Is thr British version of The Office better than the American one?

> I don't know anything therefore everyone is right except for people who know things and magic is real

Pantheism is the only correct way to go about religion.

magic is real tho

Of course

different user, but he's right. Nothing Ricky has said is incorrect.

He's obnoxious and annoying, but still being true.

They'll understand one day....or not, who cares.

Attached: Teslaaahhh.jpg (850x400, 180K)

He falls for retarded skeptic arguments dating back all the way to the Greeks. The argument was weak then, and it's weak now. Just because many people believe different thing does not mean that there is not a truth in the matter.
Anyone remotely compelled by this argument just proves they haven't read any actual philosophy, atheist or otherwise.

Attached: 91Xj+DVY9sL._SX425_.jpg (425x340, 53K)

>does not mean that there is not a truth in the matter.
what truth?

what did he mean by this

how was it weak? please disprove it

>what truth?
That there is an invisible man living in the sky.

Tesla was an alien, you know.

>Tesla was raised an Orthodox Christian. Later in life he did not consider himself to be a "believer in the orthodox sense," said he opposed religious fanaticism, and said "Buddhism and Christianity are the greatest religions both in number of disciples and in importance".[263] He also said "To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end" and "what we call 'soul' or 'spirit,' is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the 'soul' or the 'spirit' ceases likewise".[263]

Assuming we have 3000+ Gods one of them might be correct. Or, of course, they're all wrong. Either way, the argument is just weak as it just throws its hands in the air and assumes there is no truth to the matter without even being backed by nihilism. Just retarded skepticism.

Attached: 1430084219962.jpg (557x711, 96K)

Here's your (You)

Attached: fedora.jpg (500x557, 40K)

Simple example.
3000+ toddlers give 3000+ different answers to 2+2. Is there a possibility of one of them actually being right or must it be the case that none of them could have possibly figured out it was 4?

I go with this answer, I’m not really religious but it does seem interesting that across the entire world even in untouched civilizations they all believe the same general idea of a god.

The issue is the truth is lower, not higher. We make up stories to explain why things are the way they are. Because we're pattern seeking animals who've attained progressively more free time over the course of our evolution.

I like how that's a textbook false equivalency.

>Assuming we have 3000+ Gods one of them might be correct

proofs?

yes, why would pattern seeking animals believe there's an invisible man controlling everything, rather than believe it is all random or more complex than they can currently understand?

Nearly every culture on the planet believed in dragons too.

I like how nearly every religious moron on the internet only has the capacity to spam fedora memes when confronted with arguments against their delusional bullshit instead of trying to argue back. Let's see how many prove me right.

Except they don't. Way to pull that claim out of your ass.

You're viewing all religion with a simple lens. You view all of them as being like Zeus or Odin but we live in an age of far more philosophically sophisticated religions. Buddhist and Abrahamic monotheistic religions are not just "rain in sky must explain" but rooted in metaphysics.
It's just an example of why all skeptical arguments are weak in general. They don't prove themselves right, they just don't give an answer at all. They all instead throw their hands up in the air and refuse to even look at reason in favor of willful ignorance.

>They don't prove themselves right, they just don't give an answer at all

What we do is argue why your silly bullshit is silly bullshit if believed in any concrete objective sense and then admit ignorance. What you do is assert knowledge you don't have and deride us for not doing the same.

>They all instead throw their hands up in the air and refuse to even look at reason in favor of willful ignorance

The fucking irony of this comment. This is bait, right?

Well, there are 8 million gods in Japan alone.

>Trying to discern how existence came into being and concluding that there is a creator based on the thousands of years of reasoning which was greatly influenced by some of the greatest minds that have ever existed like Aristotle and Aquinas is the same thing as indigenous populations in stone age civilizations who hop around like chimps when lightning flashes across the sky and conclude there's a dude up there pissing rain and farting clouds

religion is simple. its simple minds grappling with a complex problem. nowadays its simple minds trying to validate the veracity of their simple/silly answers by continually asserting the actual answer must be more complex than they can currently explain, but it must also be some form of their preconceived answer.

The reality is there is no easy answer. Everything we learn about the universe just shows us there is so much we do not know. Continually insisting there's an invisible man in the sky responsible for everything (who's going to send you to hell for pulling an ass from a pit on the sabbath and/or if you don't telepathically tell his son that you love him) just smacks of a refusal to accept, maybe, the answers you were given as a child were wrong.

I'm not even asserting any answer in particular. I'm merely asserting that giving up on trying without a good reason is foolish. The existence of so many answers is not a good reason btw, that's why the argument is so weak.
Skepticism does give up because they just look at how many different answers they have, decide none of them are right because there are so many of them, and then decide to live in ignorance without going through them first.
This argument does not even attempt to prove why a religion must be false. Of course, that's too much to ask. But, it does not even try.

>assuming that "thousands of years of reasoning" did anything at all to give a cogent argument for the existence of anything resembling most peoples' idea of "God" and that the arguments of skeptics for the last couple hundred years haven't all but shit on all of them

Aristotle also thought that if you dropped a rock the reason it fell was because it wanted to go home.

Friend, no one has given up on trying to understand how the universe works.

What they've given up on is the idea there's an invisible man in the sky controlling everything. If your god is real, it clearly doesn't want us to know it. Thus, there's no point in manufacturing huge ratnests of circular and broken logic for why all the critics of religion are actually wrong, and you're right, and going to heaven because of it.

Reread my first point, retard. You've clearly never read any text arguing why there must be some sort of unmoved mover, perfect being, or the Good. It's not about Christianity or Islam, it's about the existence of a being with the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. Alternatively, you have Buddhism which is a whole other can of worms with reincarnation. Some people simply find these philosophical concepts in particular religions.

see

For anyone interested in an actual medical study on out of body experiences during cardiac arrest, look up the AWARE study. Basically they equip certain rooms in hospitals with staff to monitor EEG waves during a patients cardiac arrest, as well as have a hidden card placed near the ceiling facing up, where it's only possible to view whats on the card if you are near the ceiling, which you would be during an out of body experience.

There were no *hits*. I think only two people had an experience that met the qualifications of an "NDE", and neither of them saw the card. In one patient, he said he rose out of his body and observed himself along with the doctors and nurses around his body, but said he didn't look in the direction of where the card would have been. He says if he knew of the card, he would have looked there. The other person suffered his heart attack in the hallway and had his NDE there, so no card. But his brainwaves were monitored, and he was able to accurately recall details from the experience that he wouldn't know otherwise. Of course there are skeptic explanations, there always are. It's whether those explanations are good or not, and in my opinion, they are not. The AWAREII study is going on right now with more people and more hospitals. Results in 2020.

It's actually surprising how many questionably observable phenomenon there are when you really dive deep into the studies. It's also surprising how absolutely incredibly strict they are with the experiments. Like, anything else being studied, if passed by these experiments, would be take as just more proof of the phenomenon, but when it comes to anything deemed "supernatural", every single criticism of the test you can possibly imagine is applied, to the point where it's damn near impossible to meet the rigorous requirements. Almost like they demand causational proof, despite very little studies in anything else demonstrate causational proof, and instead reply on several correlational proofs

>religion is simple. its simple minds grappling with a complex problem.

I notice this is pretty much the goto answer of someone who believes themselves to be smarter than they are.

not him, but do you feel smarter than a flat earther?

>they just look at how many different answers they have, decide none of them are right because there are so many of them

That is absolutely false and I can't help but think you know that. The existence of many gods created by people is not at all the main reason for skeptics' disbelief, but it certainly doesn't help your cause. There's a simple fact that you can't all be right, but you can all be wrong...

>and then decide to live in ignorance without going through them first

Or we go through them, listen to arguments against them, and decide that admitting to living in ignorance (living honestly) is more noble than claiming knowledge you don't truly have. Most skeptics have more knowledge of religion that most religious people, and the fact that we've spent more time than the average person looking into it is a large part of why we left them. To say we don't ever think about these things or entertain many different ideas is false as well, but as someone once said, it's the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain an idea without believing it.

There are people with PHD's who believe in the flat earth. It's not a question of who's smarter. The physical and mathematical evidence of our world being a globe is stronger than the physical and mathematical evidence of our world being flat. Atleast that's how every debate I've seen with a flat earther vs. not flat earther demonstrates.

Those are two physical reality arguments though. When you get into the metaphysical arguments, it's not as simple.

Read OP's post again. The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises. This is all I'm talking about.
And no, most skeptics don't know shit about religion. They have a tendency to read very surface level and don't look into any backing text. Taking the bible literally is a common pitfall for most skeptics.

such stringent controls are applied to completely outlandish studies/experiments because they're seeking to prove something that is thought to otherwise be impossible.

>omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence

Such traits have been thoroughly argued against, which is why most "serious" theologians now use terms like "maximally powerful" instead of "all powerful", etc..

the conclusion does follow the premise, though. You can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

The 'many gods' argument has always been lacklustre.

The vast majority of 'religions' were animist and nobody knows about them because they're irrelevant.

There are 2 significant world religions: Christianity and Islam. They, along with Judaism, dominate the world. All 3 have the same root and command a majority of the world population. Hinduism has never penetrated outside of India and Confucianism isn't really a religion like we would understand it.

There may well have been 3000 gods that nobody has ever heard of. But people only really know about one God in various incarnations and time periods. There is little doubt that the Abrahamaic God is the strongest and most real deity.

The argument is effectively.
You can't all be right.
Therefore you're all wrong.
That's the issue. Your conclusion is fine. The issue is that atheism does not count themselves into the 3000 different beliefs. They feel equally justified as every other religious zealot sometimes on even worse ground.

Thoughts on after life? I enjoyed it and thought it was the perfect length

And yet we take for granted that things with much lesser controls are shown to be true, and even have life changing policies around such things which can transform a society within a generation. If science is suppose to be neutral, then it's failing in regards to the supernatural vs natural experiments.

I am open to the idea of a higher power. I think all these religions are just different attempts at understanding the same concept.

There was a time when people could just believe there were other gods, and co-exist. It only really god bad with christcucks and mudslimes

Attached: IqlYOxr.png (537x478, 461K)

less controlled experiments/studies usually follow with what is already known/accepted.

something that turns all of science on it's head would, obviously, be subject to greater criticism.

Hinduism penetrated outside of India into southeast Asia.

>There was a time when people could just believe there were other gods, and co-exist.

And what time period was that? You realize that people and societies thousands of years ago were largely separated from eachother, right? And that there was no such thing as "co-existing"? And they slaughtered eachother all the time?

>many wrong thing exist
>therefore all wrong!
Wow... and I thought atheism was supposed to be logical...

Attached: 1457593701042.jpg (478x482, 48K)

>an alleged being with infinite power over all creation
>hasn't made anime real
Yeah okay

Attached: 1564571593900.png (463x670, 237K)

Pre christian Roman era. Read up on it. But yeah, people have been slaughtering each other for retarded reasons all the time, but co-existence was possible, and has worked, at least in regards to religion, because everyone just believed all the gods were real, even some strangers. It wasn't a competition.

>less controlled experiments/studies usually follow with what is already known/accepted.

But the BASIS on which those studies are on, suffer the same issue. I mean jesus just look at nutritional studies over the past 70 years. Pretty much everything turned out to be wrong.

With pagan societies from around 500 BC onward roughly they treated different gods as the gods of their respective societies. For example, Demeter was the Greek god of agriculture and Osiris was Egypt's. Neither of them wanted to really push that to each other.

Just ignore the christcucks. the jews already have them in their control. they cannot be reasoned with

the conclusion is that feeling your beliefs are correct, while thousands of other systems of belief are silly, is also silly.

To modify your shitty example earlier, its the same as asking 3000 random people the answer to P vs NP, and every single one of those assholes thinking they've got the correct answer, when most of them don't even know what the question is.

Sounds like scientists are biased in their methodology then.

I fucking hate you because you could explain my point better than I can.

so your issue isn't the level of criticism applied to supernatural studies, but the fact it's applied all at once instead of over time via peer review?

>The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises. This is all I'm talking about.

I think you're the one who needs to read it again. It's an argument against religious fanatics who think their religion is the only "true" one, not an argument that there's no god just because people have made up a lot of them...

>no, most skeptics don't know shit about religion

Except you're wrong. There have been surveys done quizzing people of different religious affiliations on religious stories and characters, and people with no religion tend to score much higher. Who are these ignorant skeptics you're arguing with and what arguments do you know against them do you think are so good?

>Taking the bible literally is a common pitfall for most skeptics

Literally 99.9999% of religious people take their religious texts, including the Bible, literally to some degree. Do you actually believe in Yahweh? Do you believe that Jesus Christ was killed and resurrected for the vicarious redemption of all mankind? Then you take it literally, bud. Unless you view the entire text allegorically, in which case you're really just an atheist who appreciates the stories.

Why would it be particularly silly? If you feel justified in your beliefs then conviction is expected. You feel your argument against me is correct. Why would you think your reasoning is silly?

see

Why is this cuck so cringe?

only homosexuals watch the office

>why is believing something baseless silly?
well when you put it that way

Biased towards a methodology that's been proven to actually work in giving us real knowledge of our reality to the best of our epistemic limits? Gee, why would people be biased towards that and not a methodology of blind faith and bad arguments?

Religion seems to trigger the euphorias.

>pantheism
Literally ooga-booga tier.

>but the fact it's applied all at once instead of over time via peer review?

I'm arguing that there's clear bias in their accepted level of methodology, back then, and currently, when it comes to supernatural studies vs. non supernatural studies. If it's acceptable to study phenomenon with mediocre studies over years and years via peer review, then why do those standards not apply to supernatural studies as well? Apply the same standards to all.

Seems like common sense to me. Especially if there are no explanations of many things.

>if something isnt correct the first time, that means it can never be correct
The absolute state of atheist cucks

Attached: F5CA3026-2079-4712-835C-51FEA5E5673C.jpg (736x952, 105K)

Thousands of years of reasoning isn't a lot considering the universe has been around for 15 billion years

We would still be in the stone age. Objectively

There are many beliefs that contradict each other, user. Look at scientific theories for example, there have been hundreds of them, and many of them are wrong, but we can establish at least some of them are plausible given our current state of affairs, and be convinced one of them is right based on x,y or z reason. It's ridiculous to think just because there are many religions all of them are of equal merit. A religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam or the Neoplatonic view isn't the same as animism or rock-worship. If you can't understand that then you don't know what you're talking about, just like the guy who thinks anti-vaxxers are on the same level as modern medicine.

>its an argument against religious fanatics
The fucking irony of the atheist logo is just showing hypocrisy at that point.
>the religious surveys
Knowing the details of random stories is different than understanding the traditions, historical context, and philosophical backing for a particular religion. That's all surface level.
>taking some parts of a massive body of work literally means you take all of it literally
C'mon man. You can't be this dumb.

The clear bias is in not wanting to look incompetent/fraudulent. They have to account for every obvious criticism if they're trying to prove something that, until that point, was considered impossible.

Because science is always about more than "I want this to be true so it is," then murdering people when they point out how those things aren't true.

>Biased towards a methodology that's been proven to actually work in giving us real knowledge of our reality to the best of our epistemic limits

You're right in that biased methodology is giving us accurate measures of the prevailing bias

the difference is the scientific community's reaction to new/revolutionary ideas isn't impotent anger or murder.

all models are wrong, but some are useful. All religions can be equally wrong, but some have a use. Like keeping you in line.

>The fucking irony of the atheist logo is just showing hypocrisy at that point.

Because some guy online slapped a logo on it for his forum or whatever you think that equates him with religious fanatics? Wew lad.

>Knowing the details of random stories is different than understanding the traditions, historical context, and philosophical backing for a particular religion. That's all surface level.

And we still know more about that "surface level" information than most of the people who believe it. You think the only people who know the "deeper" interpretive information are religious too?

>taking some parts of a massive body of work literally means you take all of it literally

When did I say you take it all literally if you take some of it so? Did you just skim over the part where I said "to some degree"? Is that pathetic straw man your substitute for a retort to my argument?

C'mon man. I know you're dumb but shit.

>what is probability
you genuinely don't realize just quite how stupid you are do you?

What inexplicable phenomon? Religious people claim that their invisible friend is the arbiter of right and wrong and atheists claim that religious people are talking shit. No one has explained anything, one group believes a bunch of made up stories on literal blind faith and the other group calls them stupid for doing so.

>giving us accurate measures of reality to the best of our epistemic limits, unlike this other silly horse shit

fixed that for you

Assuming we have 3000+ Gods one of them might be correct.
Mathematically speaking the odds that there are no gods whatsoever are at least as good as (If not better than) the odds that any one of those gods is actually real.

I'm just glad this site keeps reinforcing the idea that atheists are fart sniffing cucks.

>bunch of made up stories
If you take those stories literally you already failed from the getgo you mong
Its common knowledge

>The clear bias is in not wanting to look incompetent/fraudulent.

You do know that most claimed research findings are false, right? They're doing a very good job already of looking incompetent.

>They have to account for every obvious criticism if they're trying to prove something that, until that point, was considered impossible.

user have you looked into some of these supernatural phenomenon studies? After awhile, after each subsequent passing of a test, the criticisms become more and more outlandish, to the point where the critics take on the positions of "anything that can happen within the realm of possibility will be taken as the explanation rather than the alternative that the phenomenon exists". IE. Strict causation studies. Which btw, don't happen because it's near impossible to account for every single variable that exists.

You see this happen in critiques all the time of supernatural phenomenon. In some cases where the critique has exhausted damn near all rational explanations and is unable to perform stringent testing because of the nature of the phenomenon, it ends up with the critique saying "Well, he's just lying". Two people? "They're both lying". Multiple people? "Mass hallucination". The outright dismissal is whats frustrating.

Imagine a rich grown man talking about atheism like he's wearing a trenchcoat in highschool. Like imagine that's his claim to fame...bring a try hard edgy faggot in his 50s because he thinks it's his "cause".
It's all shit Norma people work out at 15 and just move on.

Attached: tumblr_n4v0ekKCs01qgzod4o1_1280.gif (590x333, 124K)

Gee, I fucking wonder why anyone would put a fucking atheist logo next to his anti-zealot argument.
I didn't say people with blind faith are justified or even good. However, the deeper understanding is the real religion. Can't dismiss that because some retard follows it without knowing the deeper nuances of it.
And yeah, I did skim over your shit. Fuck it, I'll admit it.

thanks for reinforcing the idea the religious have no actual arguments

why are you so racist Islamophobic antisemitic?

It is the shittest hill to die on. Certainly supported by the R&M crowd.

Whether a story is a metaphor or not not has nothing to do with it being fiction.

They do though. Remember atheists are sad people that have experienced nothing good in their lives.

>giving us accurate measures of reality to the best of our epistemic limits

Except that you don't even believe that as noted by your previous post where you mentioned that other studies don't feel the need to be as exhaustive because they are based on previous bias.

Attached: _hDZxD.gif (320x180, 1018K)

Friend, you do understand that experiments to prove supernatural phenomena have to have consistent positive results in order to be actual proof, right? Hell, this applies to anything.

If they test something a million times and its only successful once, it becomes more likely literally anything else happened to trigger a false positive than an actual positive. That's whats happening in supernatural studies. They have a small number of positives and there are far too many negatives for the positives to be compelling.

more than one person has called you a moron in this thread.

and yes, its safe to say factors like gravity don't need to be controlled for.

>then why do those standards not apply to supernatural studies as well? Apply the same standards to all.
They do.
Not one 'supernatural' study has produced an observable, reproducible result. Therefore, every single 'supernatural' study conducted so far has failed to meet the absolute minimum requirement for scientific validity, therefore it's all bullshit until proven otherwise.

If it's all made up then the Gods or Gods whose existence is supported only by these stories (and the faith of the people who believe them) must also be made up.

>However, the deeper understanding is the real religion. Can't dismiss that because some retard follows it without knowing the deeper nuances of it

How many skeptics do you think disregard religion just because of a dumb person's shallow understanding of it compared to those who disregard it because they started listening to skeptical arguments compared to religious ones and finding the skeptical ones coming out on top?

jesus christ if you think the point of religion like christianity is ''the big sky daddy that will fix everything'' you're fucking lost
thank god I matured from the edgy teenager atheist phase

Attached: 1555190203105.png (219x121, 10K)

so if big sky daddy isn't going to do anything, why call it God?

Valid argument, but my point is that Gervais's comment is nothing but juvenile, it would only convince someone who is not very educated.
that's one of the most disingenuous ways to approach Aristotle's thoughts on gravity. either way, he is the grandfather of physics and biology, but most of his thoughts on either subject do not exactly hold up today

You talk as if every scientific paper uses the same methodology. Fun fact, at least 90% of scientific papers cite each other as sources. It gets even worse when you realize most papers are just surveys or number-crunching statistics that let you conclude whatever is hip today.
Of course they do. Every theory is a scientist's baby, and will fight to defend it. Even Einstein said that if Eddington's experiments had proved him wrong, he would've been sorry for Eddington because his own theory was right. Religion can be irrational because people are involved in it, not because it's religion. Scientists are guilty of the same kind of behavior.
Doing experiments to prove supernatural phenomena is a contradictory idea. The definition of supernatural is an event that is above what natural laws describe. If a supernatural event happens regularly it is not supernatural by definition. That doesn't mean supernatural phenomena are false, only that scientific methodology is limited.

I was under the impression that the point of christianity was to convince people that your word, and your word alone (take no other God before me) is trustworthy advice on how to live your life.
In other words, a classic scam, perhaps one of the first of its kind in history.

>cuck

Attached: 1562890302778.jpg (460x460, 57K)

>If a supernatural event happens regularly it is not supernatural by definition

The study we're talking about has to do with out of body experiences and life after death. If there is an afterlife, everyone would have to go to it, and it would still be supernatural.

>not assuming my own assumptions
Literally all you expressed in this greentext. Sounds like you need to grow up.

So if the stories aren't real and God does nothing what is even the point of believing in the first place? Are you going to give me some touchy-feely bullshit about community now or was it really about money and political power all along?

that way of thinking, thats described in the bible built western civilization

>one of the first of its kind in history.

Attached: 1511187054742.jpg (581x659, 48K)

Religion is belief in a set of values and morals taught as stories because it's simply easier to deal with abstract ideas that way. You too believe in something; you have values and morals and you can't justify them beyond "well I just believe in them / I just believe that's right / that's just how things ought to be". That's the point, not whether moses actually split the sea or if there's a god sitting on a cloud

psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-24699-001

Fairly good in depth review of the current evidence for PSI. There's much much more substantial evidence than you guys believe there is.

literal reddit tier scientist, oh muh tesla he was robbed by edison! TIL TESLA DISCOVERED ELECTRICITY NOT EDISON
edit: thanks for the gold kind stranger!

There are many ways to interpret a text. Or do you think Plato's dialogues was just Plato writing real conversations for shits and giggles?

>Has Ricky Gervais

Fat unfunny cunt is the reason why the British version will always be inferior

no one is deriding you for anything you faggot. you are the one crying and acting superior, and that is what happens most of the time. religious people dont even speak about their beliefs and atheists attack them

...

Christcucks is ironically more cringe than religious people shutting down your arguments with fedora shit

just say it outloud "christcucks" that is the most r/athiesm autistic shit ever kill yourself

>you have values and morals and you can't justify them beyond "well I just believe in them / I just believe that's right / that's just how things ought to be".
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I base my moral values on the idea that I am naturally entitled to superiority over no one and no one is naturally entitled to superiority over me.
I base this core assertion on the indisputable fact that no meaningful natural difference exists between any two people in this world to justify unilateral authority (beyond the obvious exceptions of childhood, mental infirmity and similar cases).
No magic is necessary for this process, just a willingness to think things through.
Nor do I claim to be indisputably correct (unlike every major religion), I simply base my ideas on observable truths rather than pretty stories or metaphysical naval gazing.

Is there a way to interpret the texts that gives any meaningful evidence for the existence of God? Because that is literally the only point atheism makes, that God is not real.

reminder if you dont attend church every sunday you will burn in the eternal hellfires

the sabbath is saturday. enjoy hell.

>The study we're talking about has to do with out of body experiences and life after death.

Not the guy you're replying to, but the guy you were talking with earlier. I was talking about general supernatural studies including things such as PSI, not specifically about NDE's, though some of the evidence for NDE's is very strong (a case in Sam Parnia's AWARE study, and pam reynolds are two of the best ones. If you look them up, and look up the criticisms, make sure you look up the criticisms of the criticisms as well).

The interesting thing, is that it seems cardiac arrest patients are the most likely to experience an NDE. The nice thing about CA cases, is that we know the brain stops giving out any major EEG readings from the brain after 20-30 seconds from the heart stopping. Thus, under the current model of consciousness being caused by neurons firing in tandem, conscious observation of events happening after those 30 seconds have passed should not be possible. So there are some guidelines that it's possible to experiment with, which is good. Another interesting thing is that only a small % of NDE cases from CA qualify enough to be considered a "strong" NDE. IE meets many of the requirements such as visual veridical perception (seeing things which were actually going on at the time and confirmed later), and some kind of coherent experience in what would be described as the afterlife. This is concerning for two reasons. Because #1, these kinds of explanations don't coincide with the biological idea of it being a natural process of death, because if it was, the number of experiences would be much much higher than a few % points. Even if you say it was a biological function that produces a hallucination, then again, why only a few % of people experience this biological function? The second problem is, if there is an afterlife, why the hell are only 2-3% of people experiencing it?

>christians are so stupid lmao believing in fairy tales loool
>jews are smart and good
>jews are right

Reminder that if you submit to the weak southern God you will never enter Valhalla.

>I base this core assertion on the indisputable fact
>Nor do I claim to be indisputably correct

Christ you're such a brainlet you can't even see this obvious contradiction.

reminder that these cucks always attack christianity, a religion that tells their followers to love their enemies and never a religion like islam where they're drawing a huge target on themselves

If we are talking comedy then
Britain > THE WORLD !

this. regardless of your beliefs, the importance of religion in providing social cohesion and an unparalled source of motivation for life and purpose cannot be understated.

The evidence for NDEs and PSI is not compelling because it cannot be reproduced consistently.

My conclusions are not indisputably correct, but the observation based premise of "yada yada no natural superiority" is.
Touchè nevertheless, I did indeed phrase that poorly.

the idea we needed comforting lies to practice basic hygiene only strengthens the argument we should be wiped from existence

>He needs someone else's invisible freind to help him work with others and stay motivated
Ask me how I know your a cuck

You're a fucking retard jesus christ read a book

>you are the one crying and acting superior, and that is what happens most of the time. religious people dont even speak about their beliefs and atheists attack them

Projection level: [Ultratard]

Where do you think I got these ideas from?
And what exactly is retarded about them?

You can't reproduce NDE's consistently because any study that attempts to do so would be unethical. Like the UFO phenomenon, the NDE requirements basically need to amount to a UFO landing on the whitehouse lawn. The AWARE study is literally the best kind of study we can do at the moment, and even that's hard to get results from considering the very tiny % of people who actually claim to have experiences which can later be verified to be true (ie having a NDE, going to another room, and describing what was in that room accurately).

Anyway, we'll see what happens in the AWAREII study. If we end up with a hit, in that a CA patient does indeed describe the details on the card which would have not been possible to see except from above, then that will indeed be the UFO on the whitehouse lawn moment for NDE research.

>trying to take the focus away from Christianity and put it on another religion that no one in this thread is defending
>thinking Islam and Christianity are any different fundamentally

Even the Greek pederasts did not defend polytheisum and understood that there is one God their consent of it was wrong but still. Saying all gods are the same is absolutely crime and comes form great ingnoranse of philosophy.

>thinking Islam and Christianity are any different fundamentally
followers of one regulary kill the followers of the other

holy fuck you are both incredibly retarded.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that a single look at history will make you realize how important religion has been in societal development.

>You just think you're right!
Literally all you expressed in your post. Sounds like you need to try to give rational retorts after getting a sorely-needed brain transplant.

Why do atheists never attack the talmud or koran?

You would need multiple patients (n > 30) to get something that can't be dismissed as a coincidence.
Reproducing the study 30 times with thirty different patients would count though, they don't have to be all at once.

All civilizations also believed in magicians, dragons, and alchemy. Are you going to make a case for these things too?

Burden of proof. Atheist have to prove jackshit if you don't come with an objective proof about god.
You can't disprove something if there isn't anything to disprove in the first place. I can't disprove the existence of pink homosexual ninja unicorns that fart rainbows.

they're cowards

I only skimmed this thread, but it appears the millennial right has pretty much abandoned the notion of God and is going with the "we were just Cultural Christians all along lol" card.

the concept of the holy trinity and the significance of Jesus Christ are pretty fucking fundamental for Christianity and opposed in Islam.

>followers of each one regularly kill the followers of the other
fixed that for you.

No shit Sherlock there have been christian/Muslim religious wars since the 10th century. Members from both religions kill each other all the time even today.

I will pick up the Templar's blade in a heartbeat if the Christians ever grow any balls.

negro, why did you just go back to the start of the debate like it never happened?

One hit isn't going to be conclusive proof, ever. There is no "UFO on the whitehouse lawn" on this stuff. it would need to be reproducible or it isn't real.

Furthermore, if an afterlife is proven, just about all ethics just fly directly out the window. As our shitty biological bodies become mostly meaningless.

Literally the first post in this thread is an atheist talking about how every religion is bullshit.

>13 years later and you can still rile up religiousfags on Yea Forums at 3 AM

Never underestimate the autism of adults who still believe in magic.

Attached: christian-sonic-57b65f7d1c450.jpg (680x504, 68K)

>but the observation based premise of "yada yada no natural superiority" is.

No it's not. You didn't even define "meaningful". What's meaningful? There's the biological reality that taller men are more sexually selected than shorter men. To me that's an observable superiority that's objective because it's based in biological reality. What's unilateral authority? How does that work in the context of the biological reality of things? Are you even thinking in the biological reality of things? Because theres unilateral authority within group species all the fucking time. A unilateral authority to you would be spread all over the world then? So it's just an extension of group authority, which is natural. The strongest of the pack leads. But if the strongest of the species leads, its wrong to claim superiority? Why?

You have to go maybe 10 layers deeper into your assertions there dude.

its really only ever christians defending religion. jews don't give a shit and muslims are specifically instructed to avoid any situation where they can't murder you.

>haha i dont believe in anything :)

what an epic lifestyle

Yet they ignore Jews and Muslims.

Have you literally never heard of these guys?

Attached: 4Horsemen.jpg (700x394, 47K)

>Why do atheists never attack the talmud or koran?

They do, repeatedly. Why do you fags keep acting like they don't?

Attached: screenshot-www.newsweek.com-2019-09-11-03-44-05-136.png (765x1544, 143K)

Attached: 1546487950869.jpg (1125x1874, 405K)

to reiterate, i don't see any jews or muslims in this thread, angry at ricky gervis for implying their god isn't real.

>it's a false equivalency because I say so
These are the famous atheist intellectuals?

Why didn't they make the cartoon a nigger?

You're just going to ignore the past 2 decades of atheists comedians and spokesmen from the US and UK?

Because they love to believe they're persecuted. Makes them feel more self-righteous.

>You would need multiple patients (n > 30) to get something that can't be dismissed as a coincidence.

I don't think you understand. The patient doesn't even know about the card unless he happened to read about this very study beforehand. And even then, they don't know what's on the card. A picture, letter, number, shape. Think of all the possible objects and symbols in the world that could be represented. Billions of possibilities. And a guess, from a man who had a heart attack, who claimed to have saw the picture while having an OBE, guess it right by coincidence? I'd say the standards set up by the protocols in place can readily dismiss the idea that he just happened to guess it right as a coincidence.

>One hit isn't going to be conclusive proof, ever

Depends on your idea of conclusive. If there was a hit, you'd have to provide a reasonable alternative explanation. Of course there wasn't a hit yet, so we'll have to see.

>There is no "UFO on the whitehouse lawn" on this stuff

How many times does a UFO need to land on the whitehouse lawn for it to be real?

>Furthermore, if an afterlife is proven, just about all ethics just fly directly out the window. As our shitty biological bodies become mostly meaningless.

Depends on the reported experience. If the person who has a hit also has an afterlife experience, I suspect that his experience could very well form the basis of a new religion.

>comparing a question with a known answer to a question with no known answer
>not a false equivalency

the idea you need this explained to you is concerning.

>Why do atheists never attack the talmud or koran?

looking 2 seconds on google immediately gives multiple results of guys like richard dawkins calling judaism self-righteous and erroneous and comparing islam to a disease.

If God is good and all powerful why does evil exist?
>Inb4 free will
If he was all powerful, he'd be able to get rid of evil while keeping free will

Friend, a NDE is a personal subjective experience. So, yea, they'd need to reproduce one multiple times to prove its real.

a UFO on the whitehouse lawn is an impersonal, objective occurrence.

what does that even mean

Oh so the kiddy gloves come on when it's about jews?

>He says if he knew of the card, he would have looked there
Oh yeah that's totally believable

if god created the universe who created god?

Attached: 1419689417412.png (200x234, 16K)

Super God

The thing that most atheists misunderstand is that atheism is not the neutral position. Atheism itself is a belief in no god.
The actual neutral point of view is agnosticism, like it is with literally every single unproven idea ever

wow youre so smart my dude can you explain more things to us peasants?

You can easily look up that not too long ago Ricky Gervais made tweets mocking Jew/Muslim eating habits and comparing them to the abuse their religions incite. Fuck off with your selective persecution complex.

>he doesn't know God is the creator

This is a good post and I appreciate you taking the time to ask questions. I will give you my definitions here, then reply to this post with my response.

>meaningful natural superiority
This is not a reference to biology but instead a poor attempt at summarising a more complex phenomenon. While it's true that non manlets are naturally superior to manlets in the areas of sexual attractiveness and ability to learn this does not grant us the right to tell manlets what to do. When I assert that there is no such thing as meaningful natural superiority what I mean is that outside of organised Hierachies like a monarchy or authoritarian state no man is born a master of his fellow men, therefore no man is born "naturally superior" to his fellows, even if he is physically, mentally or aesthetically superior to them.

>unilateral authority
Unilateral authority is the ability to exercise authority over someone without there consent. When Xi Xinpeng orders the harvesting of a political dissedents organs he is exercising unilateral authority over the secret police, because they can't refuse his order.

>Are you even thinking in the biological reality of things?
No, biology has very little to do with this concept outside of exceptions such as children being unable to consent and stuff like that.

The thing you misunderstand is that atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive terms, and atheism is defined as the (lack of) belief in a god, not the (disbelief), two distinct points of view.

youtube.com/watch?v=4_WKlttKRDw

agnosticism is not a neutral, its an artificially constructed false equivalence fence sitter position, somewhere equidistant between "god exists" and "god doesn't exist" created by morons who've confused themselves into thinking because there are two possibilities, the possibilities are equally likely.

the fall.
And evil will be eradicated by there resurrection

>Friend, a NDE is a personal subjective experience. So, yea, they'd need to reproduce one multiple times to prove its real.

That's why I mentioned veridical perceptions, because what they describe going on during their NDE is confirmed as objectively happened by the other people in the room at the time of the experience. And there are many instances of this. That part isn't disputed. It's currently impossible to have a conscious experience with a brain that's not producing EEG waves, because that means no neurons are firing, which means no consciousness. The disputation comes from whether those experiences happened immediately before the brains EEG fell flat, during resuscitation (which can cause short EEG spikes), or immediately after resuscitation. That's why the card is important too. Because it's something that's consistently there and can be objectively viewed. And being correct about viewing an objective object while having an unconscious brain, well, that's going to require some very interesting materialist explanations to dismiss as being a coincidence.

Religion is under attack, it's literally the 1984 by Jorge Orwell

Attached: hank hill.jpg (640x480, 39K)

You self-proclaimed agnostics are retards that don't even know what you're calling yourselves.
Agnosticism is the stance of claiming something cannot be absolutely proven. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. But you can't be just agnostic. It's like saying you're a professional without saying what you're a professional of.

By your fucking retarded logic, the law is a scam

yea, again, they'd still need to reproduce it. because its too easy for the study to be compromised.

ever notice how christcucks resort to associating you to a fedora/atheist when you call out their false idea of a god? their brains think so narrowly they are convinced anyone who doesn't believe there's an old man wearing robes in the sky is immediately an atheist
its the same way leftists are so quick to call you a facist or a nazi if you dare challenge their cult beliefs

Attached: 1555110581717.jpg (700x700, 209K)

But if the strongest of the species leads, its wrong to claim superiority? Why?

The answer to this question lies in the fundamental difference between humans and animals. Humans can reason and therefore give consent, animals do not have that privilege. Thus when an animal leads a pack because it is strongest no injustice occurs, because there is no concept of justice in the animal kingdom. But when a human does it, they are forcing their will upon someone who does not consent, which means they are exercising unilateral authority without the right to do so (since no man is naturally superior to his fellows) which IS unjust.

>the law is a scam
who in their right mind would imply it isn't?

The real problem isn't evil but unjust suffering. Evil is easily explained away with the malevolence of free-willed agents, but there's no good reason an all-powerful and all-loving god kills children with diseases, accidents, and natural disasters. As Sam Harris put it, when good things happen to religious people, they claim god is good. When bad things happen to them, they claim god is mysterious...

Then who created Super God?

why do so many legit retards browse this board

>old man wearing robes in the sky
that is a atheist straw man, and that is why you are getting a fedora response, you have no idea why you are critiques so you deserve no better response.

>I base my moral values on the idea that I am naturally entitled to superiority over no one and no one is naturally entitled to superiority over me.
>I base this core assertion on the indisputable fact that no meaningful natural difference exists between any two people in this world to justify unilateral authority
Objectively incorrect
>enlightened euphoric atheist doesn't understand genetics
Some people are literally innately superior to others, your entire meme reddit cringe morality completely falls apart because of this fact.

Are you trying to imply that its not?
In many parts of the world it is straight up illegal to criticise the government or the state religion, what is that if not a scam aimed at keeping people compliant.

>there have been thousands of attempts to make a flying machine but only ours will actually work
lol

Read this post and it's followup, you have misinterpreted my argument. Biology has almost nothing to do with my assertion.

>dude don't strawman my religion I'll strawman you! don't like it do you!!

... yea...

cringe atheist logic

Attached: Soul_1.png (777x2777, 905K)

Attached: Soul_2.png (1222x3222, 924K)

Attached: Soul_3.png (1222x3555, 1.41M)

The fact that the answer is unknown is completely irrelevant to the point, you complete braindead spaz. It's fucking obvious, how are you so retarded you couldn't even realise this?

>While it's true that non manlets are naturally superior to manlets in the areas of sexual attractiveness and ability to learn this does not grant us the right to tell manlets what to do.

Sorry man but it seems like your trying to create a social argument separate from biological reality. If the tallest and strongest chimp has dominion over his fellow chimps, why is it wrong is that's applied to people? And why can't it be extended to other superior traits like intelligence? Man had dominion over women for thousands of years. And it was fine. Infact it gave us the world we see today. What about if that person has benevolent authority? Is it ok then? What about the real positives of dominion over some people? It seems like you haven't explored these concepts

Attached: Soul_4.png (777x4444, 1.23M)

brace yourselves, we're going full

Imagine unironically believing in magic and shit

>man in full spazout uses the term "braindead spaz"

okay

it's over

Attached: Soul_5.png (1222x4777, 1.47M)

That's literally what Gervais, and the user over here, is arguing against.
>but my beliefs are different!
Yikes...now that is embarassing.

>>Trying to discern how existence came into being and concluding that there is a creator based on the thousands of years of reasoning which was greatly influenced by some of the greatest minds that have ever existed like Aristotle and Aquinas is the same thing as indigenous populations in stone age civilizations who hop around like chimps when lightning flashes across the sky and conclude there's a dude up there pissing rain and farting clouds
It is the same thing.

>

The answer to this question lies in the fundamental difference between humans and animals. Humans can reason and therefore give consent, animals do not have that privilege. Thus when an animal leads a pack because it is strongest no injustice occurs, because there is no concept of justice in the animal kingdom. But when a human does it, they are forcing their will upon someone who does not consent, which means they are exercising unilateral authority without the right to do so (since no man is naturally superior to his fellows) which IS unjust.

Define unjust. Your arguments are predicated on certain axioms that I don't agree with. You're describing an action (someone forcing their will on one who does not consent) as unjust. Why is that action unjust? Thousands of millions of "unjust", as you describe, actions have taken place among millions of humans. Infact many of those unjust actions led us to where we are now. So how are they unjust if they can lead to a positive thing? Certainly your existence here, somewhere along the line, was caused by an unjust action of one human to another. Is your very creation then wrong because of that unjust action? What if that unjust action causes more future "just" actions?

Seething atheist incel jump off a cliff you're useless and nobody likes you
The lack of belief would imply that the neutral proven point is that there is no god, there is no neutral point in this scenario. To make an assertion is to have a belief.
>muh muh muh fence sitter, it doesn't exist cuz I say so
>too autistic to actually counter-argue
Slit your wrists you retarded deformed freak
Okay maybe I used the wrong word, but my point is still the same, like how you're still a subhuman cuck who can only argue semantics.
What's the matter?
Scared of the actual point?

Like...?

Well then your assertion is just straight up wrong and in denial then l I dunno what to tell you

Friend, pointing out that agnosticism is built on a false equivalence is a core refutation.

Cry more, I fucked your oneitis last night, you creepy fat fuck

what motivates you to post like that?

Fuck yeah Stromberg

That's simply because humans don't like not knowing something, so whenever someone asks "why" and they don't know they just make shit up

I can imagine some village elder who's supposed to know everything just making religions up so he doesn't look like an idiot

>Define unjust.
Very difficult question to answer, but my working dedefinition for an unjust is an action taken against someone for which you had neither the right nor the consent to take. Rape is unjust because you don't have any formal authority to rape them under (unless you are a soldier being ordered to or whatever) and the victim does not consent. Taxation on the other hand is just because even though you don't want to be taxed the government has the right to tax you as you are a member of the society they govern (obviously this argument doesn't work for non democratic governments).

>So how are they unjust if they can lead to a positive thing?
Just does not necessarily mean good. A good thing can be unjust, like the Japanese human experiments that advanced medical knowledge during the second world war, and bad things can be just, like going to jail for killing a dude who was a real asshole.

>Is your very creation then wrong because of that unjust action?
No. I did not choose to be born and thus bear no responsibility for the circumstances of my conception.
To expand on this reasoning, I owe nothing to the aboriginals who were genocided to create my country because I was in no way involved in that genocide. I am, however, responsible for their current treatment since they are citizens in my nation and thus equally entitled to every right that nation has granted me, which includes stuff like not growing up illiterate because my parents were to bust hugging petrol to send me to school.

>What if that unjust action causes more future "just" actions?
Then it is unjust, but good, as it has furthered the cause of justice (which is good) but caused injustice in the process.
You can consider such a reasoning as valid cause to do an unjust act, but you can't complain if society punishes you for it.

In what way is it straight up wrong and what am I denying?

>The lack of belief would imply that the neutral proven point is that there is no god

The neutral point is admittance of ignorance and giving no confidence in any positive claim until convincing evidence and argument are presented. Same with anything else.

read: atheism

i think the natural position is belief. Only after the "enlightenment" its changed to be the opposite. By ignoring evidence they they dont like.

before the enlightenment the best answer we had was "prime mover." That doesn't mean the default was believing in the christian god. Just that was the best answer we had.

Also you'd get murdered if you tried to argue further.

I don't believe in religion but

Religion is good for cultures to have, a good religion can reinforce all the values and ideas that are congruent with a successful culture and declare those ideas and values which are bad as heretical. fact: per capita religious people are statistically healthier and happier and have a lower rate of mental illness, most of those who hold dangerous concepts (lefties, commies ect.) are atheist.

>muh crusades and other religious wars
The worst wars in world history have nothing/little to do with religion and don't try to tell me you think Europe and the middle east would have been lovey dovey best friends if they where both secular.

It's been absolutely terrible, absolutely awful, evil and wrong morally and logically.

Attached: noreligion.jpg (640x960, 105K)

The pic is wrong since religions don't think there's thousands of God's that they deny, but different representations of the same deity.
>which Office is better
British by far. Americans have this weird thing where they have to glorify working a shitty office job, since a depressing comedy about work is too heavy for them to handle.
It seems like it doesn't even understand the source material.

Same shit when you see people call you "reddit" or any of the assorted buzzwords where they don't have to really do anything else. Like incel. Or cuck. Or nazi.

You're just a fedora and now I can feel smug because fedoras are below me. I am right and you are wrong. Because fedora.

source: all posts containing fedora in this thread

Attached: 90ae230955c2b872b6c07e9ac26fd0c1.jpg (228x285, 75K)

There is only one first cause of all things.

Attached: image0-3.jpg (750x895, 183K)

>most of those who hold dangerous concepts (lefties, commies ect.) are atheist
If 80% of Americans are religious (which they are) and about half the population votes left wing (which they do) then by default a large proportion of people holding "dangerous ideas" like leftism are religious.

>Christianity responsible for preserving much of the knowledge and scientific advancements in the middle ages era
>"durrr the dark ages we could be 1000 years in the future now"
Do atheists even understand history or do they just fall for reddit graphs that have upvotes?

Attached: 2f5c75d0e11d362bc4c79401a9b5f8346290767a7069e050a603e3b473384ac5.jpg (500x388, 37K)

true its monad argument. But divine revaluation was a good enough for them too.
The best argument we have now the transcendental argument.

the catholic church forgot how to make soap, nigga

Not to mention maintained a culture of living just to die, and making no efforts to improve anything.

>The best argument we have now the transcendental argument.

No, that's a desperate "god of the gaps" cope.

>not believing in every god
lmaoing at u all plebs

Attached: 99percenthappy.jpg (470x362, 20K)

nah, its about the energies of God we all experience

>blames Christianity
>not Judaism

Attached: 1483094323149.jpg (306x513, 46K)

>American version

LE SCREAMING JEWS PARKOUR PARKOUR
youtube.com/watch?v=0Kvw2BPKjz0

>UK Version
Subtle kino
youtube.com/watch?v=rPu_d4SSOPk

The US Office is everything wrong with American (((comedy)))

Why the fuck is everyone a jew?

Why are they always screaming?

Why is everything so bright and colourful?

the whole thing is fake and cringe

preferring the UK version doesn't say much about a person, but preferring the US version tells you that they're an irredeemable pleb

just because you don't know anything about biology doesn't mean god is touching you

>general idea of a god.
Not really, there are so many religions that barely resemble the "general idea of a god"
Romans and Greeks gave their Gods humanity, whereas Abraham religions believe in an all-knowing all-powerful entity. Thor was basically just a ridiculously strong guy. Most religions have barely any real similarities.

>spend years a monk copying out the works of Galen, Aristotle, Plato and others to preserve the knowledge for the future
>teach the various schools of philosophy and science to people
>1000 years later, get remembered by edgy teens as anti-science morons, despite the only reason they have access to ancient thoughts on atheism is because your church had you write them down
If you ever studied medieval history outside of high school, or read a medieval history book without pictures, you'd find that the only reason we know what the Romans and Greeks thought about anything was because the Catholic Church preserved it.
>no efforts to improve anything
>living just to die
This is funny since this has never been Church doctrine.

OK infidel

Attached: 66694908_460930221125407_1437236511433031930_n.jpg (750x937, 100K)

the core of church doctrine is all that matters is eternity

jews only got control in the last hundred years

Didn't the church write over Archimedes' proofs of calculus centuries before Newton reinvented/rediscovered it?

The american one is generic sitcom fodder with superficial characters. Wouldn't want the average burgerino to develop any deep insights while you're trying to flog your fat burning pills and credit products desu, they're just not conditioned for that.

well?

Attached: pascals wager.png (1280x1466, 1.75M)

Reminder that the gospels were not written by the disciples they're named after, they're POV stories with anonymous authors

just because you dont know anything about God does not mean he does not exist

>all that matters is eternity
It doesn't teach that, since there would be no need to live a certain way otherwise.

>write over Archimedes' proofs of calculus
Doesn't overrule the many other books which were preserved. It wasn't even a completely accurate theory in the first place, its not like it set the world back hundreds of years.

What is the correct set of rules to get into heaven? How do you know your rules are the correct ones when there are countless other rulesets that other people believe which contradict yours?

Attached: cry cat microphone.jpg (540x463, 14K)

that's a meaningless statement. Unless, of course, you're claiming to have knowledge of god.

>It doesn't teach that, since there would be no need to live a certain way otherwise.
You realize, of course, this statement is self-contradictory, right?

of course i have, lel, and my point is more on the fact that you have no clue what the enrages of God are, hens you ignorant claim about biology. The energies of God are the logoi, similar to the platonic forms

In general the most important things are to
>Be a good person and ask for forgiveness and repentance whenever you sin
>Believe that Jesus and God is real and they saved you
>Be baptized
There's a bunch of smaller stuff but focus on those three first and go from there.

Me

Yes, putting "god" into "the realms beyond the physical reality" is a cope, we've covered this.

not an argument sorry

>Doesn't overrule the many other books which were preserved.
But it does prove that at least one important book was destroyed. Sure, a lot were preserved, but we have no idea how many were destroyed because obviously we only have the ones that were preserved.

Why is christianity correct and not islam? They both have a similar number of followers

It is. As it just puts god outside of relevancy. its also basically insisting magic is real.

as i said no, hens your lack of understanding the energies of God. And yes magic, well depending of your definition, is real.

Surely you can prove any of this exists.

well if you want to stick to empirical proof for metaphysical claims than no, but then you will have to reject logic, numbers, the self and all kind of stuff that cant be proven by empiricism.

So that's a "no" to having proof.

I don't know where this meme that metaphysics can't be empirically proven came from, but you're just making yourself look like an assclown by repeating it. As you're basically just saying "why no, these things cannot be observed or repeated. that doesn't mean they aren't real!"

bruh, the scientific method uses logic, and you cant prove it with the scientific method, so logic is unprovable by it. You cant go in circles about this. You take it as the absolute truth but its just another belief.

so in addition to biology, "logic" is something else of which you have zero understanding.

Debate me, I'm an atheist

so the scientific method does not use logic, lel, good one, and agin you are not making arguments maybe you dont understand the basics of it.

So we've got biology, logic, and the scientific method as things of which you have zero understanding. You also seem barely literate. Care to go for five?

agin no arguments, saying the scientific method does not presuppose logic completely breaks it you know.

I've never even seen the US version lol. Seems like your run of the mill le wacky US le comedy like big bang theory or two and a half men.

Friend, claims without proof are dismissed without proof. All we're doing now is plumbing the depths of your idiocy.

what, you are insane man, you just repeat ad hominems and dont adders the basic here, is logic a necessity for the scientific method ?

Although he isn't wrong, his reasoning is:

Try to guess my name.

>How many wrong guesses will there be?

>but you think yours is right?

>Someone might be right though, despite all those wrong guesses.

>Them being wrong doesn't mean that ALL guesses therefore must be.

An adhom would be
>you're wrong because you're an asshat
what you've done is display, conclusively, you have zero understanding of logic, the scientific method, biology, and a very weak grasp of English. I just want to know how deep your lack of any sort of real knowledge goes.

Moron, all questions have unknown answers. Bertrand Russell spent a decade trying to prove 1+1 = 2 without axioms before giving up due to mental exhaustion. Besides that is a bad example you could instead choose physics, our model of physics is constantly evolving. It's like saying 'thousands of theories have existed for the model of our solar system but the copernican model is correct. All the others are stupid and wrong but a round planet orbiting a sun due to relativistic effects from the interaction between matter and a gravitational field is correct' of course you'll then present an argument about the infallibility of empiricism all the while unaware the empiricism itself is a philosophical assertion within the field of epistemology.
Atheist intellectuals argue against folk religious people instead of practicised theologians because atheists love to humiliate the uneducated to feel good about themselves because they are filled with crippling insecurities.

you are basically calling me dumb, you dont understand X Y Z, whiteout any claim to what is wrong. its and An ad hom just a little bit extended
You present no arguments. again proving you have no idea what logic is and how to make a logical claim.
for 10 post still 0 arguments form you

I found this to be the case so fucking much, that I quit studying philosophy a year into post-grad.
Honestly, fuck all those self-righteous atheist dicknipples.
It's one thing to not believe in something, but beating Christians (and never Jews, funnily enough) over the head with your big brain gets fucking boring and irritating.
And this is coming from an atheist myself.

You claim to have knowledge but assert it cannot be proven by it's nature. I have pointed out why this is faulty.

hey friend, you realize atheists are comfortable with the possibility they're wrong, right? Because all models are wrong, but some are useful.

no i told you you cant box me in the empiricist proofs, because not everything can be proven empirically, and empiricism has certain "unproven" presuppositions

that is all form me i have to work,

Basically spirits, ghosts, "energies", ect. ect.

Things you can't quantify.

Yes it's retarded but Tesla was a literal mad scientist who wanted to ionize the atmosphere.

>The others are silly made up nonsense.
>But not yours.
>Yours is real.

Attached: 1567981079960_EDIT_1.jpg (528x681, 48K)

Friend, if the things you were talking about were real, you would be able to consistently repeat them and/or observe them.