How did you decide upon a religion or philosophy to practice and live by?

How did you decide upon a religion or philosophy to practice and live by?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4526v4.pdf
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=exist definition
ahalmaas.com/glossary/objective-reality
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I read books, talked to people, decided it was all bullshit, and became Atheist

I felt Christianity was the closest I was going to get to chilling with a God Emperor.

I'll save you the time of sorting through the bullshit. Go with stoicism.

used to be atheist but I refuted it with logic and became agnostic, then I had a mystical experience and became a theist, I did more reading and meditating and realized I need to practice a religion otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.

after father johanson rammed his cock in my mouth on every occasion he could get, i decided to burn his house down and to become a fedora tipper

...

Oh geez. At east explain more about this.

I haven't and won't

i decided to worship my penis
i do the holy ceremony every day

why not cut it off and make an altar of it?

oh thank god you uploaded that picture

...

Its more like I came to my own conclusions and then found a label that was most similar to my beliefs. Also reading, traveling, and trying we things helped.

dude, create your own religion and don't fantasize about mine

There are no gods, we are all just some dumbfucks playing an extremely hard and realistic virtual reality games. We are so addicted we already forgot we are just playing and now we can't get out.

I asked myself the question "Why live?", the answer I got was pleasure

You don't understand what these words mean

why do you say that?
an atheist believes in no god
philosophy tells us you can't be sure if there is a god or no god, but one or the other is true.
this is agnosticism.

I used to not believe in unicorns, but then I refuted it with logic and now I think they could exist.

Atheism means you don't believe in a god. It doesn't mean you believe that a god doesn't exist. Belief is the acceptance of something as being true. It's at about this time you should be realizing that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive, and that most atheists are what you call "agnostics" because the amount of people that legitimately accept as a true statement that "god doesn't exist" is paltry

Philosophy tells us you can't even be sure you aren't a brain in a jar dreaming up this experience we call reality.

I have never met a god and all religions are stupid. Therefore atheism.

Atheist means godless. Agnostic means without knowledge. Those are not mutually exclusive words. Agnostics are a subset of atheists. Atheists and agnostics believe in the exact same number of gods. Zero.

pure solipsism. not believing in god means what exactly, if you accept he may exist? he's there, but full of shit? in that case you are god.

Thanks! I actually learned something from this post.

This isn't true because agnostics are also an inconsequentially small subset of theists


Yep


Nope


Great, time to flood the world

Name one. "Agnostic theist" sounds like a black KKK man.

now you take refuge in semantics to defend absurdity. in the context of this discussion, rather than etymologically, agnostic refers to those who are neither believers nor non-believers.

you don't seem interested in advancing the discussion so much as showing the assembled anons how smart you are. i'll bet you're a freshman with the einstein complex and that you'll fail your finals.

AND HERE WE GO AGAIN

Look out for people who express the sentiment "I don't think anything on earth can prove that god exists, but I believe it in my heart and I have faith"


a middle ground between belief and non-belief doesn't exist. You either do, or you don't

Don't be stupid. Those are basic definitions straight out of the dictionary. Learn greek, nigger.

a = without
theist = gods
gnostic = knowledge


Wrong. Agnostic is not a third position. You either have a god or you do not have a god. It’s that simple.


Look at all of that projection. Pathetic.

you are just making yourself look very foolish now, which is ok, but i object to being taken for dick.

Actually that definition just says that you're skeptical of the existence of a god while professing that you're not an atheist. It doesn't say that you're in between belief and non-belief

you will soon be down to the distinction between knowledge and belief, at which point you will no doubt fall back on a misread of chomsky and a false quote from kant. i meet kids like you every year in lectures. cancer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

It's possible to believe that a certain thing is unknowable or unknown but accept it as true anyways. It'd be a retarded thing to do, but religion is also retarded

Are you a so called "theologist"? No wonder you are full of shit. How many gods have you met?

Studying the lives of the best people in each religion, comparing them and seeing who is more worth following the example.

qe fucking d. go on and tell me that lacan has the answer.

i'm actually an atheist who believes that there is no incontrovertable proof of god's existence and that impossibility satisfies me personally. there is nobody up there, imo, but it's impossible to prove either way.

no

You don't know how that word's spelled

If gods existed, then it would be easy to prove. If Thor fought Loki in the middle of Times Square, then everyone would know.

I was raised and still live in a mellow Christian household, so I have a bias towards this faith. However, we can use logic to determine if God exists.

First off, has he, she or it bothered to talk or communicate with us at all? The Abrahamic religions do, so let's see how they stack up.

Judaism is still waiting for their saviour that will instill them as top dog in the world. It was meant to be Jesus, but he was the exact opposite of what they wanted, so they're still waiting.

Islam is like some jumbled version of Christianity with a weird focus on sexual stuff. Muhammad claimed to be inspired by an angel.

In Christianity, Jesus claimed to be God. Was he telling the truth, or was he full of shit? Based on how many people were willing to go to death for claiming they had seen him risen from death, it seems like he was the real deal. People die for all sorts of causes, but people do not die -en masse- for something they know to be bullshit or have some doubts over.

If Jesus was God, we can know about the "unknowable" and follow his advice for this life. Believing there is something after death and having an inkling of what it is dramatically alters how you see this life.

lol

It was simply a matter of fact when I saw the argument presented like this:
If one believes in a god, and there is a god. This is good. Assuming you were good you get to go to your heaven
If one believes in a god, and there is not a god. This is good. You lived a good life being a good person, but the heaven thing doesn't turn out well.
If one doesnt believe in a god and there is not a god. No harm no foul.
If one doesnt believe in a god and there IS a god, shit nigga thats eternal damnation.

Then so was Jim Jones. Drink the Kool Aid.

What if god is evil and you get to heaven by doing evil deeds and go to hell by doing good deeds

Can't go wrong with the Stoics.

what if youre just fucking stupid

as if correctly reading that kike is any better

I had interest in science at a young age
So Christianity felt like fucking bullshit as I was still very young so I got atheist

But I still think European Christianism is the least fucked up religion and I would still Deus Vult some muslims whenever the time comes.

...

The summa is there user.

Theist cause logic, then christian because is better than islam or talmudism.

I was once agnostic and just saying that there is a very small chance that there might be a god
But on the other hand if you give a monkey a typewriter he might write every work of Shakespeare exact to the comma

spell, spelled, spelt is how that one goes
dear oh dear
also, (sorry for the typo)

one of the great 20th century minds, kike or not.

...

Aquinas did it you uneducated mule. The proof involved some circular reasoning that doesn't really mean anything, but God in fact can be proven to exist.

u like spelt fuckboi?

No he didn't

Ask Godel.

I don't think you understand what "proof" of God qualifies as. He made a nice argument from reason but its not proof like dropping a ball to prove gravity. Getting upset doesn't change that.

No.

I am an Agnostic Atheist.

If you dont like the answer then move your ass to reddit and cry there you little fag.

Bear with me.
I'm Buddhist. I believe strongly in old-fashioned honor (if you think of crazy neo-viking pagans you see on here every once and a while, you wouldn't be too far off from where I'm at with honor) and I try to devote my time to helping others and bettering life for the most amount of people that I can. I hate socialism because I don't think man can make good use of it, and as such I consider myself to have more right-wing tendency.

I am also not above violence. I believe that someone who has committed atrocities that should earn them death, I'd prefer to take those crimes upon myself and kill them rather than passing those vices upon other men.

If you don't like that your argument is bullshit fuck off to /christian/ m8. Your feels ain't real and neither are those of old dead faggots.

You're right, but you can logically come to the conclusion that God exists even if it's not the Abrahamic God

I mean, sure, but to what end? I think his argument is sound enough that I agree its totally plausible the universe has a single, probably conscious point of origin. Science as of now supports that more or less (maybe not the conscious part but it doesn't necessarily disprove it). I can and do believe in that "God", but that has nothing to do with morality, miracles, visions or mysticism.

And its weird because the more you try and fit the criteria of the Abrahamic God (preconceived apart from all this) the weaker the argument gets. Its not that hard to believe in a distant, eldritch God who created the universe and that's it as far as we can reasonably argue. Everything else begins to get watered down in "leaps of faith" and personal mystical experiences or virtue ethics.

Judaism is probably the easiest one to swallow.

Mescaline and cannabis.

i became a christian after realizing everything else is edgy tryhard bullshit and terrible memes

I started busing Reddit and became an atheist

Serious question, are you retarded?

arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4526v4.pdf

You have lots of "positions", some are


Being the last the more plausible and the first the most illogical, do you like "logic"? then stop being a retarded fedora and i am not using the word "retarded" as an ad hominem, but as a diagnosis, the other probability is that you are lying.

My choice is between Christianity and Buddhism. I like things about both but dunno how to choose.

I'm a gnostic theist.

What if 1+1 = 4 and your eyes are bees? What if atheism isnt pure brain damage?

lol we know that 1 + 1 = 2. We don't know any of god's properties, if he even exists, or any of his criteria for eternal paradise or eternal damnation

...

I know God exists, in fact God is much more *real* than anything you can perceive with your mind or touch with your fingers.

Humans are basically just illusions, you aren't real, your life is so short you are basically dust and dead already. To me only God deserves to be called "existent" everything else is illusory and about decaying into nothingness.

"when the diamond (i.e. lingam aka penis) is connected to the lotus (i.e. yoni aka pussy) in the union of both polarities, one worships the Buddhas and the diamond beings with the drops of one's semen."

Some schools of esoteric Buddhism are based.


"Do not suppress your feelings,
choose whatever you Will,
and do whatever you desire,
for in this way you please the Goddess."

"No one succeeds in attaining perfection
by employing difficult and vexing operations;
but perfection can be gained
by satisfying all ones desires."

are those artifacts from the zone?

I'll do my best to understand and verify the proof in the link, reply where I make a mistake


You can call it an axiom, I call it an assumption that things are inherently positive or negative. Value is subjectively determined as far as we know. So we're assuming consensus values of "positivity" or "desirability"

So with this first axiom it's really saying that properties in objects are "positive", or the absence of that property is positive, but it can never be the case that both the presence and absence of a property is "positive". If I've understood this axiom correctly I can think of some contradictions with it in reality

I like omelettes. I think they're good with vegetables and I think they're good without vegetables. This is a case where the presence and absence of a property are both subjectively positive

by a positive property is positive

Being able to live as a mortal being is positive, but it implies death, which is not positive

Properties that are of majority consensus of being positive can be exemplified, yea


This is a redefinition of "god-like". Nothing about being a god necessarily means you're wholly composed of positive attributes

So at this point we're working with a redefinition of "god-like" and the assumption of inherent positivity as a real thing, which is shaky ground. If we're to assume that being like a god means to have only positive properties, then this necessarily follows


Assumption


Of course

I'm not sure I understand this. A property possessed by an individual that necessarily implies all of its properties? What is an example of this?

Most of those rules and rituals aren't total bullshit. Things like not eating pork and being chaste have benefits to your health. Whether or not God wants you to do those things can devolve into a chicken and egg argument. I'm not defending religion. I'm not even a theist. I was just trying to point out that religion isn't really as crazy as fedoras make it out to be

This is pretty much the main two points of the proof. It's an attempt to define god into existence. If god is all that is positive, and necessary existence is a positive property, then god must exist. This boils down to "god exists because we agree that existing is good and positive", which from where I'm standing is retarded

Well, I am Christian by tradition as it was the religion I am born into. But I also have studied a bit of Zen Buddhism.

Honestly though, even if my family wasn't Christian, Christianity is probably the fucking coolest religion ever.
I mean, what is it about Christianity that is so fucking cool? The images of crucifixes on gravemerkers and Church ornaments, soldiers in war screaming "In the name of Jesus!" Grand cathedrals, folk songs and hymns dating back hundreds of years, some bible verses even sound fucking cool like "Revelation 22:13 …I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.".

Even compared to other religions, Christianity is just so fucking badass

Claiming responsibility for posts with lightning mouse representation

Here we go with the old bullshit train once more.

Your arguments are a shit friend. Fuck off.

AKA, debate me, i am a atheist, but still a lot of time better than this tard:

He is quoting what are you looking for, btw, they needed i7s and lots of time to calculate that.

Lern2argue Google will never be a substitute for making your own point. Make some, you haven't as of yet.

(You).

Sure we can debate, get to work on my posts

Well, my english level is shitty as fuck, so i will try, but first:

Go to bed please.

Now to the point.


properties are, but instead he states a few reasonable (but debatable) axioms that they should
satisfy

This is why, this is "correct":

So basically if we can give an order to things we have that the postion "maybe there is something" is the one more related to our knowledge, even "exists", while the "nothing" is just a belief without basis, my point? are you a true atheist? then is just a belief, the moment you have security in something that you are not sure you have faith and its like founding a guy with a bullet in his nape, the posibility of suicide is real, but the posibility of a guy playing commie is more suitable.

Mother of Christ, just dip my nig. Shitposters gonna shitpost, no matter how seriously you might try and take it. Shit is whack and can't be remedied.

They certainly are debatable because it appears that in the face of my examples in response to A1 and A2 they aren't reasonable or realistic principles. A3 relies upon a definition which isn't necessarily true (D1).


and this is very important, because the concept of "positivity" is essential to the logic of the proof. It's only through the assumption of objective value that this symbolic logic can be valid and this bullshit attempt to realize god can demonstrate actual existence of god. If this proof doesn't have objective positivity to rely on, the only thing it can fall back on is consensus positivity, which is to say what the majority of people agree to be positive and desirable


The specific definition of god in this proof is a being that possesses no "negative" traits and only "positive" traits. Even saying "maybe there is something" is a fallacy because you have to take an agnostic stance on the matter. The properties of such a god aren't necessarily compatible with reality to say that such a god "may be" isn't a statement that's grounded in fact


Belief that a god exists without evidence is just as silly as belief that god doesn't. Both involve the acceptance of ideas as true without evidence. What's not silly is the withholding of the acceptance of either which is what agnostic atheism is


I lack belief in a god's or gods' existence or nonexistence


I am not accepting either as true, therefore it's not a belief

Here's the problem user: This entire proof is resting on A5 to be valid


If this statement isn't necessarily true, this proof is as good as garbage. We don't know if this statement is true, we'd have to know that objective value actually exists and this statement is objectively true. Since we don't know if the statement is objectively true, this proof is garbage by default, and will continue to be until we know that objective value exists which will probably never happen

ya it's pretty cool, except for modern protestantism and their lame churches

when it comes to God, existence is his essence. There's no sense in even entertaining the possibility of God as "non-existent" just like the idea of God as "impotent and weak" it makes no sense, like saying the number 3 is even.

Such words are just gibberish.
It makes sense to ask if dogs or mountains exist, because they are contingent things that attain their existence via causality.

Asking the question "does God exist" simply illustrates your ignorance of what God means or what "to exist" means, or probably both.

Prove it. Lick a wall socket if life is so meaningless to you. Go meet your god.

Look at all that garbage. So called "theology" is such bullshit.

“What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false.

If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?"

Richard Dawkins, The Emptiness of Theology.

illusory =/= meaningless

everything other than God is essentially dead or about to die, a walking shadow.

the meaning of life is seeing the eternal in the illusory, communing with God, and so forth, otherwise you will be destroyed.

oh to be 14 again

You completely failed to refute one word he ever said. Typical sheep.


Grown men that still believe in angels and demons can't call anyone "14".

Top Kek.
A Catholic blacksmith invented the printing press, the very first book they printed in mass was the Bible.
This was in the 1400s, before modern "empirical science" was created (by Christians btw).


theology saves people by giving life meaning, purpose and an ultimate explanation to why we exist. It also teaches people how to manage suffering and pain, how to live with dignity and so forth.

science is like plumbing, it'll fix your toilet and that's useful and nice, but not interesting or useful in the grand scheme of things. science is trivial. Give me a Horse over a car anyway day. technology is a hassle tbh.

see

He did though, are you 14? You didn't say anything about that. You didn't refute the fact that you're 14, so how can you say that he didn't refute anything when you yourself didn't refute anything?

Blacksmiths are not theologists. That inventor is more important than all of your "theologists" combined.


Evolution explained life and human nature.

All theologists did was make up useless garbage like the "uncaused cause" and the "god of the gaps" bullshit. Even most religious people don't take theology seriously.


Get the fuck off the internet, you hypocrite. Throw your computer out the window and become Amish. See how much free time you have to ponder useless theology when you farm by hand.

the point was that printed books weren't invented by "scientists" like that silly Dawkins quote said. It was invented by a devout Catholic who wanted to print Bibles…go figure.


evolution doesn't explain how life originated, it only guesses at how it "changes over time".

And life itself isn't as interesting as our "human life" and more specificly "my life" and "your life" – people want to know why they personally exist at all, for what purpose, who or what, is their source?

Nature is not our source, nature is more like our sister, the water, plants, earth are contingent things, transient things, like our bodies, they can't be our true source.

Science can't approach big questions, interesting questions, it can fix your car and build a bomb but those things hardly add meaning to life or satisfy human curiosity.


that was made by aristotle who wasn't a theologian, but a philosopher, and one of the first "empirical" thinkers proto-scientists…yes even he realized you need some sort of ultimate source, an uncaused cause, a prime mover, otherwise you get an infinite regress which is illogical.


Most religious people don't take their religions seriously, don't develop their minds and spirits at all, they are essentially just religious by name.


it's not really possible because I need it for work and because I live in the city. Maybe if I save enough money to live on a farm…that would be ideal.

whats funny is that this theory will probably be forgotten in a few hundred years, science changes so often you can't be sure what to expect. hehe

In the cartoon I posted, you are the wannabe unique snowflake on the right with his hands in his pockets.


Of course it is. You people hate nature and worship the supernatural.


You are transient, little snowflake. Deal with it. The end of childhood is accepting the fact that you will die. The end.


You just completely destroyed your own argument.


Only if you have farming equipment. If you call farming by hand "ideal", then you are even more sheltered than I thought. Stick to ivory tower philosophy and theology.


Why wait? If evolution is wrong, then disprove it today. Do it, user. Impress us.


Otherwise you get quantum mechanics that blows your "prime mover" out of the water. Science wins again. Your god of the gaps gets smaller again. Theology is even more useless than womyns studies. The only useful question a “theology" major ever asked was at McDonald’s. “Do you want fries with that?”

That's a good thing about science. It changes based on the evidence available because the point is to find the truth. What's the point of clinging to a dogma that some guy said God told him and look at the evidence around you going NO NO NO NO NO NO the way so many dogmatic people do.

This is not a weakness, its a strength modern science has, and a weakness of religion. I should say, a weakness of *some* religious people, since a lot of faithful understand their religion is full of metaphors and allegory, things ought not to be taken so literally and its of to accept scientific progress because God and and science need not be at odds with each other.

It chose me.

I basically slipped from religion to religion taking tidbits of what seemed right before landing into an understanding of my appreciation for older gods from the age of polytheism. Holding rather close right now to both early Germanic and Gaelic deific figures.

Jung argues that these figures are more or less just 'power nodes' of the human mind that we attach ourselves to. Concepts or Archetypes, shrouded in both mystery and symbolism. Might as well work on that as it's essentially the base of the pyramid.

I looked into a heap of religions in my early teens because I wanted to be a part of something, after reading up on a few I dropped that idea as they all had what I considered shitty catches.

As for philosophy I started out a commy and slowly became more and more socially libertarian over the years, now I'm some kind of libertarian / socialist / capitalist hybrid.

I'm really bad at holding strong beliefs the further they get from basic elements of human experience that all seem to share.

That's your opinion, which is the problem. You could be wrong


All of these are possibilities, which is the point. We know that the number 3 can't be even. You're just assuming that god can't be non-existent or generally weak


You're just working with a redefinition of what god means. God doesn't necessarily have to be all-powerful


To exist means to be present in objective reality

Your proof doesn't work: Here's why

Yeah but if I can't randomly assign "God" qualities, or even better, redefine those qualities so that anything that has them is God, then say these things have to exist because their definition exists, then call anyone retarded for not jumping on this weak ass mental trip I've built for myself, then what am I supposed to do with my time huh?

Checkmate atheists. If God isn't real then why do I believe in him so much? How come medieval old men believed in him? They are pretty cool, unlike young alive fedoras.

can you define objective reality exactly? what is existence?
what attributes must a thing have to satisfy you that it exists?

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=exist definition

ahalmaas.com/glossary/objective-reality


Objective reality is that which actually exists. To satisfy me that a thing exists there either has to be compelling evidence that it exists or a logical reason that it must exist

Waterbears use "alien" dna to rubuilt themselves and they "create" another critter.


I laughed.

This is why atheism is a belief.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god, not the lack of belief in everything

actually exists if
what constitutes compelling evidence? how can logic provide proof of existence?
can you expand on this? it looks to me as if you mean, what exists, exists, which is not worth saying.

If logic can't provide proof of existence then you shouldn't be trying to use logic to prove existence

When evidence being presented reaches the point that it'd be silly to deny it, it ceases to be compelling. For example: Drop a rock and it'll fall to the ground, every time a rock has been dropped it has fallen to the ground, therefore it's compelling evidence that it usually, or will always, fall to the ground under those same circumstances. That's compelling evidence.

Another example: Things in the world are subjectively beautiful, therefore god exists. This is not compelling evidence

It becomes compelling, rather

You can't come to that conclusion using strict logic, because to do so you have to assume that a being such as a god exists in the first place, it's circular and trash in terms of actual logic. The majority of well-known philosophers did it and it corrupts their entire metaphysical argument.

Also, as far as theism being more logical than agnosticism, that's also ridiculous. Deism is much more logical than any theistic practice, because the majority of religions anthropomorphize their gods and give them wills.

Sure, agnosticism is fence-sitting, but it's not hypocritical. It's admission of your own ignorance to things you couldn't possibly know, while maintaining an idealistic hope. So long as you recognize that it is a hope and not a fact, you're still maintaining a logical stance.

What bothers me the most is that people feel they need to answer these questions when there is no possible way for them to do so to any accurate degree and deciding upon an answer doesn't actually change anything. When something does change thereafter, it's because you resumed living your life.

i'm not trying to prove anything. please answer the question. how can logic prove that a thing exists?


you describe the scientific process. it's an act of faith on a par with religion to assume the past is a guide to the future. nothing in logic supports this proposition. the sun may not rise tomorrow. you may one day get sex.

Not the same guy, but logic isn't a proof, it's a means of understanding.
To obtain "proof" you either experience something then rationalize an idea that can be tested with further experience, or you first rationalize an idea then seek physical evidence to support or deny the idea.

It's a combination and each must be exhausted to ensure the highest probability of being true. Removing contradiction, unnecessary variables, assumptions and any thing else that would cloud results.

Logic is resorted to for metaphysical arguments, because there is nothing else to go on.

More specifically the application of logic is a means of bringing reasoning closer to validity. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning. When it's said you're being more logical, it means you're doing more challenging of your reasoning with the logical principles studied in logic. Valid reasoning derived from logic is the basis for proofs. A proof is a valid argument that establishes the truth of a statement. I don't think I'm mistaken when I say all proofs are logical


Here's an example. Assume a machine that creates gumballs that never malfunctions. It's set to create 50 gumballs. You can't see the gumballs as they're being deposited in a bucket. You know logically that the gumball machine never malfunctions and it's set to create 50 gumballs. Therefore you know that those 50 gumballs exist


The past is absolutely a guide to the future, it's just not a perfectly reliable guide to the future

If this isn't you and you don't want to be confused with other people responding to me then you'd better use a flag

Would you not say that those "logical principles studied in logic" can only be validated, themselves, by practical evidence and experience?
Logic of the past was true until evidence proved it not to be, so logic as we know it is subjective to the current understanding of evidence.

That means to me that what we know of "logic" is fallible, but that same logic is based on the idea of deriving infallible truth, making it imperfect. Though, I'd also say that by nature it nears perfection more and more, so long as we seek to perfect it.

Yea


Considered to be valid, not actually valid of course


I think whatever examples you're thinking of were just shitty logic like


The principles are fine, people just assume shit and it leads to wrong conclusions

That's my point, though.
It's parsing the semantics of two separate forms of logic.
One is our applicable logic, the other is the standard of logic. The applicable logic is subject to several human limitations, whereas the standard is essentially truth itself with the correct application of it being akin to omniscience.

HAHAHAH NICE SPOOKS NERD

Its only stupid to worship anyone other than me. Its perfectly appropriate for *you* to worship me though, cause I'm real AND great. Heck, you're already worshiping me, I've merely to attend the power to make you realize that you are my property and you worship me with your every action.

I decided the other day to pay respect to lightning as an embodiment of a higher power. It shows up whenever it feels like it, does it thing to amazing consequence, and leaves. Pretty respectable and humbling.

Then indians (apus) are atheists


There is not such a thing as "lack" if you arent talking about autism, if you are not 100% sure of anything you have a belief, if you cant notice that then you have retardation, not ad hominem, is a diagnosis, that or you are lying.

Already answered by other anons, the answer is simple, "something exists" is the best, the rest is pure faith and i respect that, but you cant present a faith like a fact, thats the difference between a neurotypical smart person and a retarded savant.

Behold a retarded savant.

k


No such thing as lack huh? I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing to have everything that exists in the world


I'm not sure what this abortion of the English language is trying to express but if I understand you correctly you're saying that even if you don't know something to be true you still believe that it's true or false. That's another thing you've said that isn't compatible with reality. You can simply not make a judgement or form a belief on something. You know what happens if you do that? You remain in a state of lack of belief of that information


Incredible argument


That certainly doesn't stop every theist in this thread that's braindead enough to think that god can be proven with logical means


That's a nice little catch phrase you've got going there. Tell you what, when you can use words to communicate ideas in a way that isn't nonsensical fucking gibberish we can start to work on your reasoning skills and eventually we'll get you to the point that you can distinguish between "dumb" and "smart" so you can call people retarded in a way that isn't self-defeatingly ironic

This is something I've discussed in-depth with a girl I want to go out with. The reason is that I'm secular and she's Orthodox.

I came to this conclusion: there are things which, by definition, cannot be disproved. This is because they are defined as being outside of the laws of nature that are evident in our universe. I would originally think that, when something exists outside of time and space, it means it does not exist at all, save for as a concept. But, when considering the very nature of those two circumstances, I instead realized that the situation is different.

You cannot absolutely prove or dismiss "God" because of the given requirements of being "God". We cannot observe something outside the realm of observable material, and so by that we cannot prove whether or not such material exists. This creates a grey area of belief, where your personal convictions determine which end of the grey area you fall on; is "God" less likely to exist, or more likely?

Granted, this is my own personal reason for being agnostic atheist: I think the chance errs on the "no" end of the grey zone. That does not mean that all religious people have gone through this same thought process; they have taken the leap of faith being aware of faith, but not of the odd description that accompanies a "God" defined to exist somewhere we can't fully comprehend.

this flag fag is an arrogant fool, guys. most of what he says is the most obvious nonsense i've seen outside of undergrad coursework in quite some time.

That's all well and good, but if someone was persuaded by a "he's a fool" argument they probably wouldn't have understood what he said to begin with.