>science can explain everything, we just have been able to explain everything yet
why is this so?
>because naturalism exists
if naturalism is the belief only objectively provable, testable, and repeatable claims should be believed, what's the provable testable, repeatable proof for naturalism?
>Umm ummm uhh STOP QUESTIONING MY RELIGION!
Is there a real argument for believing that only the natural world exists? Or is it just atheists larping as being "logical" despite it being a faith based belief system?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
All beliefs are faith based at the end of the day, it’s simply a matter of choosing what to put your faith in wisely.
This.
but to address
>science can explain everything, we just have been able to explain everything yet
It can't.
>if naturalism is the belief only objectively provable, testable, and repeatable claims should be believed, what's the provable testable, repeatable proof for naturalism?
Again OP, I do think empirical proofs for things such as "How did the universe come to exist" are important, but all systems of belief rely on axioms, but it is important to assume as little as possible.
If you take a belief system such as Christianity in whole as an axiom, you're taking on a lot of assumptions that can lead you to faulty conclusions, which is not to say all Christians do exactly, but most of the Christians who argue on this site sure do.
>Is there a real argument for believing that only the natural world exists?
I would say it's because it cannot be empirically or logically proven, it generally relies on divine revelation, which I'm skeptical of because what is divinely revealed seems to be incredibly subjective, changing from person to person and religion to religion.
>I would say it's because it cannot be empirically or logically proven, it generally relies on divine revelation, which I'm skeptical of because what is divinely revealed seems to be incredibly subjective, changing from person to person and religion to religion.
It's more about the possibility of there been anything defeats the entire purpose of knowing definitively there is so God. There could be a giant cat named Boingus that hides behind you specifically at all times. Of course there's no reason to believe it, even less then something like Christianity, but it's possible nonetheless. Which makes a belief system about knowing something definitively is not there extremely contrived, even more so then actual religion.
All systems of logic start with assumptions, these are called axioma and are the foundation in which you build your beliefs. Most of our axioms are the same and the real big difference between a "logical atheist" and a "logical Christian" is that the Christian shoves God underneath the foundation of the atheists axioms and calls God the foundation. But why? It seems like a good idea to assume the world exists but God just comes out of nowhere for no reason.
>it's another "not eating is having a meal" thread
cut internet access of all christcucks
Atheism is faith cringe.
>UMM ACTUALLY NOT BELIEVING IN THIS MAGIC MAN IS JUST ANOTHER FAITH BASED RELIGION OKAY???
BOOOOO, get some new material chrestians.
>NnnOoooooooo you can't just believe in a deity that makes your life better in every conceivable way, you NEED to believe in SCIENCE even though it's not a belief it's TRUTH but it's not a heckin religion bro
you can't just believe in a deity that makes your life better in every conceivable way
>WAIT NOT LIKE THAT
It's not an assertion that there is no God, it is the demand for solid evidence that there is a supernatural God!
Why do cucktian apologetics revolve around accusing atheism of being a religion?
It's an accusation and a confession at the same time
>accusing atheism of being a religion?
They are correct if you understand they are just using weltanschauung and religion interchangeably. Which you can argue is wrong, but its not like religion as a word has a hard universally agreed on definition.
lack of faith is not faith in and of itsellf
Is it faith to not believe in leprechauns?
yes? you have faith in their nonexistence.
>science can explain everything, we just have been able to explain everything yet
Strawman.
>yes? you have faith in their nonexistence.
False.
Lack of faith isn't faith.
>Lack of faith isn't faith.
You believe whatever scientists tell you
You believe whatever a book tells you and you aren't even sure where the book came from.
>bald is a hair color
>not eating is a meal
>anyone who thinks differently must have been told so by authority figures
>but not me. my religiotardation is fully logical.
>food allegory
Why don't you homosexuals ever extend this logic to other fields of expertise? I believe a baker's instructions how to cultivate yeast. I believe a mechanic can fix a transmission.
A guy who's autistically studying the breeding cycle of snails to better make a pesticide is not a NWO satanist trying to steal my soul via microchips in vaccines because he's a dreaded LE SCIENTIST.
Atheism=/=naturalism/physicalism
It's faith based on a history of a few hundred years of the fruits of science. Atheists think something happened in epistemology in the last 400 years (nothing happened) that means now officially science wins because F=ma and "imagine things evolving bro... also did you notice that all living beings are related to each other... wow...."
If you don’t see all living things as being literally part of the same family as a paradigm shifting fact then you haven’t thought about it enough.
That was already the case in most creation stories, with all life usually springing from the same source and/or being hand crafted by the same deity.
In the sense that faith is the dividing factor.
Have faith? You are a theist.
Lack faith? You are an atheist
Anything more then this is homosexualry.
>Billions must die over apple theft
Atheism is absolutely another religious belief, you'd have to be moronic to pretend otherwise.
Fun fact: it is also the only unforgivable sin according to the NT.
Religions are additional beliefs and rituals tacked onto what people do and feel normally. No one claims that believing apple trees grow from apple seeds is a religion, no one claims believing in the planet Neptune is a religion, no one calls going to work or having fun with friends a religion, no one calls dating a religion.
What they do call a religion is when you believe in gods or some magic force as a real thing you can’t prove AND you do rituals and depending on the religion, follow a moral code based on those beliefs.
There are plenty of people who just don’t do that, they just don’t have that thing in their life.
You're confusing science with atheism, atheism is just faith in materialism and the flawed belief that there just can't be more to reality that we haven't found out yet.
There is a difference between not worrying about it and holding the strong baseless belief that there is no as-of-yet incomprehensible nature to the universe that is similar to a creator god, among other possibilities.
Agnosticism, deism, panentheism... are examples of beliefs that are less religious than atheism.
Why do christians invoke faith when trying to discredit atheism? are they projecting?
Atheism is the strong belief that currently-updated materialism is the final answer to the nature of reality.
It’s literally not. Very common to be excited of future discoveries
>future discoveries
Except the somehow impossible prospect of a scientifically-explainable creator god or similar entity.
God here. I created schizos to laugh at. Hahaha.
it is faith based, but not necessarily in scientism. it's faith based in whatever the so-called atheist values most. worship intelligence and you'll feel moronic all the time, worship strength and you'll feel like a weakling no matter your looks, etc.
Whilst it's true that new atheism makes some claims that can be criticised, this has nothing to do with whether God exists. Can you even show any argument for God's existence that hasn't been seriously internally critiqued?