reason that most people don't want to be murderers is because that would be evil, yet according to atheists, it doesn't matter if you are good or evil because you're just an accident made of exploded stars.

>>539875995
>actually jews made the world
That's what you believe, don't you?

>>539890866
There's always evidence, it just gets ignored by people who argue in bad faith. For one thing, it's necessary to understand that no one is picking an arbitrary point within the chain and then saying "this one is God, don't look any further". The argument is that the chain of causality must have a beginning, and from there it's argued that whatever the beginning is must also be our creator, which is undeniable. Whatever "it" is, it must be the sole source of existence.

The reason why there must be a beginning, is that every effect must have a cause. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that there must be a first cause which is itself not an effect. Or in other words, that it's an uncaused cause. This absolutely must be the case whether you're religious or not, because it's a basic fact that an infinite regression cannot subsist on itself. An infinite regression is like a circle of dominoes with no outside force to knock over the first domino. They can't knock themselves over, so there's no "actual" to set off the series of "potential" happenings.

It's also important to understand that whatever is ontologically first is also the cause of time. Time isn't first in ontology, meaning whatever came before time is responsible for creating time. This is the same as saying that whatever made time is outside of time. Or in other words, that there was never a point in time at which the cause of time did not exist. If the cause exists outside of time, it always existed. It makes no sense to ask "when did that begin to exist?", because it would by essence have no beginning. It would just "be", infinitely and eternally, prior to time.

>>539888565
d e l u s i o n

>>539891167
>If the universe exists and logic is just a description of how it is there is no contradiction
The contradiction is in the claim that matter is the only thing that "is". Matter can't exist without the rules that make up an atom. Rules exist first, then matter after. Or in other words, the immaterial must exist first, then the material exists as a consequence. Reality is based on the immaterial, not the material.

>>539875995
>do I have evidence for this
>STOP ASKING QUESTIONS SCIENCE DENIER. THE BIG BANG HAPPENED AND THERE'S NO GOD SO WORSHIP JEWS
>>539876311
"Atheism" is literally satanism/Judaism.

>>539876419
the atheist perspectives explains very well how morality emerges and since it exists its proof it works
on the contrary those that use metaphysics which is unable to generate knowledge like believers are absolutely unable to produce anything of substance. As proof you just tried do derive an ought from an is and as a result your argument is fucking retarded

>>539891598
what is your actual argument?

>>539891345
>The reason that most people don't want to be murderers is because that would be evil
Where are you getting this from? Evil doesn't exist outside of a religious framework. It's more about not wanting to cause suffering to people, and maybe more specifically not wanting to do something to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you.
>>539891509
The issue is that people conflate the first cause with their deity of choice. There is no good reason why the first cause needs to be a sentient being or a being it all. Most reasons I see for this is the retarded "can't give what you don't have" argument but everyone always ignores that the universe has proprietary that most people would not attribute to their God. The first cause argument by itself proves nothing about a god existing.

>>539891634
If morality was just a survival mechanism to aid in procreation as atheists argue, then it's still just made up and holds no weight in reality, that doesn't refute that anon at all

>>539889234
>complexity can randomly arise from nothing for no apparent reason
Is this some kind of strawman for abiogenesis? There are theories for how complex life arose from less complex like but it is actively studied and the theories that exist are based on objective observation of reality, including more complex single-celled organisms, continuing developments in out understanding of matter states including water most importantly and electrochemical processes thag are simple hard to figure out because the world now is not the same as it was then and it is a genuinely hard nut to crack but you are engaging in the same ridiculous god of the gaps argumentation that has plagued the world for a long time.

>>539891607
The rules are contained within the fields the atom exists in/is made of

>>539891701
Why don't you want to cause suffering to people? There's no reason not to according to atheism, if anything, there is a benefit to getting ahead. Why not just kill and steal from others? After all it dosen't matter in the end!

>>539891616
Why are Americans like this?

>>539891634
What I ought to do is literally rape your fake-satanist fedora-tipping redditor shitter faggot.

>>539875995
Maybe monkeys are just hairy retarded devolved humans.
>>539876311
That sums up basically all the antipathy modern people have towards Christianity
Besides Jews who have a historical bone to pick with Christians, the main opponents of Christianity are all homos, closet cases, or sexual perverts who are just upset they can’t cheat on their wives without other people looking down on them. It’s always always always about sex.

>>539876339
Thats part of the joke genius

File: hubble-ultra-deep-field-jpg.jpg (366 KB, 1200x1096)

366 KB JPG

>>539875995
>>we are just hairless monkeys on spinning ball
Yes.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=41hft__gwvY

>>539891509
Why would things existing need a cause? Are you talking about the Big Bang? That isnt necessarily the "start" but the limit of what we can perceive residual evidence of.

You are assuming what you purport to prove by calling existence an effect. Why would time be caused rather than a property, a "law"?

>>539891857
Because of what I said about not wanting to do to others what I wouldn't want done to me. If everyone was going around killing each other it would lead to communities not being able to be formed, which is worse for people's survival. In the past, and even now but less so, if you went on a killing and raping spree you'd likely be executed real quick. This fits well with organisms desiring to keep themselves alive.

>>539891801
I was thinking more abstractly than focusing on life specifically.
Think about the library of Babel, can anything of meaning arise from random chance?
Do you genuinely believe you would actually eventually find Shakespeare in the library of random letters if you looked long enough?

>>539891779
It actually holds weight in reality since you can delude yourself into thinking your morality is objective. But I don't see most christians nowadays defending slavery or genocide or whatnot. So their morality evolves with the times and does its work of mediating social interactions like it always did.

>>539892001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkwy1w5LFTU

>>539892125
It's funny how atheists always fall back to Christian talking points.

>I wouldn't be evil because evil is bad!
>Good people would do something!

I could rape, steal and kill and still successfully have multiple off-spring before I die. As an organism I'll have succeeded in procreating.

File: 1784394444451986.png (293 KB, 2569x544)

293 KB PNG

>>539875995

>>539891701
>The issue is that people conflate the first cause with their deity of choice
I've never seen anyone do that. What I see is people who rightly understand that all religions are merely expressions of that first cause. I see Neoplatonists agreeing that their One is the same thing as Christianity's God, and I see Christians admitting that their God is the same thing as Mohammed's Allah. They're all mature enough to understand that man made symbols are merely a representation of the infinite, which cannot be contained within a finite symbol. The only people I have ever seen insist upon this "deity of choice" idea, are atheists themselves. Meaning it's nothing more than a weak strawman invented by people who have never read anything from the traditions they wish to criticize.

>There is no good reason why the first cause needs to be a sentient being or a being it all.
No matter who you ask, the traditional answer from any tradition will be that the first cause cannot think because thinking is something that is only ever done from a deficiency. Or in other words, you only think when you want to know something. A Being that already knows everything because it already is everything would never have an occasion to think. But as you anticipated, it must possess Mind in order to be the cause of mind. But the originate Mind would be perfect, and a perfect mind would be so alien to us that it would be unrecognizable. It wouldn't think or wonder or ponder or consider or do any of the things we typically associate with a mind.

>the universe has proprietary that most people would not attribute to their God.
If you mean evil, then the answer to that is that evil is nothing more than a privation, or a notation of non-existence. It doesn't actually exist, thus it can't be from the first cause.

>>539892118
>Why would things existing need a cause?
Because reality is built on cause and effect. Something never comes from nothing, and nothing ever happens for no reason. It always has sufficient cause.

>>539875995
The fool says in his heart, "there is no God"

It's why he's a fool, since wisdom begins only with reverence for Yahweh.

>>539892205
>actually eventually find Shakespeare in the library of random letters if you looked long enough?
In theory if there was an archive of literally every possible combination of letters, sure but that is by definition because the idea is stupid. Shakespeare's works were a product of a mind, which is itself an extension of a "future prediction engine" that provided an evolutionary advantage.

but i have hair?

>>539875995
>love is just chemicals in the brain
>tl;dr - I'm an overweight and underachieving piece of shit
I hate these people so much

>>539892359
>I could rape, steal and kill and still successfully have multiple off-spring before I die. As an organism I'll have succeeded in procreating.
It's possible but the risk is still there. And that doesn't negate the risk of death. Even if you procreate, organisms still don't want to die. Relating to people to the point where you dont feel right hurting them also doesn't require a god. And I still don't see how
>Well I WOULD kill and rape but thankfully my God threatening me with eternal torment prevents me from doing so.
Sounds like a good argument to you.

>>539876419
>"it's called being a good person".
When the fuck did talking like this become normal? I hate this newspeak

i am therefore you might not be

>>539892423
>I've never seen anyone do that.
You must live under a rock. Christians don't believe Allah is the same as their God, let alone any Hindu God. And your idea of God as an abstract ignores that all these religions have their God interacting with humanity in this plane and with specific traits that are often mutually exclusive. Maybe you're a saner person than most people but I have tons of times people use the first cause argument to argue for their specific God.

>>539892545
Why would it need to "come from" something? Your ideas presuppose time as a linear thing passing because that is how you experience it rather than as a property, a characteristic, which is affected by other things.

>>539875995
You're made up of lifeless particles that somehow become alive when put together in a specific way.

>>539885872
>A priest literally came up with the idea of the big bang.
When you tell them the Big Bang was originally posited by a Catholic priest who was also an astrophysicist, they usually have something retarded to say about it and then not dumb shit when you point out the 'fine tuning' of the universe

>>539892635
So the rational human mind arose randomly from irrational chaos?
Do you think you're able to parse this all out rationally?

File: 16910290038.jpg (86 KB, 336x336)

86 KB JPG

>1pbtid
>100 replies

>>539892927
It's a pathetic attempt from atheists to claim morality without religion.

>>539893128
It's honestly been a mostly civil and enjoyable philosophical debate though

>>539892778
Okay so using your logic about survival, why in your case would communities risk THEIR LIVES to come after me? The default state of Atheism would be survival of the fittest. Other people would naturally steer clear of the dominant man.