What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Zottistan]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

And you think torturing and killing others is your way into heaven?

Well, it's a possibility.

[Dyakovo]

prove this is true.

You just lack faith, evidence not needed.

Absolute bullshit. You made the claim, now you have to back it up.

[Esternial]

prove this is true.

You just lack faith, evidence not needed.

That ends the debate then.

At least your involvement in it.

[Vecherd]

It's all good, just keep it agnostic.

[The Alma Mater]

It's all good, just keep it agnostic.

Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist ?

[Mavorpen]

I don't remember the Christian God ever saying "oh, wait, nah, actually you guys can come to".

I don't remember it saying that Hell even exists on the first place. And there are Christians who also don't either, and who, instead, argue that rather than Hell, you're simply not taken into Heaven and cease to exist. There is no active punishment, but there is one in the sense that you are kept away from God.

The existence of Hell, even within the scope of Christianity, is another assumption that is disputed, even by fellow Christians. With such blatant problems with Pascal's Wager, I sincerely cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to sincerely argue it's a legitimate argument.

[Vecherd]

It's all good, just keep it agnostic.

Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist ?

While I aimed at agnostic atheism now, both kinds really are to prefer over the alternative on both sides.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

prove this is true.

You just lack faith, evidence not needed.

Evidence is needed if you can claim such a thing can be real.

[Ashmoria]

I don't remember the Christian God ever saying "oh, wait, nah, actually you guys can come to".

I don't remember it saying that Hell even exists on the first place. And there are Christians who also don't either, and who, instead, argue that rather than Hell, you're simply not taken into Heaven and cease to exist. There is no active punishment, but there is one in the sense that you are kept away from God.

The existence of Hell, even within the scope of Christianity, is another assumption that is disputed, even by fellow Christians. With such blatant problems with Pascal's Wager, I sincerely cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to sincerely argue it's a legitimate argument.

didn't the pope recently suggest that righteous atheists can go to heaven?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I don't remember it saying that Hell even exists on the first place. And there are Christians who also don't either, and who, instead, argue that rather than Hell, you're simply not taken into Heaven and cease to exist. There is no active punishment, but there is one in the sense that you are kept away from God.

The existence of Hell, even within the scope of Christianity, is another assumption that is disputed, even by fellow Christians. With such blatant problems with Pascal's Wager, I sincerely cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to sincerely argue it's a legitimate argument.

didn't the pope recently suggest that righteous atheists can go to heaven?

Both atheists and homosexuals are welcome in heaven, according to the pope. Also according to (a different) pope, purgatory no longer exists. Not never did exist, but the pope actually abolished purgatory.

[WestRedMaple]

And you think torturing and killing others is your way into heaven?

Well, it's a possibility.

True, but it would mean having to acknowledge that god was neither loving nor merciful

[Galloism]

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Of course, I have the benefit of thousands of years of life experience to look back on. The mortals lack such hindsight.

[The Alma Mater]

Well, it's a possibility.

True, but it would mean having to acknowledge that god was neither loving nor merciful

He could also really like war and fighting. Entering Valhalla after all also required you to die in glorious battle.

[Esternial]

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Of course, I have the benefit of thousands of years of life experience to look back on. The mortals lack such hindsight.

It's so lacking it's almost...disturbing.

[Zottistan]

Well, it's a possibility.

True, but it would mean having to acknowledge that god was neither loving nor merciful

Which would explain an awful lot, really.

[Dyakovo]

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

[Galloism]

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

I was unaware that today was opposite day.
Something for the occaision.

[Dyakovo]

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

Lacking belief doesn't require any faith. Suggesting otherwise is, frankly, quite stupid.

[Zottistan]

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

This is relevant if your issue is drawing complexity from simplicity.

[Galloism]

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

I was unaware that today was opposite day.
Something for the occaision.

I like the video.

[Galloism]

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

Lacking belief doesn't require any faith. Suggesting otherwise is, frankly, quite stupid.

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

[Dyakovo]

Lacking belief doesn't require any faith. Suggesting otherwise is, frankly, quite stupid.

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

No, it doesn't.

[Galloism]

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

This is relevant if your issue is drawing complexity from simplicity.

My phone doesn't support Java, so I'll have to check it out later.

[The Alma Mater]

Lacking belief doesn't require any faith. Suggesting otherwise is, frankly, quite stupid.

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

How does a deity of some sort solve this problem ?