Everyone on Earth is an Atheist.

Everyone on Earth is an Atheist. Even if you practice a religion, you're still an atheist towards gods or other religions that you do not follow or believe in.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Dirk

    Bro.... everyone is a bachelor to women they're not married to :O

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Objectively also correct

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Atheists actually believe g∉BB=O
        And you have the audacity to call us illogical.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes of course but did you also know that aE∋=O

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Prove that g∈B.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based. I reckon Plato's Academy sounded like this.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Atheists actually believe g∉BB=O
      And you have the audacity to call us illogical.

      I’ll worry about presenting my argument when you present one of yourself- the OP is just semantics. Listen to dirk [...]

      Picrel
      ‘Religious’ should be replaced with ‘spiritual’ in this context. Religion refers to social practices, but spirituality is the individual trait that’s related to actually having transcendental experiences. From this, we can see that there’s a place in the brain that makes people spiritual. So I’d argue that no, we are not atheists, we are nebulous theists until we eventually decide on which religion/ideology to worship. Atheists, despite what they say, still worship something: it might not be god, and more often than not it’s communism or simply themselves. So yeah, there actually is an innate drive for spirituality. Atheism arises when you’re too comfortable in the western, industrialized world, which has already been suffused with Christian morality for like 2000 years. Most atheists on this board, when pressed, will say something along the lines of “religion bad cuz god says masturbation wrong- but I do it and I am ok!”

      Look at yourself lol, you’re so self-conscious about your lack of belief that you’re projecting it onto others.
      >IM NOT ATHEIST!!! WE ALL ARE!!!!
      God is in fact a metaphysical being you frickin moron, only atheist strawmen say otherwise (i.e. le man in da sky). He clearly has some bearing on reality, because people go around the world motivated by religious beliefs: sadly some of it is war, but Christians (uniquely) demonstrate mercy, compassion, forgiveness. Atheists might say they have these moral values, but it’s a product of being born and raised in a historically Christian culture.
      It’s okay to be an atheist, but stop evangelizing. Nobody’s gonna kill you for being an atheist, that’s the benefit of modernity that people have today (thanks to philosophers and state-builders who were, in fact, theists). Evangelicals are the worst

      God doesn't exist, pic related
      >It’s okay to be an atheist, but stop evangelizing.
      No. If others will proselytise their false beliefs (like Christianity) then I will proselytise my true beliefs (atheism).
      >Nobody’s gonna kill you for being an atheist
      Only because intelligent secular people managed to shape society and convince people that persecuting other beliefs shouldn't be done. If Christians had their way then they would persecute every non-Christian, just like they used to do.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No. If others will proselytise their false beliefs (like Christianity) then I will proselytise my true beliefs (atheism).
        Citation that says you’re correct? Stop cramming everything through an empirical lens- that only matters for scientific research about the natural world, not the spiritual world. There are in fact immaterial things that affect us, consciousness being the one prime example.

        >If Christians had their way then they would persecute every non-Christian, just like they used to do.
        Right, that’s why the most advanced nations are historically Christian. Like I said, the culture is already suffused with Christian dogma, which is probably where you (unwittingly) source your personal morality. The social contract is written in Christian terminology. You’re stuck in the past, where people would kill eachother for much less than religious differences, so I’m sure you know that that’s a disingenuous claim.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Atheism is not necessarily correlated with empiricism. Some people simply see it as a softer version of what amounts to solipsism.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't believe most atheists are sollipsists though, if you believe in an objective physical reality, that kind of implies the opposite.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Empiricism is the backbone of atheism, if an atheist wanted to make any claim about metaphysics. The claim will usually be “where’s the evidence?” and the discussion immediately falls apart because they won’t admit rationalism as a valid argument.

            >The social contract is written in Christian terminology
            That's actually partly wrong, because even though Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Christian (a Calvinist, mind you), most of the American Founding Fathers were actually deists who didn't believe that God had an active role in humans' lives and refused to accept miracles from the Bible.

            That’s what I’m saying, our culture is absolutely suffused with Christian dogma that, even if you hate Christians, you are a product of those teachings. The only way to live in the West and not have Christian morality is if you were a feral child, raised by wolves or something. God doesn’t need to affect reality when there’s already so many people working on his behalf. That being said, the ways in which he can affect the world would be miraculous- the most secular way to describe this would be a freak probabilistic aberration. Could it have been predicted empirically? Probably, but the resources to be able to do so would require godlike precision. We use these words everyday but doublethink causes us to totally reject immaterial things when it comes to discussing religion.

            >Relativity has been disastrous for discourse on morality and ethics
            I fail to see how the theory of relativity has anything to do with morality and ethics. What does time having a finite speed have to do with either of these things? I'm actually genuinely curious

            Einstein himself was not a moral relativist, but his ideas influenced moral relativism. Disastrous.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Einstein himself was not a moral relativist, but his ideas influenced moral relativism. Disastrous.
            What does the theory of general relativity have to do with moral relativism? Are you just confused because they both have the term "relative" associated with them?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://albertmohler.com/2015/12/07/relativity-moral-relativism-and-the-modern-age
            Read my post again, moron-sama

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nevertheless, the cultural impact of Einstein's theory extends far beyond the laboratory or the science classroom. As the twentieth century unfolded, Einstein's theory of relativity quickly became a symbol and catalyst for something very different -- the development of moral relativism.
            Thats just Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jrs opinion, which he then follows up with the following statement
            >Einstein was not a moral relativist, nor did he believe that his theories had any essential moral or cultural meaning. He recoiled when his theory of relativity was blamed or credited for the birth of modern art (Cubism, in particular) or any other cultural development.
            And again reiterates with another opinion
            >Fair enough. Albert Einstein was not a moral relativist and his theory of relativity has nothing to do with morality. The problem, however, is simple -- Einstein's theory of relativity entered the popular consciousness as a generalized relativism. The issue here is not to blame Albert Einstein. He is not responsible for the misuse, misapplication, and misappropriation of his theory. But, in any event, for millions of modern people relativity was understood as relativism. And that misunderstanding is one of the toxic developments of the modern age.
            >"In both his science and his moral philosophy, Einstein was driven by a quest for certainty and deterministic laws. If his theory of relativity produced ripples that unsettled the realms of morality and culture, this was not caused by what Einstein believed but by how he was popularly interpreted."
            Once again, the opinions of Walter Isaacson, whom the author states was "Einstein's most important biographer" which he isn't, he's just the former CEO of CNN and a prominent early 20th century pop author
            Of course lets not forget that R. Albert Mohler Jr is a Souther Baptist theologian and ordained minister. What a waste of time that article was.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Moral relativism has nothing to do with relativity, and already existed before Albert Einstein was born.
            >There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so
            as Hamlet says in Act II, Scene 2 of his eponymous play, written by William Shakespeare around 1600.
            David Hume obviously did quite a bit of harm to moral absolutism with his famous is-ought divide.
            Max Stirner completely did away with all claims of absolute truth, dismissing all as "spooks".
            Dostoevsky's famous novel, crime and Punishment, relies on the protagonist, Raskolinkov, justifying the murder of his landlady by claiming that God does not exist and there is no morality.
            Nietzsche's own writings on the revaluation of morality deserve a post of their own and are far too complex to analyze in the space of 2000 characters.

            So as we can see, Einstein's theory of relativity, which had to do with spacetime being a cone, neither set off the initial impulse for relativism nor did it have anything to do with moral relativism. It only partly coincided in name with it, much like a horse's throat and a hoarse throat are not the same thing.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Empiricism is the backbone of atheism
            Nope. There's absolutely no empirical evidence for the lack of existence of a god. Claiming with any degree of assurance that God does not exist relies on an ideal conception of the universe, such that it does not require the need for a prime mover.

            >our culture is absolutely suffused with Christian dogma that, even if you hate Christians, you are a product of those teachings
            Same could be said for the ancient Greeks and Babylonians. The ancient Hebrews knew that they had been inspired by the ancient Mesopotamians, which is why the claimed that their patriarch, Abraham, had come from Ur prior to being sent to the land later to be known after his son, Jacob (renamed Israel). Hellenistic israelites and early Christians were not afraid of taking influence from pagan philosophers like Plato and Seneca because they thought that parts of the beliefs espoused by those philosophers were compatible with their own. They did not exist in a world where everything had to be made from scratch, but instead took inspiration from everything that they could make use of to their own benefit.
            Likewise, even atheism has a long tradition for itself in the writings of skeptic philosophers like Sextus Empiricus and David Hume. Nobody thought of themselves as atheists in the modern sense till Baron d'Holbach, and few people would claim anybody before Bertrand Russell as representative of the sort of ideology espoused by "New Atheists", but it is true that similar sentiments to the ones echoed by atheists nowadays may be found in the works of philosophers and thinkers from ancient times onwards. Utilitarianism, for example, was founded by atheist Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century, and a predecessor of contemporary cultural relativism was championed by Immanuel Kant's Anthropology.
            To claim Western culture is entirely Christian in roots is false, but to claim that Western culture would have arisen without Christianity is false too.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's absolutely no empirical evidence for the lack of existence of a god.
            This might be a little reductive, but wouldn't empiricism generally reject hypotheses that have no evidence? Are there any phenomena that currently have no plausible explanations aside from a prime mover?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >wouldn't empiricism generally reject hypotheses that have no evidence?
            No. Ockham's razor has no grounds in empirical evidence. Only that which has been directly observed can be said to have been true at ONE point at least, not that it has always been so or that it will always be so.
            The scientific method that people advocate for relies on both empirical evidence and inductive reasoning, but you would never arrive upon such thing as a "theory" or even a "testable hypothesis" if you could only make observations and never make inferences from them.
            In fact, much of the Scientific Revolution relied on people who were able to work with both experimental data and come up with rational explanations for them by the means of mathematics. Probability would be totally useless if people had not accepted that not everything is as it seems at the moment, and that certain things are possible but not always actually part of reality.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The social contract is written in Christian terminology
          That's actually partly wrong, because even though Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Christian (a Calvinist, mind you), most of the American Founding Fathers were actually deists who didn't believe that God had an active role in humans' lives and refused to accept miracles from the Bible.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Stop cramming everything through an empirical lens- that only matters for scientific research about the natural world, not the spiritual world. There are in fact immaterial things that affect us, consciousness being the one prime example.
          Consciousness is not immaterial in the slightest. It is an electrochemical process of the brain, so it's completely physical. Why do physical brain injuries often impair consciousness? Because consciousness is physical. Why do physical chemicals, drugs, affect consciousness? Because consciousness is physical, and is affected by chemicals in the bloodstream.

          There is no evidence of any immaterial things whatsoever. If people captured immaterial phenomena in photographs, and they could determine that such phenomena were not physical in any way, then that would be evidence of immaterial phenomena. But no such evidence exists. I have never seen any immaterial things and I've seen nothing to suggest that others have either.

          >the most advanced nations are historically Christian
          Western nations also grew out of Roman culture, with their gods like Jupiter and Mars. Does that mean those gods are real and we should worship them?

          Christianity being successful doesn't mean it's true.

          >Only because intelligent secular people managed to shape society and convince people that persecuting other beliefs shouldn't be done.

          Yes. If Christians had their way they would persecute every non-Christian.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If Christians had their way they would persecute every non-Christian.
            Your entire view of Christian governance comes from Hollywood. In reality religious tolerance is a Christian innovation.
            When secularists get their way on the other hand...

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In reality religious tolerance is a Christian innovation.
            Christians were very tolerant when they burnt people at the stake for witchcraft. Also David Hume was hated by many people because he was thought to be an atheist, even though modern scholars think he wasn't actually an atheist. Just the belief that he was an atheist was enough for Christians at the time to hate him.

            >When secularists get their way on the other hand...
            That pic makes me think of the French revolution where they beheaded royalists... but maybe there was a religious element, I dunno.

            Anyway whatever, this point is not productive because it's just jerking off over which ideology is more moral. Sure, there have been immoral Christians and immoral secularists. And there have been moral Christians and moral secularists.

            I think the more important is which ideology is true? I think atheism is a lot more likely to be true than Christianity. I've not seen any good evidence to support Christian claims.

            Perhaps atheism isn't true and there is a God, but I don't think humans have any good reasons to believe in any gods at the moment. There's no evidence for any.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians were very tolerant when they burnt people at the stake for witchcraft.
            That's not even related to what you're talking about.
            >Just the belief that he was an atheist was enough for Christians at the time to hate him.
            >People calling me mean words is persecution
            Ok gay.
            Oh sorry, didn't mean to persecute you again.
            >I think the more important is which ideology is true?
            Your argument is very disorganized and uncohesive. I'll ignore this one and give you another chance. This time actually try.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Glad I could defeat you so easily.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No. If others will proselytise their false beliefs (like Christianity) then I will proselytise my true beliefs (atheism).
        You can proselytize, but your life still sucks and nobody wants anything you have. And even other atheists who may agree with you do a better job at it. They have fun lives. You're a dork who posts Bertrand Russell memes.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're a crying Christian moron who can't counter any of my arguments. Glad I could defeat you so easily.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Only because intelligent secular people managed to shape society and convince people that persecuting other beliefs shouldn't be done.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was religious people who did that. Secular people did this

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >* g∉B => B={}

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You could just say everybody elses' gods exist but they suck compared to your awesome god, like the Israelites

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's a name for this, its called Monolatry

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Implications of this can be found in earlier parts of the Old Testament.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      or like the Romans

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not what the word "atheist" means.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      atheist means not belieiving in God or gods
      If you're a Christian and say that paganism is bullshit, that means you don't believe in thise gods, thus you're an atheist regarding paganism

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it doesn't. If you believe in a God at all you are by definition not an atheist.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you believe in the Greek God Apollo?
          If you say no, then you are, by definition, an atheist to a Greek polytheist, you don't believe in a god that he believes is very, very real.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again that's not what the word means in modern usage. Back when it was a synonym for "immoral" or "heretic" and when nobody actually self described as one perhaps you could make this somewhat pedantic argument, but it's not how anyone understands the word today. I don't know if Christians in the 1600s were calling Muslims "atheists", but I do know Protestants and Catholics would refer to the others as such even though both clearly did believe in literally the same God, so frankly an older understanding of the word is actually even broader than whatever you're talking about, but again not how anyone uses the word today.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Then what's your problem with religion?

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Op is right and will cause endless seethe

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone is a Christian. You've already rejected every non-Christian religion but one

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Christian
      *israeli

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Theism is requisite for being a human, or a subject agent in the world that can do things willfully

    Atheists are torn between being
    >an object: where internal processes are outward behaviors are deterministic, and explainable solely by physical/chemical processes
    >wants to do nothing, and have the world sort them out
    >an animal: where consciousness and reason are secondary to the most basic desires, and behaviors to those ends are ex post facto justified with consciousness
    >wants to do anything, and have the world (including other people) accept it as necessarily logical

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Theism is requisite for being a human, or a subject agent in the world that can do things willfully
      No it isn't. Everyone is born an atheist

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Begging the question
        So I guess you’re an object-type atheists, you don’t even bother using your intellect. How can you be so ardent about such a self-defeating belief?
        Many such cases

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Okay, but everyone is still born an atheist. You suck at presenting your argument, so I'm only assuming you belive in some innate metaphysical drive that humans have, like a 5th sense with our imaginations as proof or some such shit. And I'm sorry to say but that still makes you an atheist, it doesn't make you religious, in fact now you're just reducing the role of "God" to some vague metaphysical being that at best has no bearing on reality.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll worry about presenting my argument when you present one of yourself- the OP is just semantics. Listen to dirk

            Bro.... everyone is a bachelor to women they're not married to :O

            Picrel
            ‘Religious’ should be replaced with ‘spiritual’ in this context. Religion refers to social practices, but spirituality is the individual trait that’s related to actually having transcendental experiences. From this, we can see that there’s a place in the brain that makes people spiritual. So I’d argue that no, we are not atheists, we are nebulous theists until we eventually decide on which religion/ideology to worship. Atheists, despite what they say, still worship something: it might not be god, and more often than not it’s communism or simply themselves. So yeah, there actually is an innate drive for spirituality. Atheism arises when you’re too comfortable in the western, industrialized world, which has already been suffused with Christian morality for like 2000 years. Most atheists on this board, when pressed, will say something along the lines of “religion bad cuz god says masturbation wrong- but I do it and I am ok!”

            Look at yourself lol, you’re so self-conscious about your lack of belief that you’re projecting it onto others.
            >IM NOT ATHEIST!!! WE ALL ARE!!!!
            God is in fact a metaphysical being you frickin moron, only atheist strawmen say otherwise (i.e. le man in da sky). He clearly has some bearing on reality, because people go around the world motivated by religious beliefs: sadly some of it is war, but Christians (uniquely) demonstrate mercy, compassion, forgiveness. Atheists might say they have these moral values, but it’s a product of being born and raised in a historically Christian culture.
            It’s okay to be an atheist, but stop evangelizing. Nobody’s gonna kill you for being an atheist, that’s the benefit of modernity that people have today (thanks to philosophers and state-builders who were, in fact, theists). Evangelicals are the worst

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, so you're saying we're all born spiritual, but not religious. You're still born an atheist, thoughever, since thats still atheism. You even said it yourself that you reject the notion of god as a man in the sky.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Semantics, sophistry, etc
            There’s no argument here, you’re just a crybaby looking for validation because you’re insecure about being an atheist

            >you reject the notion of god as a man in the sky
            I called it a strawman, and you (true to form) adhered to it

            Being spiritual is the opposite of atheism. In common parlance, atheism literally means not believing in God, or anything vaguely religious- you’re playing word games to ensure you’re correct even after you’ve been countered. But keep evangelizing. You’ll convince someone, surely

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. You can still be an atheist and also be spiritual, these things aren't mutually exclusive and we see many historic examples of this (Albert Einstein et al) it seems the only one making strawmen is you in fact, because the label of "atheist" scares you. Naturalists aren't saying a metaphysical God doesn't exist, because that would be beyond evidence, but they can still disprove religion as a human made farce

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I’m not making strawmen, YOU are!!!!
            >atheists are actually spiritual!!!
            No, they aren’t. When you say ‘atheist,’ you mean ‘rejects religious institutions.’ Might as well be a Protestant. If an atheist had spiritual beliefs, then they’d be able to describe themselves in terms of a religion; not even Christianity, but animism, pantheism, etc. Atheism that is also spiritual is the ultimate fence-straddling cop out. Just say agnostic, since you wanna play semantics so much

            >muh Einstein
            Relativity has been disastrous for discourse on morality and ethics. This is probably the best example you could use for a spiritual atheist, but it still comes down to “believe in myself, and what those around me believe” - which is circular, and gets right back into the religious dogma that is embedded into our culture.

            >the term atheist scares you
            Projection, because I just feel bad for you. You don’t see the paradoxical logic of atheism. You’re vocally renouncing a major aspect of your psychological experience, while still acting it out. You’re using consciousness to say that you’re not conscious.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Relativity has been disastrous for discourse on morality and ethics
            I fail to see how the theory of relativity has anything to do with morality and ethics. What does time having a finite speed have to do with either of these things? I'm actually genuinely curious

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s okay to be an atheist
            No it isn't

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you have against infants?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Babies are created with the knowledge of God.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s okay in the sense I don’t care, it’s their life to pretend that they don’t have certain psychological capacities.

            What do you have against infants?

            Sophistry
            >baby can’t express beliefs (or even understand them)
            >so he’s an atheist!!!!!!!

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            What God do infants believe in? The Christian God? what about Muhummad? Or perhaps babaies are more Hindu or Buddhist?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            They don’t have the capacity to believe in anything, they’re babies. Atheists are at least able to consciously understand what they (don’t) believe.
            What’s wrong with you?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They don’t have the capacity to believe in anything
            So they're atheists, by definition
            >Atheists are at least able to consciously understand what they (don’t) believe.
            Also not an incorrect statement, but most atheists are also not actively anti-theist like you imply

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So they're atheists, by definition
            Are rocks atheists?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, rocks are atheist. So are trees, so are most animals, and so are babies. Nothing is born believing in God.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The bible is clear that all men know God.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The bible itself is an atheist, its just a physical object and it doesn't know God

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You weren't born knowing what the bible even was. Someone had to tell you

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    i believe in every god that man has ever made

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Interestingly, there's nothing stopping a monotheist from acknowledging other gods but refusing to worship them. The Torah is pretty clear in stating that other gods exist but they are lesser to yhwh.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      In that case you wouldn't be a monotheist, but rather monolatristic

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    well, what if i believe in every god?
    >no you cant!
    frick you, i can believe in allah and vishnu if i want to

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *