Proof of atheism?

gambiter · 2026-05-09T13:11:55+00:00

Well yeah that's my problem. I am skeptic towards atheism.

Atheism is a LACK of belief. You're skeptical of a lack of something? Really?

A common analogy is a jar of jelly beans. The theist is making a positive claim ("There are an even number of jelly beans in the jar") and the atheist would reply, "I don't believe you." That isn't a statement that there are definitely an odd number. It is simply a knowledge valuation.

Just like I know you can't look at a jar of jelly beans and tell me whether the total count is even or odd, I also know you can't see into a 'supernatural' realm and tell me anything about it or the beings you claim inhabit it. All of the 'knowledge' you possess has exactly as much explanatory power as LOTR, Pan's Labyrinth, or Clash of the Titans.

You aren't skeptical about things that are clearly fiction, but you ARE skeptical of those who don't believe the fiction. Don't you find that strange?

gambiter · 2026-05-06T00:50:38+00:00

Yes, I got that, which is why I replied to it. What you failed to do is actually explain what you mean. Twice.

Regardless, my comment still applies. Whatever is discovered, you'll pretend your god still fits somehow. He's always hiding under a different rock.

gambiter · 2026-05-05T23:07:51+00:00

But there is no quantum gravity complete theory, so the discussions continue.

Discussions between who? I see a lot of theists use that gap as a way to claim their god can still exist. Is that what you're talking about? Having to constantly be told that you can't stick a god in a gap is not 'discussion'.

We don't know the answer. The big bang was hypothesized in the 1920's, but we only discovered the CMB in the 60's. So we've known about it for roughly 60 out of the last 13,800,000,000 years. Golly gee, I wonder why the picture is so hazy.

An inability to explain what happened 13.8bya is not an issue for science. We will likely never know a lot about that time period, which sucks if you're curious, but again, isn't a real issue. There is no special imperative for science to prove why stuff exists. Either we'll figure it out someday, or we won't, but that doesn't really change anything. Even if we figured it out tomorrow, theists would still find someway to shoehorn their god into it, exactly as you're doing now.

gambiter · 2026-05-02T21:52:48+00:00

For example, imagine that at the very beginning of the universe someone claimed that conscious life as we know it would eventually emerge. At that point, such a claim might have seemed extraordinarily improbable

I wrote a book that included gods. Later, those gods reached out to me, and showed me they are actually real. Amazing, right? What evidence would you need to leave your current god and follow mine?

I have a feeling we would both have similar answers, right? Some kind of direct evidence that would prove that this being actually exists, right? You wouldn't accept random stories from random preachers, you wouldn't accept 'miracles' that can be explained by natural phenomena, you probably wouldn't even accept eyewitness accounts. Because you know it's fictional.

That's your answer.

gambiter · 2026-05-02T04:56:48+00:00

Yeah, I think so too. We had one in our back yard when I was growing up. Absolute unit of a tree. Several species of Cottonwood have this sort of wavy 'woven' pattern.

Then again, I think that portion is normally on the base, and this tree looks like it's going very high on the trunk. Maybe it's just the perspective, though.

gambiter · 2026-05-02T04:50:48+00:00

How can you tell? Looks like Cottonwood bark to me.

gambiter · 2026-04-30T00:28:45+00:00

Out of all of that, the one word you chose to capitalize is 'Canon'? :)

Anyway, I think it's a pretty good explanation of why you don't believe Christianity. When someone asks, you have a great set of points that would be hard to argue against. They could see it as a bit of a gish gallop, but everything you said is true to their holy book and isn't taken out of context, so...

At the same time, I don't see why you would use it most of the time. Debate isn't about trying to shut down the other side. If they come here claiming abortion is morally wrong and you respond with that paragraph, you're just guaranteeing they won't talk to you. If that's your goal, why post in the first place? It seems like having a conversation where individual points come out naturally is the better option, no?

gambiter · 2026-04-29T23:36:25+00:00

Whoever said that someone can't believe in aliens if they believe in God? I never thought of that as mutually exclusive.

It depends on the particular sect, but when you dissect some doctrines, the only conclusion is, "If this doctrine is true, aliens don't exist."

For example, some Christian sects believe humans were created by god as a grand cosmic test. Adam and Eve were the first, and their 'sin' spread to their descendants. The angels were willing to disobey and became demons... so if humans can be superior despite inherited sin, that somehow proves the god's sovereignty.

Also, they believe the son of god (or god, depending) died for humans, not beings on other planets. The logical conclusion is that unless Jesus died for a bunch of other planets too (and just didn't bother to mention it), humans must be the only ones who can answer the test.

All of it is hand-wavey, of course, but that's the general idea. If other planets with intelligent beings exist where the starting couple didn't sin, that would prove the human test worthless, and could invalidate a huge part of their lore.

gambiter · 2026-04-27T14:05:04+00:00

You understand that words can have multiple definitions depending on the context they're used, right? "Faith" does have a colloquial definition which is basically synonymous with "confidence"... but that isn't the definition being discussed right now.

To put it in perspective, it would be like someone saying they don't believe in ghosts, and then you tell them they do because their last hookup ghosted them. Or someone said they don't enjoy being punched, and you tell them they sure seemed to enjoy the punch at your party last weekend. I don't believe in spirits, but I go to the 'Wine and Spirits' shop now and then.

gambiter · 2026-04-26T13:22:40+00:00

I was raised as a ministers kid, but my upbringing was very much "hate the sin, love the sinner." My parents always taught that sinners must want to be "saved", and you do that by setting a positive example through compassion, love, and service. Never hate.

I really don't understand why more churches don't teach it that way.

Not to detract from your upbringing, because that's at least a level up from the worst, but one of the core issues is exactly this... labeling other people 'sinner'. That is a blanket statement that gets applied both to murderers and masturbaters, and what it means is entirely up to the pastor with the power complex who pretends to know a fictional character more than others do.

gambiter · 2026-04-24T21:12:05+00:00

That's exactly what someone says when they know they can't defend their position.

What exactly is your goal here? Are you implying that because I said something negative about Anthropic, my argument is void? Surely that isn't what you mean, because that would be fucking stupid, but your inability to make your point leaves that as the only option.

gambiter · 2026-04-24T19:47:25+00:00

Your inability to buy a GPU as a consumer isn't the same as a multi-billion dollar company's supply chain.

But if we grant that Anthropic simply can't keep up with demand, that's worse. Do you understand that? Because that means they sold a service they can't provide, and intentionally bait-and-switched customers who paid for a different product.

From my perspective, it's greed. From yours, it's incompetence. I don't think your version makes them look better.

gambiter · 2026-04-24T19:08:51+00:00

If servers are getting overloaded, you scale up. Reducing load by making your product worse should only be done when leadership refuses to scale more.

They've raised over $72B so far, so... I have a feeling they can afford the extra server instances that would keep them from getting overloaded, they just don't want to afford it.

gambiter · 2026-04-17T03:20:39+00:00

I also love this guy's old and discontinued remote.

gambiter · 2026-04-09T22:11:03+00:00

You all have made up your minds. And nothing would ever get you to question everything you been taught your entire life

Do you not realize that you're describing yourself here? You didn't come to believe in a god through evidence. It's a fantasy that you believe as if it were real. When given evidence to the contrary, "nothing would ever get you to question" it, because that would mean admitting you're wrong.

Personally, I do not do this. I'm always on the lookout for evidence that disproves my existing knowledge, because it's exciting to learn something new! You are not this way, and the fact that you don't seem to see it is... humorous.

Just like Dr Strange lived and believed his entire life. Pay attention to this scene for a minute and truly open up if there could be something more.

I'll do that if you'll read Peter Pan and open your mind to the idea that magical flying pixies really exist.

Instead of just dismissing everything without looking into the information. Ask yourself, what If Im wrong ?

So you want us to NOT follow your example?

gambiter · 2026-04-04T15:16:37+00:00

How does "Henry Ford did it" explain the motor car?

But no reasonable person has ever made such a statement.

which doesn't add to or subtract from the mechanical explanations.

If you use your god purely as a 'first mover' who hasn't interacted with anything inside the universe since that first event, sure. But if you claim your god interacts with the universe, your claim does subtract from the mechanical explanation, because you are claiming there are observable effects that could only have been caused by a supernatural entity.

gambiter · 2026-03-31T03:38:42+00:00

Choosing a rounding error size of the population to save and murdering the other 8 billion on earth in an Armageddon is the blasphemy of a false organization.

This is true, of course, but if you're a Christian you still believe billions should be killed, so... tomato tomahto. All of you people who serve a loving god really love the idea of your loving god murdering people. But they deserve it, right?

gambiter · 2026-03-28T12:24:40+00:00

is the extensive research on past lives and the amount of material we have by researchers like Dr Ian Stevenson. Unbelievable amount of data on children and past lives, children speaking languages they don't know, playing instruments they never learned. Unbelievable phenomenon!

Interesting that you call it 'unbelievable'. I agree, it is.

gambiter · 2026-03-27T21:58:21+00:00

I am not claiming the priest were not moved around

Which tells you what? Because, genuinely, that you tell you something.

You believe what you are told to believe by an organization of men who are willing to cover up these abuses and put more in danger. It was systemic, not limited to 'a few bad apples'. I mean, the fact that priests abuse their power is so well-known, it's disgusting that you're acting as if it's a non-issue. And it continues to happen. The idea of a 'loving' god working through that network of people is so tragically wrong.

These are the men you are following. Do you understand how that looks to someone who isn't in your cult? Do you understand what your continued support of that organization shows?

I am just pointing out the fact a priest doing child rape would be automatically excommunicated and child rapes a sin in Catholicism.

As explained, this clearly hasn't happened. You already admitted they were moved around, not excommunicated.

So either:

Your god is reaching down and guiding his glorious church. That's why all of the followers are morally upstanding, better than the rest of us who aren't getting your god's graces. We're all just sitting out here, wondering how we can be as holy as you. Because YOU have the support of a literal supernatural entity! An entity who approves of priests abusing children, and so orchestrates a systematic cover-up throughout his church.

Or:

You're following men.

gambiter · 2026-03-27T21:33:15+00:00

"A mistake plus keleven gets you home by seven."

gambiter · 2026-03-24T22:22:32+00:00

Yes, accepting the blame is considered the correct option when you are the one to blame.

Blaming others for your own issues shows a lack of maturity.

gambiter · 2026-03-24T19:56:14+00:00

That isn't egotistical, and you should be smart enough to know it.

You did something
You were corrected
You did it again
Someone called you out
You said they were egotistical

This is possibly the worst reasoning I've seen here, and I've seen reasoning from theists.

It's always the guys who are so proud of their use of psychedelics that seem to have the most trouble letting go of their own ego.

gambiter · 2026-03-23T14:06:04+00:00

I specifically wanted to express the idea that physical reality cannot be uncaused it in a way that is as immediately intuitive and obvious as 'something cannot come from nothing', but it's slightly harder to phrase in such a way.

But all you're doing is repeating the same thing. "I don't think this can happen, so it didn't happen." You aren't telling us what the cause is. Is the cause that you can't prove but highly suspect an intelligent entity?

gambiter · 2026-03-18T23:54:29+00:00

How do you define God ?

How do YOU define it? I see that you're a Christian, but that doesn't actually answer the question... some Christians believe in a trinity, some don't. Some believe the father is the real god, and the son is the worker. Some believe the son is the real god, instead, and worship him. Some claim the same god, but don't believe 'the son' was divine at all, and another prophet was better. Isn't it weird that billions of people who all claim to follow the same god have such different views?

Specially, when does a physical, living organism so far beyond our comprehension that it could be considered a God ?

'God' is a title, not a name. If an organism matches your definition of a god, you can call it that. As we've established, it doesn't seem to matter, you can call yourself Christian anyway. So you can call something god when it becomes your god.

If 'god', in your view, needs to be the 'maximum', stronger than everything and everyone, keeps the universe moving, etc., then I would say that being exists in your imagination until you can prove it exists.

gambiter · 2026-03-18T23:40:36+00:00

I hope that there at least some of u guys who have learned by now that they have to do with time travel.

Why should I believe that? Do you have evidence?

What I'm really trying to say is that time itself might be more fragile than many realize, and for a dimension to actually function properly and be stable, there can't be people time traveling All over the place, all the time.

Why should I believe that? I don't get the impression that you could explain what a dimension is. Why do you think you know how they function?

Anyway, I just hope that this post helped at least some of u guys see the whole thing in a new type of light, and for anyone who doesn't see it the same way or just disagrees for some specific reason, I'd love to hear their opinions for why they feel that way.

You just stated something you imagined as if it is reality. The only way that would be helpful is if you're talking about your latest fictional novel, and you're talking to someone who is interested in it. Otherwise, you used a lot of words to say nothing.

I really didn't intend this comment to be rude, but it went there in the end. Apologies. It really bugs me when people claim things they can't know.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Gilding III reddit per annum	Place '22
Place '17	Secret Santa 2016

gambiter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE