Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ask to an AI Persona
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
55Opinion
I wouldn't ask a Jew to explain Paganism.
I wouldn't ask a Catholic to explain Protestantism.
And I sure as hell wouldn't ask a theist anything about science.
So why should ANYONE listen to your nonsense about atheism?
"they worship humans"
You retard.
what did I say? they claim science as theirs? LOL
Lol he calls you a "retard" but their are thiest scientists, doctors, lawyers, college professors etc that will put this fool to triple same.
Only a idiot like "Belgie" believes intelligent design and life can come from a non intelligent source or nothing at all. Lol smh
It's better to worship humans than an imaginary friend
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Almost the entire American Academy of Sciences is secular. Non-belief is the majority opinion in academia, high-tech, and among the creative elite.
@slatyb Arguing with the nutters is like playing chess against a pigeon - you make your move, he shits on the board, struts around like he's won, then flies away.
Dude just in the U. S. alone are a lot of religious scientists.
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy True, but scientists are MUCH less religious than the general population.
@slatyb who says that? you? do you have anything that prove that these religious scientists are much less religious, I would say they are more religious.
The Pew forum survey referenced by Hispanic-Cool-Guy.
I didn't say that religious scientists are less religious than other religious people. The proportion of scientists that is religious is much less (about half) than the proportion of the general population that is religious. Religious faith is negatively correlated with level of education.
@slatyb How? do you have a source for that?
@Mi2mi2a
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
This is a survey of the US from 2009, when about 4% of the population but 47% of scientists had no belief in God. So almost half of scientists in 2009 had no belief in God of any kind.
@slatyb that means more than half believes in God
@Mi2mi2a In 2009, of the members of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:
33% believe in God
18% don't believe in God but believe in "a universal spirit or higher power"
41% don't believe in either
7% didn't answer.
So it depends on how you want to count that 18%. It seems that 59% don't believe in a personal God. There are definitely 59% that don't adhere to any religion.
@slatyb I reas that, God doesn't necesseraly mean what a religion sayd he is, it's by definition first and foremost a higher power and a universal spirit.
I read that to mean that they don't believe in a God that intervenes in human affairs.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So saying that atheists are wrong because they haven't proved that god doesn't exist doesn't make sense. They reject the idea of god because of lack of proof and it's your job to prove to them that your god exists
when you are agnostic, you have no burden of proof, because you didn't take any sides.
when you become atheist you are 100% sure God doesn't exist. asserting it means we need proof that what you say is truth.
No, you're wrong. They aren't 100% sure for the most part. They simply don't believe because they aren't convinced. I'm myself am an atheist, but I'm open to the idea of god
That's being agnostic as I said. It's someone who doesn't know wether God exists or not because there is lack of proof.
About lack of proof, what is your answer to my last point?
I'm agnostic. I don't know if god exists or not. But I'm assuming you do believe. Why is that?
My last point: why don't you read it to why God exists? and tell me where it is wrong?
That's called the argument from ignorance. It basically goes like this: I can't explain something therefore I'm going to insert the most logical explanation that makes sense to me
Wow. Finding a logical answer to something is bad. Okayyy
instead of telling me where my logic is wrong. Yup that's so logical.
Uh, it's not logical. I was merely using an expression. You don't have any reason to believe in god other than the universe existing. So you're going to say he did it because you can't see any other way how it happened
A house is meticulusly created. It can't come just out of sheer coincidence. You won't believe a house exists because it simply exist. There must be construction workers, architects.
But when it comes to the univers which is so complicated, it exists because it exists. Now where is the logic in this?
What if the universe always existed? Have you considered that?
Then how do you explain certain species that existed and now they don't and new ones do? Just like that they exist.
I thought as anatheist who pride themselves on logic won't tell me it exists because it simply exist, by your logic God exist because he simply exist too.
You didn't answer my question. Have you considered that?
No, the universe didn't simply exist my reasing what I said.
I almost stopped at: "no matter how much I prove them wrong".
There's just one way to prove atheists wrong, and that's to prove God exists. Not just the belief in God (that's as obvious as the fact that people exploit it to enrich themselves), but God itself.
Defining exactly what you mean by God would be a good start.
Alright, God is a supreme intity with infinite knowledge and power that created humans and the universe they live in. It doesn't matter what image a certain religion projects on God. To me they are praying to one God, just that there were different prophets throughout land and times.
OK, thanks. Can you give any examples of where God used this infinite power?
Creating the universe. Creating humans
Well, there's evidence that indicates that the universe was created 13 billion years ago. It took 8-9 billion years to get to the point of there being a planet Earth orbiting the Sun. We can also trace life back through millions and billions of years, with no need for a God to have intervened at any point. Our galaxy alone contains 100,000,000 stars, there are more galaxies in the observable universe than there are stars in our galaxy; all that to make a Donald Trump? I don't think so.
So the universe that you say took that much to create was brought out by out of the void. The laws that humans are still struggling with happened out of chaos?
If a machine is created, there is a mastermind behind it, if a universe is created there is nothing behind it?
it's the first law of chimy: substance + substance---- substance nothing comes from the void
By your reasoning void---- substance
Could you clarify that, please? I don't understand what you're getting at.
Let's take the Big bang theory: what does it say?
I'm not an astrophysicist, so I'll save you some time.
Yes, the current version of the big bang theory could be wrong.
But only in minor details. Any replacement theory would have to explain all the data that lead to the creation of the theory in the first place and all the evidence that has been found since that supports the theory. In other words, it will have to be so close to the current theory that only the people involved in research on the subject will be able to see a difference.
@Mi2mi2a and who created your god? Man or Satan?
So you think that the theory explaining how the universe came to is right when it's clearly lacking, but the theory of a superior being doing it is far fetched.
Why do atheists put suberior being to a my God, did I say wich image of God is the closest to the truth, I'm not talking about wich image, I'm talking about the existence of that superior being.
Wether that superior being has the form that the bible desribes, or Quran describes, or han describes is another matter altogother! what my certainity is that a 'God' exists, what form he takes that's another matter altogother.
The theory is not "clearly lacking", it's incomplete. Newton's laws of gravitation stood for hundreds of years before they were corrected, but they're still good enough for most purposes. There's no "theory of a superior being", because there are no predictions that can be tested.
If there were a suberior being, how would the universe differ from the predictions of a naturalistic universe, exactly?
well so is the theory of Big Bang, it's just a logical thinking, they proved nothing for their claims, there is no tangible evidence that you ask of 'God' existing that the Big Bang theory provided. Just because it was brought by a scientist that you BELIEVE in it.
what predictions are you talking about? I don't get it, care to explain.
Sure.
Have you heard of the Doppler effect? It's the idea that waves (sound or light) coming from something moving towards you have a higher frequency than the source is giving off, and lower as the source moves away from you (think of a car horn as it passes you in the opposite direction). That happens with light, as well, and the observation that the further away things are, the faster they're moving away (because of the expanding universe) means that light reaching us from distant objects is "red-shifted" to lower frequencies.
Light reaching us from what was around shortly after the time of the big bang, according to the theory, would appear in the microwave frequency range. When the microwave background radiation was detected, it disproved other theories and tipped the balance in the direction of the BBT.
More accurate measurements have since been made, which "disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but are consistent with the inflation theory in general".
tl;dr version: Scientists come up with theories that fit all the data they know, and try to find observable ways that they would differ. That allows them to perform experiments in order to identify which theory is closer to the truth, discarding the other ones.
@goaded "There's just one way to prove atheists wrong, and that's to prove God exists."
You're asking too much from these missionaries :D :D
Mi2mi2a look at the Higgs boson particle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
@jacquesvol Can you not butt in every disuccion, just so you give nothing logical.
@goaded but the doppler effect proves the inflation of the univers theory not the big bang theory. The big bang theory says in great lines that the universe came out of the void in a big explosion. and that's where lies the problem void giving you substance.
As I said it is no experiemnt that proved the big bang theory, it's logical presuming of some other theories, but there are big loopholes in that theory wich can't turn it into Law is that the void can't give you substance.
scientists are trying to find the beginning of the universe but as you go back in time as the idea of substance coming from the void is the clear answer, but that's illogical scientifically.
Actually, I read today that the cosmological red shift is slightly different from the Doppler effect, but the idea's close enough.
The inflation of the universe is what led to the BBT; run time backwards and you end up with everything in one place.
It seems to me that there's no reason to believe there had to be any intelligence or intent in whatever happened back then, much less so to believe that had anything to do with some story-telling monkeys on just one planet in one galaxy in one small corner of the universe.
As for the universe coming from nothing, why not? Maybe there are universes popping into existance all over the void.
again you didn't answer my question! you find the thought that substance coming from the void is logical and scientific. smh. but the idea of a God popping that universe illogical.
I'm still not clear what your question was.
There's all the evidence in the universe that the universe happened, but there's no evidence of any kind of intelligence or higher being being involved.
A given radioactive particle will decay at some as yet unknowable time, there's no reason to believe there's a demon in every atom with a stopwatch!
Alright: the big bang theory practically says: void (nothing) turns into universe (something) I don't know how many nature laws it broke with that theory. Do you see now how irrational it is?
Science can't tell you wether God exist or not, that's not its work, science explains how the univers works, in other words nature Laws, not why those nature Laws, and you use that science to explain matters that are out of its field of work. That is not how rationalmind works.
For example, Newtonian gravity is all that is needed for space probes to arrive at the desired location after years of travel.
@slatyb Not that newtonian gravity is lacking, but it follows certain conditions to apply.
Science can't tell you God doesn't exist, true, but it can tell you there was never a global flood, the Earth wasn't created in six days, prayer has no effect if the person being prayed for doesn't know about it, humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes, lightning isn't the wrath of a God, and so on and so forth.
As for how many nature laws the big bang broke, maybe none. What if conservation of energy is fine as long as an anti-universe with time travelling in the other direction was created at the same time as ours?
Right now you are quoting for me what the bible tells you is the truth, as I said disproving the bible doesn't disprove God, it can tell you all of that, but what does that have with the existence of God?
About the existence of an antiuniverse, you know that is not rational, why? I know where you take that from: positron, the anti-electron, but even though scientists use it they were not created from the void, they were created from energy.
However the anti-universe was supposedly created from the void too, wich is just illogical.
This is exctly why I started with "Defining exactly what you mean by God would be a good start.".
If you define God as an unknown first cause of the universe that never interacts with it in any detectable way, then OK, there could be that God, but then equally, I'm the God of my farts.
If you say there's a God that has any effect on the universe, that can be disproved.
you have been trying to show that my definition of God doesn't exist by disproving the bible. I don't believe in the bible, and if I believed in a religion or not doesn't mean I will not believe in God. Those as I repeated times again and again are two separate matters.
How would you disprove God has any effect on creating the universe? please do so, because up till now you have been telling me theories that even the scientific community hasn't agreed on.
Why don't you start by making a claim about how God does affect the universe?
Remember, I asked you to give any examples of where God used his infinite power, right back at the beginning of this conversation.
Your answer was "Creating the universe. Creating humans ". The latter was evolution, the former was the big bang, neither need an "[e]ntity with infinite knowledge and power", any more than a bubble needs a person to burst it.
evolution and big bang are NOT LAWS they are THEORIES that LACK, thus even the SCIENTIFIC community haven't agreed on. I've showed you where the big loopholes are. I'm not going to be running in circles.
My claim that God exist is that the universe that the big bang theory tried to explain can't come out of the void, thus the need of a infinite power that doesn't follow the nature laws. One that breaks every nature law we know since creating the universe does.
Creating the universe just like that is like telling me that a lap top with its intricated design was created like that because it can work without the input of its creator. The lap top you are using right now, you believe someone created it without having any tangible evidence. Why? because it's logical for something to exist for someone to create it, yet you find mind boggling that the universe was created.
I'll be happy to address the rest of your post in a while, but first: How do you know the universe couldn't come out of the void?
If a god did create all out of nothing, who or what created that God? How?
The only supernatural power believers accept besides God is Satan.
Thus God may have been created by Satan.
1- because if we follow science: void can't give you substance. It's the first lawsof science we were taught of when we were still i middle school: matter---- matter nothing comes from the void. it's the kind of thinking that was a big step into the revolution of science. If you tell me, void can give you matter, then you are as far from science as you can be.
2- it's illogical for nothing to bring soemothing whithout the need of science to confirm it.
So you're saying scientists are wrong about evolution and the big bang because teachers are right about "void can't give you substance".
Isn't it possible that the teachers were giving you the generally applicable law, and leaving out the strange things that happen at immense pressure and temperatures?
Like telling students about Newton's law of gravity, knowing it's not completely right, but also knowing it's pointless to start with relativity in middle school.
I've majored in highschool in mathematic and physics, I know when the newtonian law is applayable and when not.
If you are honestly telling me that the void can give you matter, then sorry I will stop here. I've come here for a rational discussion, if you start attacking Laws because it doesn't suit your needs. then do so. I'm not going to. smh
OK, I read about that a little, and it seems that science is sticking with the conservation of energy. OK, fine.
The current explanation is that "the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy."
bigthink.com/.../can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing
en.wikipedia.org/.../Nothing_comes_from_nothing
I've read the article. It was pretty interisting. The thing they are talking about is close to the truth but not 100%. How so? the theory they are using is from my meager knowledge is close to the creation of positron. You know when their is a nuclear fission, sometimes you get positrons.
positrons have a short span, and are immediatly nullified by electrons. however for the pair positron-electron to exist, there is a need of an energy to sustain it. the one that comes from neutron. that pair that are nullifying each other aren't brought out by nothing even though they equal to zero.
Hawking radiation is when that happens but one of the particles is sucked into a black hole, isn't it?
Well, they didn't put a reation between the pair positron-electron and black holes as far as I know. It was mearly normal nullification
Anyway, the point is that there could be a naturalistic explanation (colliding universes, or whatever), which means there's no need (proof) for a God.
The argument against evolution is even weaker; the theory was proposed 100 years before DNA was discovered to be the mechanism by which it worked and 150 years before it became cheap and easy to sequence it, at which point it became evident that the family trees developed by cruder methods were a very close match.
I told you why I don't accept it, and why many scientists don't. Even though as I gave you a small example of the pair positron-electron that equal to zero, for that pair to create there is need of energy.
Moreover, there was nothing brought to the table by that scientist other than whishful thinking and an attempt to explain the big bang theory.
But you're not arguing for energy, you're arguing for intelligence.
Intelligence has been found not to be needed for natural phenomena like lightning, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, etc., why not the beginning of the universe, too?
How could intelligence be not needed in creating the universe? this is illogical.
We need intelligence to understand the universe that was ceated with no intelligence
Why would intelligence be needed? A cow doesn't need to understand anything to produce methane. Yeast doesn't need to understand anything to produce carbon dioxide.
Then let me give you this example: a machine is perfectly working alone and does all the steps without the interferance of a human doesn't mean there is no creator for it.
Then why is the universe and not another way? why is the gravity law dependant on mass and not on other pramaters? why do the solar systems work in a certain fashion? why do we need oxygen to survive and not be dependant on another gaz to survive? why need a gaz to survive? why not be created in another manner altogother? why am I a human and not a dog or cat? why are we designed to eat grass to grow and not rocks?
there are tons of other ways for the universe to exist, why choosing this certain plan instead of another?
you see behind these why a choice for the world to work a certain way and not another, and behind a choice there is a perpatrator.
If you were a dog, cat, or a rock, you wouldn't be able to ask the question.
The problem with your thinking is that you think the universe was designed for us, rather than we have evolved to fit the universe we live in.
Douglas Adams illustrated it this way:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
I didn't say it was made to fit me in it. I said it was made a certain way instead of another. why me bing a rock means that I'm not a rock that means the universe was designed for me.
The universe was designed a certain manner, not another one. There are millions of possibilites for the universe to be designed as, yet this one was CHOSEN for this universe, not another one.
that's why it's a choice as I said. and when there is choice there someone who made the choice
This universe has a few billion intelligent carbon-based life forms, that we know of.
"The universe was designed a certain manner, not another one. There are millions of possibilites for the universe to be designed as, yet this one was CHOSEN for this universe, not another one."
But if there are billions of universes, of billions of galaxies of hundreds of billions of stars, perhaps we live in the only one where physical laws and elements combined in such a way as to produce things that can ask the question? Like the puddle.
why do we live in this one? why was this universe like this instead of its peer univereses? why does this universe exist at all and just be one universe? why different universes?
"why do we live in this one?"
Possibly because we couldn't live in another one. Like the puddle couldn't live on a hill.
It's not a bad thing, at least we get to live and have conversations on g@g!
But we could be designed in a different manner so that we could survive on other ones.
Why at all do we exist? why couldn't we not exist? why couldn't we not be born?
"One fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer." (Italian proverb. But it exists in other languages too)
Why is ___?
@jacquesvol So you are basically calling me a fool, because you don't the answer to those questions.
Alright! Bye! it was interisting talking to you.
We weren't born on any other planet in this universe, let alone any other. This is where we fit, and we should try to make the best of it we can while we're here.
We're here for a finite time, but we can try to make the experience for us and everyone else as good as it can be. That's as good as it gets. Have people miss you when you're gone, not pleased to see you go!
yes? but why? why are we obliged to go through this experience just to die?
why isn't our life span shorter like a cat or longer like a thousand years? why do we die at all?
you are just telling me to accept it as it is. Isn't that what you accuse radical religious people of doing?
I don't know if there is a why, but I know my life is better for knowing my parents, my siblings, and most other people I've met over 50 years. We can be here for each other (and the best people from religions are, too), without having to fear divine retribution or hope for heaven. Just to know you've helped someone get through their life, or make it better in some way is reward enough, for me.
then you are telling me you chose being an atheist because of fear of retribution, not because it's the truth.
and you are deflecting my argument, those why means that there is a choice.
Retribution from something I don't belive in? No. I like making people feel good, that's all. If everybody would be like that, wouldn't it be a nice place to live?
Well you told me you chose that you didn't consider those 'why' because there in no notion of retribution behind their answer.
If you don't want your answer, then do so, but know that you are close minded too, because it's easier.
Again you didn't answer the point I made.
Radical religious people tell you they know why everything happens, and you should spend your time and money doing what they want. I say, nobody knows why anything happens, just get on with it and make sombody's life better, and hope someone else does the same to you.
radical believers tell you to accept something because nobody knows the why, so do so and get on with your life with those beliefs.
Surely the "why" is "because God wants it"?
yes..
You wrote "They lump all other religions under Christianism’s beliefs"
Islam is part of the same Abrahamic family. Jesus is mentioned more times in the Quran than Muhammad.
@jacquesvol Here is what muslim believe:
- there are other religions, tons of them
- but they all pray to the same God, because all their prophets were sent by God to deliver his message.
- However it's one religion at the end: The prophet shortly before his death said that I completed the message ( the one that God has been sending through his numerous prophets)
However, the miracle of a holy book was only given to the last prophet, because it's the only one that writes down what God said and didn't.
- The bible was written by people who ATTEMPTED to kill Jesus and gave it an excuse. that's why their book according to muslims is wrong. In addition, to the fact that it was written hundreds of years later.
@Mi2mi2a "this is what muslim believe___"
That's only for people of the book. Not for other religions. Judaism and Christianity thus.
This was not bad until the end, at which point it became floating poo, ready to be flushed. It's an example of logical bait-and-switch, where several apparently (apparently) reasonable statements lead up to a pile of dog doo that we are expected to eat, because the previous courses were at least somewhat tasty.
The real conclusion is that, using strict logic, no decision is fully supportable by strict logic. Thus, we are left with classical skepticism, to say "There is insufficient evidence to accept" and go no further.
Alright! where lays the fault in my last logic?
Logic does not prove that God exists. The fact that you cannot comprehend how "something" came from "nothing" in cosmogenesis doesn't mean that it's impossible. It just means your mind is limited.
It's just like Kant argued that it is impossible for more than three dimensions to exist because HE couldn't imagine a space with more than three dimensions. He made the limits of HIS mind into the limits of the universe.
https://i.imgur.com/s32HuMy.jpg
@Mi2mi2a s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...8684893262.jpg
You are completely missing the point of everything atheism stands for
I have never once claimed God does not exist. The truth is nobody knows and feel no desire to believe in something with ZERO proof behind it just to justify my lack of understanding of the life and the universe
And anyway, which god are we talking about? That’s the other issue I have with religion/theism
Which one is right?
So you are telling me that as an atheist, you may believe God exists. What kind of proof do you need? tangible? You are using against something spiritual something materialistic! Alright!
Then as a skeptic, why do you work on the angle that God doesn't exist, why don't you try to serach for proof that exist?
Proof is proof. Tangible, repeatable evidence. I don’t know what it would look like because there is none.
I don’t have any angle, I simply don’t care whether any god (s) exist or not
Why don’t I look? Many people much smarter than me have been doing that for a very long time and come up empty handed
Can you prove to me that kindness exist?
Kindness is a concept, how is that relevant?
Kindness isn't a concept, it's a qulity. But can science prove kindness with a tangible evidence?
Humor me.
"Many people much smarter than me have been doing that for a very long time and come up empty handed."
And this is why: "I don’t know what it would look like".
Faith isn't the exact same to any two people. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that such proof does exist, but we have merely overlooked it because it didn't fit the ideal image we held in its regard. But either way, this still means that it hasn't actually been "found". Just wanted to share my two cents on this extremely relevant point.
you are agnostic then
Kindness is an act, or a thought. So no science can't prove kindness. Still don't see how this is relevant
Personally I think "faith" is naïve and juvenile. I deal in what I can see, touch or hear.
Agnostic or atheist, never cared to label my beliefs ( or more specifically lack thereof)
The point I a reject empty claims
however as science can't prove kindness exist, but we believe in it. Do you ask yourself why?
If you're insinuating god is an idea or thought, than absolutely I agree with you.
No, I'm not :D
I'm just insinuating that there are things in the world that science doesn't prove. That means look for other methods
and as Goochbeaker said. You are not atheist, you are agnostic. Someone who neither believes God exists or doesn't because there isn't proof yet.
An idea (kindness) is proven simply by existing. And there are things we know exist but science cannot currently explain, that is completely different than claiming something exists and the proof is that science can't disprove it. And what methods other than proof?
Again, whatever. Don't care
i didn't say the proof of God existing is the incapabilty of science not being able to disprove it, now, did I?
The quality of kindness existing isn't just because it exists, it is because there are consequences of it. For every kind act, kindness is proven to exist, now why don't you see if that logic works on the existence of God?
You're teetering on agnosticism. Atheism is absence of belief in a supreme being. That's it.
Why not? Because it is not the same. Like I said, kindness is an act or idea.
If you were trying to suggest god as an idea then that logic does apply, but otherwise does not.
@Mi2mi2a http://i.imgur.com/f599uEd.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RxsNOJq.jpg
@jacquesvol why are you deflecting my argument? We have shown before that sciece can't prove everything, so why are you still fixated on it?
Once a method is faillable, you should look for another. and science isn't the only method for logical thinking. As I said before, God existing has a consequence to it. so what are the consequences of God existing?
and let's take, that I as a person who has never seen aliens, and that science can't prove its existence, if we take the same logic to aliens existing, what is the consequence of aliens existing.
About God, it's simple, it's the creation of this universe that humans are boggled at.
about aliens, there are no consequenses to their existence.
Mi2mi2a The burden of proof is upon those who advance gods exist. Believers thus. It's no up to atheists to disprove you.
@jacquesvol how in the hell does that comment bring any help to the conversation? is that your new argument that I see you have been adding to threads?
If you want to be part of a conversation, bring something to it, and answer my last response, don't jump from one matter to the other with no rational order.
@Mi2mi2a inverting the burden of proof is the basic flaw in your take, I already said it in other words.
http://i.imgur.com/3VA6YCB.png
@jacquesvol who are you talking to? yourself or me?
I got tired of you honestly, as I see you popping in every thread, I'm sure you have been convinced before that the burden of proof lies on both who claim God exists or doesn't exist not on the one who claim neither.
I'm not going to be running in circles. You want rational thinking, answer my last response. Adding that image that some atheist you follow brings nothing to the table.
@Mi2mi2a the burden of proof lies on who claims an existence
@Mi2mi2a
But you and other believers flash your idea here adding "If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right."
That's your fallacy. I can do the same about the FSM.
"How would you disprove God has any effect on creating the universe? please do so, because up till now you have been telling me theories that even the scientific community hasn't agreed on." That supposes an unproven god. Another logical fallacy.
https://i.imgur.com/Zzw3sZI.jpg
@jacquesvol I've proved wrong what spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
You chose not to answer because as I said you are not talking to me, you are talking to yourself, if you want to keep this discussion, answer my last response about why that spaghetti monster not existing.
If you are not, that is no rational disussion, and as I said I'm not going to be running in circles.
@jacquesvol Did you read my last response? really? did you?
It was not becasue those theories are lacking that God exists. Read my logic please before answering, my last response on this thread was another one. I see that you are trying to get away of answering the response to your spaghetti monster. When you do so is when I'm going to answer you.
I'mnot going to jump from an argument to another as a way of getting away of having a rational discussion, so that your arguments won't be proved wrong. It's when your argument is either proved wrong or right, that I'm going to keep the discussion. If you are not willing to, I'm not going to beat my head over an irrational discussion.
Mi2mi2a You posted nothing disproving the FSM
@Mi2mi2a It would be easy to replace the word God by 'Aliens' in your take.
"If you can't prove Aliens don't exist, the universe must have been created by Aliens."
I dont give two ducks you pray to your sky daddy. I care when it affects politics. Also, perfect opportunity to use my atheism memes. Everybody is an atheist for at least one god. I would imagine you dont believe in Odin? Some of us just take it one god further.
No believer yet was able to prove his god exists.
By the way, do you believe in
http://i.imgur.com/7czUHfp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ME6O9NG.gif
What the hell? Are you expecting from me to be able to read that?
Is atheism really science based? From my opinion I think no they just don't believe in God but I don't think because of science or what do you think about it? Despite proving god exists or not that's not my question
No atheist yet has proven God doesn't exist. Their hypothesis has performed the exact same number of iterations at testing their hypothesis as the religions on your list... zero.
A theory can never be proven true. It can only be disproven. Neither atheism or theism graduate to tested hypothesis. We can't even design the experiment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
You're stuck having faith whether you like it or not.
Click on it and it becomes bigger
i.pinimg.com/.../...988ad1510b491a184d55cb759a.jpg
Stuck.
@love_conquers_lust The people who advance there is a god have to prove it.
Or just prove me there isn't an orange all knowing crocodile on Alpha Centaurus.
cfr. Russell's teakettle.
Stuck. "The people who advance there is a god have to prove it." I don't serve you. I'm not obligated to spoon feed you. You're the elder, prove it yourself old-timer. You should have grown out of this by now. How about "The people who advance there is no god have to prove it or the people who deny there is a god have to disprove it " Theories can never be proven true. Neither graduates to theory from hypothesis. The best you got is suspicion. Practically, there's more use in the incentives to unraveling a mystery than resigning to futility.
What exists beyond the particle horizon? Who or what set the stage for the big bang? Why is it that we can't sink in a deterministic existence? Why?
the evidence to God existing is right in front of your eyes. Once you become a scientist you see how much this universe is complicated yet works perfectly, and you think coincidence made that? that's the most illogical thing that can be said.
Are you so important that God as a supreme being we will be like insects in front of him, would come to you and say 'Hi! I exist!'
and again that is totally not the work of a scientific mind, if photons exist they are doing a poor job of showing it! That would have been the same thing that a person would say before proving that photons exist through a lot of scientific experiments.
then that means photons don't exist
Nobody says photons have magical qualities (like believers say about their gods)
The first rule of an atheist: If god exists he must follow the nature laws he created. He created this planet you are living on, and you are telling me he will be under the same influence as what he created?
the nature laws don't include miracles attributed to gods. This proves that religion isn't more than faith.
miracles is breaking the nature laws, God as the existence that created the nature laws is able to break it.
"Nobody says photons have magical qualities (like believers say about their gods)" Sheeeyat. Have you ever seen a photon? You mind explaining the double slit experiment to me and why the act of observing collapses the wave function into a particle? Quantum entanglement suggests faster than light speed travel in a given frame of reference is possible. What's up with that? What is the right hand rule and why do electromagnetic fields tend to exert forces orthagonally?
"religion isn't more than faith." Very gooooood.
@love_conquers_lust There's no "why" with fundamental particles. There's only the theory (Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED) that predicts the behavior or photons and electrons. QED is really amazing, it explains almost everything humans experience except gravity. No, particles don't behave like macroscopic objects. That doesn't make them magic.
@love_conquers_lust The difference is that science works -- it makes predictions that come true. If those predictions fail, then the theory is corrected. Religious claims are untestable. If a religious claim is testable (e. g. repeated predictions of the end of the world), it is wrong.
@slatyb science is as far from predictions as it can go.
That's the first flaw in your thinking, if science can predict, why would they get meteo predictions wrong? why would they get that behaviour of electrons wrong?
Science doesn't predict, it explains how the universe works, and tries to make innovations based on those Laws, but it is still lacking.
So don't tell me about predictions when science gets wrong in itself?
Science is now very well able to predict the behavior of electrons and photons. There is a beautiful theory called "Quantum Electrodynamics" that explains every observed behavior of electrons and photons.
We cannot predict the weather infinitely far in advance because it's a chaotic phenomenon. Small changes in initial conditions over times lead to large changes in future weather. We do an amazing job of predicting the weather over a week or so.
@slatyb I'm aware of predictability. With each theory we unfold, it paradoxically undermines free will. Predictability is empowering in a secular sense and disempowering in a spiritual one. Fate vs. free will. Determinism is great if you like where you are headed, not so great if you don't. Which presents another paradox, how can you know your future unless it isn't fixed?
I think the question of "why?" is the catalyst, the starter fuel. Answering that with a deterministic "because science says so" is no better than "because God said so". To me, both beliefs sets should be answering with "figure it out".
Atheism word derives from ancient Greek, the word originally means ἀ- (a-, “without”) + θεός (theós, “deity, god”) which defines a belief that no god exists, this is totally not related to science and science is totally not related to atheism, hence I don't see the point of your topic.
the point is that the chief argument atheist use is science.
Many congregations try to take one argument as their own, that doesn't mean it is related to them by definition, see nazism and the aryan argument as example
I'm not going to write a book about the possible arguments that atheist use. myTake was about the chief argument aka science they use. it's not about the other kind of arguments.
Yeah it's just not a big deal if they take avail of the science to sustain their arguments, as it is not a big deal if Christians do the same, science is vast and it can help everyone
but science doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God! Did you read mytake?
So you are telling me, they use science while knowing that it's just a farce as much as catholic.
Exactly, science doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, that is why both can use it, to manipulate the quibbles of science to support their cause
Well then we are on the same page. LOL. I don't know what we are fighting about.
I wasn't thinking that we are fighting, just discussing politely 🙂
we are discussing politely. LOL fighting about a notion, didn't mean fighting between each other.
Some things can be tricky 🙂
Exactly, science doesn't prove or disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or of the Invisible Pink Unicorn., that is whyall can use it, to manipulate the quibbles of science to support their cause
The issue here is not if God exist or not, the issue has always been those fucking assholes fanatics (religious and atheist) that tries to wash your brain with their belief instead of keeping it cool and let other believe what they want. To them I say FUCK YOU!
I guest I went to far x P
"Logic actually proves God exists"
https://i.imgur.com/5SThkYR.gif
If Atheism is the opposit from Christians or from believe in god is Atheism then not the same as Satanism? Just wondering. Perhaps Atheism is a cover up for Satanism to make it legal and allowed and accepted and that way the snake is try to break through to be accepted as a snake that crawls and try to find a legal accepted way by the law.
Kind of like how the Crusades made it okay for Christians to murder people en mass?
"Logic actually proves God exists" media.tenor.com/.../tenor.gif
You're wrong on so many levels I didn't even finish reading.
https://youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuEhttps://youtu.be/h6omFJhKr6oDo you think mankind is humble enough that they'd create the idea of God of their own volition? I agree that a majority of gods do not exist and are man made creations... but the idea of "God" did not come from man. Mankind are not the sorts to simply come up with the idea of an all powerful being to whom they can devote their life. We are far too arrogant for something like that. You could obviously say "well the idea of God exists so obviously we did." I'd just say it's evidence that there is at least one God who exists, which God that is... well everyone knows how heatedly that's debated but none the less... either one person is correct, or everyone is wrong because the all powerful being who created the universe apparently couldn't maintain a following because somehow He couldn't subdue somewhat pitiful humans to Himself... that's more illogical than saying that there is at least one religion that worships a true God.
@EpicDweeb No.
d.justpo.st/.../...ill-read-all-day-1432161703.jpg
Stopped reading because you are just wrong. About all but one point. Science as we know it today was in fact developed and refined to what it is now by religious people, and many scientists today are religious. I'll give you that one. Try talking to more than a handful of atheists and don't rely solely on the internet and cartoons.
what did I say? telling me I'm wrong because you supposedly know better.
I'm not talking to a handful atheist, I'm reading their reasoning through articles, or listening to it on TV or the radio.
https://i.imgur.com/5OdfP4v.jpg
@jacquesvol :D why are you evading the question? did I say a specific God is real? it's the existence of God no matter your image on it wish is real.
You know what is commmon about all these people through time? they all believe God exist, they just don't know what is his form. At least they are closer to the truth.
I posted a list of hundreds of gods, asking you in which ones you believe. I got no answer.
What makes YOUR god more worthy of belief than the moon goddess or Apollo or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl or Baal or Mammon or Shiva or or Odin or all other gods mankind invented?
@jacquesvol Did you read what I said, or as I said you are evading the question.
Do I need to rewrite it, right now we are not discussing wich image of God is real, we are discussing wether there is an actual supreme being aka 'God'
And again, those people who believed in didfferent images of 'God' all have one point in common which is believing that there is a supreme being, they differ in its image. And as I said they are closer to the truth.
As an atheist you are not agaisnt a particular God image, you are against the existence of God. So don't evade the true matter discussed here
@jacquesvol nothing, but I still praise God for the Holy roman Catholic Church. I'm thankful for these institutions that have survived wars plague, feudalism, fascism, and any other kind of evil. Community is standing side by side with others knowing you are welcome and safe. No other institutions on the planet can do such a task.
"Logic actually proves God exists"
2.bp.blogspot.com/.../bert+ernie+gif.gif
Are you fucking denying my Lord and savior?
@Tohhru No. I accept him as my Lord and Savior
@ct_cd get on your knees and pray to God for forgiveness. Then when you're done stay on your knees and suck my dick
@Tohhru I will
The problem with this take is that you talk about atheists as if they follow another belief , atheism is the lack of belief and not many atheists are atheists because of scientific reasons , I think you wanted to talk about scientology maybe
No. an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God, an agnostic is someone with a lack of belief in God.
I focused on science because that's their main form of argument.
Nope an agnostic is someone who is still not sure about whether to believe in God or not
Doesn't believe in God is like a lack of belief in God they only would be used in different sentences
I think a lack of belief doesn't mean not beieving God. It just has two different nuances to it. But yes agnostic is what you said.
myTake was to tell atheist that say atheism is on par with science that they are wrong. I've heard and read my fair share of atheists aruments, and this was the first argument
They're not " wrong " they just are ignoring some of the knowledge tools , they're not wrong in believing in science because science are facts whether you believe it or not , they just ignore other knowledge tools which eventually lead them to atheism
what I meant by being on par with science is not believing in science, since everybody is convinced with science. I meant is that science is the base of atheism.
And for them to look for a different method to prove atheism, aside from science since it is not working.
It can work with philosophy , but most westerns don't really use philosophy they use what they have which is science
I perfectly agree with you. Phylosophy is the perfect method, since it discusses abstract things that science can't.
It's just we're living in post modernity and it takes the form of radicalism in the middle East and new generation atheism in the west
Atheism is simply stupidity based, which makes brainless idiots believe they're smart, while they're pretty far from it.
Atheism litteraly can not be wrong. It's just not being convinced any gods exist. Even if god was proven to exist tomorrow, im not wrong for being an atheist today.
@Arne123123 Atheists are wrong in so many things, basically as they never look up anything they're told to believe in. That's why they're wrong all the time. They're blind cultists, nothing else. it's not about God or anything, its about that they believe they cannot be wrong, while they're as they're blind dumb fucks.
@Guardian412 You seem a serious case of Dunning-Kruger
@jacquesvol Actually its called experience what I have, has nothing to do with Dunning-Kruger. I've worked in various fields, has the CV of about 12 pages, that's where the knowledge is coming from. I simply love to learn and try many things and gather experience IRL. That's how pros born and that's why I'm a pro in various things.
Yet you lack a lot of understanding. Keep your religion for home use instead of insulting people who don't share your creed.
@jacquesvol I don't lack of understanding. You atheists are one of the closed minded guys. Not because you don't believe in anything, but because you strongly believe that whatever stupidity you believe in, that's the universal truth. And when someone disagrees, i. e.: because the actual person has some personal experience, you start a crusade against that person because you guys fear of everything that is beyond your understanding (Which is pretty much everything.). So tell me, who is usually insulting the others? You, guys, as you fear everyone and everything who actually experienced something else than your narrow minded cult.
@Guardian412
Religion is simply stupidity based, which makes brainless idiots believe they're smart, while they're pretty far from it. Just because old books and priests tell them so.
@Guardian412 WHO started the Crusades? WHO started persecution of heretics? Who helped and participated? Believers. Don't throw that on atheists.
@jacquesvol See? You don't have even an original thought as you're trying to use my own words against me. And where did I defend religion? See? You're trying to find an enemy, because your narrow mind can't handle that I've a different thought. And if you don't know history, the real one, you would know that the greatest mass murderers were atheists, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Benito Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, Béla Kun, Mátyás Rákosi, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedung, Leonid Brezhnev, Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, and the list goes on and on. Basically wherever a mass murder has happened, with the casualty rate of over 1 million, usually an atheist was behind it. So don't come with that indoctrinated BS that religious people are mass murderers, because you killed a lot more in the last two centuries than all the religious wars combined before in the past twenty centuries altogether.
Godwin point.
And Cold War propaganda.
Conveniently equating non atheist criminals to atheism and forgetting the religious powers helping the criminals.
@jacquesvol Actually its the truth. Béla Kun and Mátyás Rákosi are both were in my country and they were atheist mass murderers. Its not a propaganda. You're believing in the ideals of true mass murderers. That's the sad fact you narrow minded idiot. As I said before, you atheists never check anything, just believe what you want to believe. And that is making you dumb and narrow minded, the dumbest of all of mankind.
You just assume they were atheists because they were communist. One of them was a believer
@jacquesvol Actually communists ARE atheists, so as nowadays liberals. I was born in communism and I know what they're. Pure atheist pricks. You presumably never met with a communist, only in school text books.
@jacquesvol Just give up, he's cleary far beond reasoning with.
@Guardian412 Don't forget the Hungarian persons you name were all raised in a pre, thus non Communist system in Austria -Hungary. In the last census held in Austria–Hungary before Communism, in 1910, out of the total number of about 7,6 million inhabitants of the territory of present-day Hungary, 62.8% declared themselves Roman Catholic, 22.4% Calvinist, 6.6% Lutheran, 6.2% Jewish, and 2.1% Greek Catholic.
Thus the persons you name for Hungaria had a religious background. Same for the others in other countries.
source: en.wikipedia.org/.../History_of_Christianity_in_Hungary
@jacquesvol And each were atheists, so don't come with pure BS in the hope that you'll be right. You're part of a mass murderer cult, get used to this fact. You're also a fanatic prick, its clearly visible. You hate religion, because you hate everyone who doesn't believe in that non-sense stupidity you prick want to believe in so much. And you're clearly proving it with every single response. You're a fanatic cultist, a zealot, nothing less, nothing more, acting worse than most of the religious people out there.
@jacquesvol P. S.: You also born into a religious country, yet you're a fanatic atheist prick, so your point regardless what background the actual country had has no value at all as you're the living example for it. As I said, atheism is stupidity based and has no logical values at all. You're the prime example, as you're trying to prove something with points, while you also has the very same points in your pathetic life. Let's just say it, you're a stupid old prick, who hates everyone who isn't that stupid as he is. And frankly, you don't need much to be smarter than you, so you hate most of the people pretty much because of it. :)
Do you think your insults say something? THEY SAY A LOT. About you.
Nothing about me.
@jacquesvol Actually do you know what they say? That I don't like you. And you gave me no reason to like you at all, so what's the deal? Nothing. You're a big mouthed atheist idiot, who is dumb as hell, and you proved that with each of your answers, and with it, you also proved my point. My answers prove one thing; that regardless what stupidity you believe in, regardless what stupidity you want to sell, I don't buy it, because I'm not that stupid as you.
He's pretty delucional, atheism is just not being convinced a god exist. Anything else has nothing to do with atheism. It makes no claims about anything. Has no books, tenants or dogma. If someone an atheist run out an kill people it's not in the name of atheism, following some atheist text, but some other crazy shit he also happened to belive. And when you start with this stupid "communists are all atheist" that's just not true. I can tell just from that, that you are a brainwashed American. Communism is a way to run a country, it say's nothing about what you belive in the matter of god. What is a communist anyway? someone who lives in a communist county? Even of they are for or against it? You just have no understanding of how things work.
But by all means, stay in america where there are plenty more of your close minded brainwashed kind. I will luckely never meet you.
@Arne123123 Another deflection. Actually yes, atheists are usually commies. That's the fact. Okay, lately those jerks call themselves as liberals, but basically its the very same in the 21st century. And if you've ever lived in a country which ran by commies, you would know that what you said is the ultimate stupidity as they exactly doing what you've tried to deny. This is the difference between a dumb atheist who doesn't have any experience in any matter, but read things only in books, and someone like me, who actually has plenty experience regarding commies and dumb fanatic atheists.
as they exactly doing what you've tried to deny. What are they doing?
What is you definition of a communist? Since i have no idea how you can say it's a fact most atheists are communists.
@Arne123123 Its not about definition, its about how they live. This is the only thing you can come up with; what is the definition? This is what about I'm talking. It's not about definition, its about how they actually act and live. You may try to hide behind definitions, you moron, but if you don't have a fucking clue what about you're talking, than don't open your mouth. Commies ARE atheist, regardless what your atheist pamphlet says. Where from I know this? Because I was born and lived among commies. This is called personal experience, what you don't have at all, but hiding behind textbook definitions in the hope that it will save you in this debate. Bad news, it won't.
Im trying to understand what the hell you mean when you use the word communist. But i guess you just another middle aged brainwashed American using it about everything you don't like or understand. Oh really? So where did you grow up? Because every single thing you say tell me you are from the south of usa and was brainwashed at your local church there.
@Arne123123 You don't want to underestand it, as if you would want to, you would use Google to look after its definition instead of asking me. You're just trying to find a fucking excuse to cover your incompetence in this debate. And this is how commies work, so as atheists. Thank you for proving my point. Oh, and I'm not American. I'm a Hungarian, living in the U. S.
I have a understanding of what communism is, and i can look up the definition. What im saying is you seem to be using it different. And instead of saying you are wrong and an close minded imbicil like you do in every comment, i ask what you mean when you use the word, since we apperently use it very different. But since you refuse to answer or explain anything it's rader pointsless talking to you.
Just a tip by the way you come off as very rude , ignorant and stupid, but i guess you don't care.
All i said was to me the lable atheist mean, someone who have not been convinced a god exist. And you can say that's wrong and spew all the commies this and cultists that, but it's not really true or relevant. Good day
@Arne123123 No kid, you don't have a fucking clue about what communism is, until you live in it. That's what I'm telling you. You don't have a fucking experience in this matter, but read just a distorted definition, and then you believe you're some sort of expert in this matter, while you're just a big mouthed amateur who knows nothing about the real world. This is what I'm telling since the beginning that you idiots are hiding behind "definitions", and by reading them you know you believe you know anything, while in the reality you know nothing and doesn't have any experience about anything in the reality. Thank you for proving my point, you retard.
So yet again, instead of addressing any of the 4 points i made you go on for the 5th time to say you mean somthing else when you say communism and still refuse to say what...
@Guardian412 How old were you when you left Hungary?
It's an accepted fact that religious faith is negatively correlated with measured intelligence.
@jacquesvol Twenty. Why?
@slatyb Intelligence has nothing to do with religious faith. Its only an atheist belief as that's the reason they're believing they're smart, while the IQ of their majority is barely reaching 120. I've 150+ and I was raised as a religious. Religion, belief has zero connection to intelligence. Its only an atheist myth what they created for themselves, just as the commies did where they said, if you're not religious, you're a good, smart commie. Basically its the very same.
Don't belive for half a second you have an IQ above 90, you sound like a retard. And for some reason are fixated on communism. And the fact is atheists have higher IQ on average in every test ever done, don't see how that would be "only an atheist myth what they created for themselves, just as the commies "
@Arne123123 I'm not fixated with communism, but I recognize a commie asshole when I meet with one. And you and your atheist pals are commies. The problem is that you're dumb, you believe in a fanatic cult's fiction, and what is worse, you don't even realize it. Well, you have to live this fucked up life, not me, so its enough punishment for you for a lifetime. :)
@Guardian412 I'd be very wrong if you liked me. Go vote for Jobbik
@Guardian412 Thus Communism was gone for years when you left Hungary and you knew it when you were still learning to read and write.
@jacquesvol Why should I vote for Jobbik? See? Another propaganda what you swallow as you don't know anything about the real world. Why? Because you're just a dumb maniac who lives his life on the internet and believes he is smart, while in the reality you're just an indoctrinated dumb idiot. Oh, and communism left my country truly only in 2010, as we needed to sweep your commie friends out from every corner of my country. So once again, don't open your mouth if you don't have real knowledge behind you (As you clearly know nothing.)
@Guardian412 "we needed to sweep your commie friends out from every corner of my country." That sounds very much like a witch hunt.
@jacquesvol Its not a witch hunt. We simply threw the trash out of the country. You're a similar genetic trash, so you call it as a witch hunt, because we kicked your trash kind out. Our side calls it a lovely spring cleaning.
@Guardian412 ech time you insult you prove you're lacking arguments
The problem is, i don't think i fit your defenition of communist or atheist. But since you only want to argue the words and not tell me what you mean by them, this is rader pointless. "you believe in a fanatic cult's fiction, and what is worse, you don't even realize it." and i have asked several times what you think i belive, but you refuse to define anything or address anything i say, so you are clairly to stupid to discuss anything with.
@Arne123123 The problem is, no one give a flying fuck about what you think and what you believe regarding the definition. If you don't have any experience in real life matters, don't open your mouth. Thank you very much.
@jacquesvol I'm not lacking any arguments, I simply hate stupid, dumb pricks who believe that being an atheist is a group of noble saints, while in the reality they're one of the most selfish people on the planet, and among them, there are plenty mass murderers who killed millions. You're a delusional old prick who don't have a fucking clue about what you or your people are representing, because some idiot filled with delusional thoughts somewhere in the past.
@Guardian412 You 'knew' Communism in elementary school. Great knowledge. :D The rest is hearsay and propaganda.
@Guardian412
www.bruceonpolitics.com/.../...onal-attack-650.jpg
@jacquesvol Kid. At least I know something about communism as I lived in it. What about you? You know nothing as you're living in a fucked up illusion, like every other atheist do, whom believe they know everything, while in the reality they know squat.
@jacquesvol I don't need a political argument to tell you, you're a dumb fanatic atheist, who knows nothing about the real world. If linking pictures is your only argument left, that means I'm right from the beginning to the end, and you're also aware of it.
@Guardian412 I link to pics to make it easier for you.
@jacquesvol No. You're linking pictures, because you don't have even an original thought and you need help to keep up with me.
Uhh.. I don't worship any humans. My fangirl days are over.
I'm not talking about what you think and what another individual thinks, since you can change your opinion from a day to another. I'm adressing the general opinion, the articles written about why atheism is the truth, about Tv shows and radio. These are made public so their stances won't be changed based on their whims.
It seems to me, the most vocal are converts. Maybe they've lost their religion, but they haven't lost their learnt habit to proselytize yet.