You must log in or register to comment.
That’s why my community is a bunch of like-minded strangers on the internet who i vaguely align with.
You have no right to call me out like that.
We’re practically family now
spider-menpointing.jpeg
Social consequences are a part of reality.
That’s the spirit
That’s basically what happened with me and atheism.
Worth it, raising atheist kids in a more tolerant place now.
Atheism is just as illogical as theism. You can apply Occam’s razor to assume that there is no god/gods, but that is still just that, an assumption. Agnosticism would be the logically/scientifically backed argument.
No, it’s not. Unfalsifiable deities are unscientific. So being an atheist against any kind of unfalsifiable deity is scientific. And all religion is unfalsifiable by definition.
Being an atheist is also unfalsifiable. Disbelief in any one God is not unscientific, but disbelief in the possibility of God is, objectively.
I have confused atheism and anti-theism.
That is stupid logic. The possibility of a potato controlling everyones’ mind is not zero.
There is nothing that indicates a god exists, hence no reason to believe it. The scientific way would be to belive it if it was possible to prove, but since it is not and there is nothing to indicate otherwise, atheism.
It’s also possible that there’s a teapot in orbit around Mars.
Much more likely, even. RIP Bertrand
Atheism is lack of belief in any god existing, not disbelief in the possibility of a god existing. I don’t know where you’re getting that definition from, as I’ve never met an atheist who would agree with it? If you ask atheists if they are open to the idea of a god clearly intervening in the universe in any meaningful way, thus proving both their existence and their status as a god, I think the majority would say of course. Many of us would also be disappointed as those gods tend to be selfish, mean, exclusionary, and anti-nature in their treatment and expectations for humans, but we would accept it as reality.
It just seems unlikely to happen given that none seem to have done so yet. If you want to speak of a god in terms of a “spirit of the universe” or similar nebulous impersonal, non-intervening concept, that is hardly different from just believing in the teapot or unicorn, in that it will have zero influence on your life and you may as well not even concern yourself with beliefs at all. Which, coincidentally, is how most “believers” live their lives anyway - without regard to any of the supposed commandments their gods have instituted. It’s like they only believe in the idea of belief as a virtue unto itself, not the actual beliefs. And thank goodness they only go that far!
Being an atheist is also unfalsifiable.
Yeah, because you can’t disprove someone not believing in a higher power
Atheism doesn’t make a positive claim that something does or does not exist, it’s a statement of belief
Gnostic atheism is akin to a claim there is no higher beings, that I’ll grant
Typically, atheists don’t spend a lot of time thinking about gods. Also, most theists aren’t just theists, they follow a very specific religion/god, which is orders of magnitude less reasonable.
I don’t know man, have you met atheists online? Theyr worse than vegans.
So it’s logical to doubt whether pink flying unicorns exist?
Or could it be that not believing in those is the logical position?
Abrahamic religions are cancer
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what agnosticism and atheism even are. Agnosticism is a belief in knowability, and most atheists are agnostic - they make no claim to have certain knowledge about whether gods exist. They mainly acknowledge there is no reasonable evidence to believe in any gods as presented. Many theists I have known are gnostic, as they claim to have definite knowledge that their god exists. Atheism is just a position on whether gods exist. Gnostic atheism is as dishonest as gnostic theism, but then, I have never met a gnostic atheist. I have met many agnostic theists, which is why they are tolerable to be around. They don’t make any claims to special revelation.
just as illogical
are you sure they’re equally illogical?
All my opinions are peer reviewed by a scientific panel, of course. How can anyone live in another way.
What’s your favorite color? Please respond in the form of a peer-reviewed paper.
ok, here’s the experimental process
everyday you choose a color from a continous spectrum, then these color will be similar but not exactly the same everytime, the real favourite color is somewhere in the middle
the next step is to choose which color is better than the other by starting at the average color, and then performing gradual descent on the RGB color space until you reach the local maxima, which is also probably the global maxima thanks to the first step
now I need someone to review this
Please elaborate on how a colour is better than another.
unfortunately everyone has a different favourite color, so the experiment and peer reviewing has to be repeated for every individual
a color is better than another only based on personal preference
Exactly. My mom is lost to Trump. From the generation that told me not to jump off a bridge if my friends were, she has no independence from peer pressure. Just Boomer hypocrisy.
Accurate. But people need to be brave enough to embrace the truth even if they don’t like it. You can diplomatically say things like “I’m not so sure about that” and such without directly contradicting those people.
Im going to hold you to that.
All reality is perceived, and people’s perception of reality can be stupid. Stupid perceptions lead to strong emotions based on stupid.
Worse than that, their perception is quite easily manipulated. Hence why media control is so important to the fascists.
*The fascists are the Democrats and their goons, ANTIFA.
This is what people who listen to YouTube (research) and form batshit insane opinions think about themselves.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure you mean the right but yeah.
One of the reasons why it’s not as hilariously loserish as nihilistic as it sounds to say that in many ways havings friends is dumb.
It’s kind of going too far to make a point but probably not as far as lots of people would guess.
Oh you have a group of friends guess what you will now engage in the following behaviors at the prescribed times or else.
And we wonder why authenticity is so rare.
typical repuglican dogma
was this upscaled?
Too smoth. It should be the original.
all opinions are ultimately inconsistent with reality in some way, indicating that they all do really originate from somewhere within ourselves
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
