Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Trump's obvious atheism is what gives me the most pause about my likely vote for him in 2020. A person with as much power as the US President needs to feel accountability to something greater than themselves.

And that something greater should be the US Constitution, the American people, and the rule of law.

I love the Constitution, but it can't love me back.

God can't love you back either, it's all in your head. like saying your imaginary friend loves you back, hell, it's literally saying that.

This is a thread for "hotter" takes, we don't yet have one for scalding ones.

I realize I sometimes come across as a typical /r/atheism euphoric fedora-tipper, but if you really look at it, how can you say there's any more evidence that God exists than there is that imaginary friends are real? it's all a matter of the individual having faith that something exists in spite of the fact that it's impossible to prove and incredibly unlikely to actually exist.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Trump's obvious atheism is what gives me the most pause about my likely vote for him in 2020. A person with as much power as the US President needs to feel accountability to something greater than themselves.

And that something greater should be the US Constitution, the American people, and the rule of law.

I love the Constitution, but it can't love me back.

God can't love you back either, it's all in your head. like saying your imaginary friend loves you back, hell, it's literally saying that.

This is a thread for "hotter" takes, we don't yet have one for scalding ones.

I realize I sometimes come across as a typical /r/atheism euphoric fedora-tipper, but if you really look at it, how can you say there's any more evidence that God exists than there is that imaginary friends are real? it's all a matter of the individual having faith that something exists in spite of the fact that it's impossible to prove and incredibly unlikely to actually exist.

There is clearly more evidence for the existence of a deity, which is what makes this an interesting discussion for literally thousands of years. You have to be willfully obtuse to ignore or dismiss the evidence so freely.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Trump's obvious atheism is what gives me the most pause about my likely vote for him in 2020. A person with as much power as the US President needs to feel accountability to something greater than themselves.

And that something greater should be the US Constitution, the American people, and the rule of law.

I love the Constitution, but it can't love me back.

God can't love you back either, it's all in your head. like saying your imaginary friend loves you back, hell, it's literally saying that.

This is a thread for "hotter" takes, we don't yet have one for scalding ones.

I realize I sometimes come across as a typical /r/atheism euphoric fedora-tipper, but if you really look at it, how can you say there's any more evidence that God exists than there is that imaginary friends are real? it's all a matter of the individual having faith that something exists in spite of the fact that it's impossible to prove and incredibly unlikely to actually exist.

There is clearly more evidence for the existence of a deity, which is what makes this an interesting discussion for literally thousands of years. You have to be willfully obtuse to ignore or dismiss the evidence so freely.

What undeniable evidence is there that a deity exists? and if this evidence did exist, why are most scientists atheists or agnostics?

[diptheriadan]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus.

Well, it's either science or superstition. I'll choose science every time.

[Mr. Smith]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus.

Well, it's either science or superstition. I'll choose science every time.

In pace recquiescat.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus.

Well, it's either science or superstition. I'll choose science every time.

I hope you two have a great life together.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus.

Well, it's either science or superstition. I'll choose science every time.

I hope you two have a great life together.

Eh, my girlfriend probably won't be too thrilled but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Karpatsky]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

[scutosaurus]

Game of Thrones is a trash show post season 4.

Cold take.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

This is exactly right. if I claimed that I was the son of God, came about from a virgin birth, and had the power to turn wine into water, everyone would laugh and say I'm insane, yet Christians actually believe this crap. it's 100% nonsense that has no basis in science or reality. many of the stories in the Bible also are scientifically impossible.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Both sides of the argument share the blame for allowing what could have been a greater and more useful generic linguistic potential of Red Pill terminology to go to waste in a total association with the discussion of a singular negative movement.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The power to pardon people should be vested in a single nonpartisan and nonpolitical elected official separated from all other powers and duties to bring the purpose of pardons back to its constitutionally intended method.

[Grassroots]

The power to pardon people should be vested in a single nonpartisan and nonpolitical elected official separated from all other powers and duties to bring the purpose of pardons back to its constitutionally intended method.

This sounds like a great idea.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

This is exactly right. if I claimed that I was the son of God, came about from a virgin birth, and had the power to turn wine into water, everyone would laugh and say I'm insane, yet Christians actually believe this crap. it's 100% nonsense that has no basis in science or reality. many of the stories in the Bible also are scientifically impossible.

     Of course they're physically impossible. That is why they are called miracles. Given that the ability to accomplish the impossible is key to the testimonials of Christ, as attested to by those who saw Him, this argument misses the mark and as such is unconvincing.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

This is exactly right. if I claimed that I was the son of God, came about from a virgin birth, and had the power to turn wine into water, everyone would laugh and say I'm insane, yet Christians actually believe this crap. it's 100% nonsense that has no basis in science or reality. many of the stories in the Bible also are scientifically impossible.

     Of course they're physically impossible. That is why they are called miracles. Given that the ability to accomplish the impossible is key to the testimonials of Christ, as attested to by those who saw Him, this argument misses the mark and as such is unconvincing.

Miracles aren't real, there's zero evidence for them. you can't accomplish the impossible otherwise it wouldn't be impossible in the first place.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

This is exactly right. if I claimed that I was the son of God, came about from a virgin birth, and had the power to turn wine into water, everyone would laugh and say I'm insane, yet Christians actually believe this crap. it's 100% nonsense that has no basis in science or reality. many of the stories in the Bible also are scientifically impossible.

     Of course they're physically impossible. That is why they are called miracles. Given that the ability to accomplish the impossible is key to the testimonials of Christ, as attested to by those who saw Him, this argument misses the mark and as such is unconvincing.

Miracles aren't real, there's zero evidence for them. you can't accomplish the impossible otherwise it wouldn't be impossible in the first place.

     They are only impossible physically. He who operates beyond the physical can accomplish them, and Christ did so in the Gospels.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I see our dear friend Enlightened Centrist (that’s his name, right?) has yet to hear of guerrilla warfare.

[Karpatsky]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

This is exactly right. if I claimed that I was the son of God, came about from a virgin birth, and had the power to turn wine into water, everyone would laugh and say I'm insane, yet Christians actually believe this crap. it's 100% nonsense that has no basis in science or reality. many of the stories in the Bible also are scientifically impossible.

     Of course they're physically impossible. That is why they are called miracles. Given that the ability to accomplish the impossible is key to the testimonials of Christ, as attested to by those who saw Him, this argument misses the mark and as such is unconvincing.

Miracles aren't real, there's zero evidence for them. you can't accomplish the impossible otherwise it wouldn't be impossible in the first place.

     They are only impossible physically. He who operates beyond the physical can accomplish them, and Christ did so in the Gospels.

You're missing the main point - E_C isn't arguing that your claims aren't technically logically consistent, but that you aren't providing a compelling reason why they should be believed. This argument would hold weight were there credible evidence of true miracles beyond the physically possible occurring, but the fact is that Iron Age testimonials and pictures on toast do not qualify as such.

[RINO Tom]

EC, you're just coming across like a sixteen year old who decided he's NEVER GOING TO CHURCH AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S STOOPID, lol.  There are so many eloquent atheists out there, and I suggest you jump on their train rather than this poor man's Richard Dawkins crap.  You just can't seem to get it through your head that the reason a belief in a deity still persists among billions of people in the 21st Century is not because everyone needs an imaginary friend or is lonely or needs meaning in their lives but rather because it is an alternative (that you have very ironically and very unscientifically completely written off as an even remotely possible scenario) to your belief that the Universe, in effect, created itself out of itself/nothing ... your picking apart of religion is surface level at best, but I will leave that discussion for the more theologically minded posters here who could more effectively demonstrate just how little justice you are giving to an intellectual subject all the while implying you have a more intellectual outlook on life than them; what I will comment on is that you seem to have a near-domga-like attachment to atheism to the point where you desperately frame any creator/deity/higher consciousness in the strict confines of the caricatures you have created for said "God."  It HAS to be an old man in the sky, or your jokes about how dumb it is would be rightfully seen as simplistic and dumb.  Jesus HAS to just simply die and come back due to magic with no more intricate of an explanation (from a hypothetical deity's perspective), because if it were anything more complex, it couldn't be as easily framed as a children's story joke.  You absolutely trash any religious outlook on the Universe and how it came to be the way we observe yet rarely if ever provide any intelligent though of your own on the cosmos and its nature.  Your views are not special, and you haven't simply climbed this latter of enlightenment a bit higher than the rest of us have.  You haven't *seen something* that we just can't.  You don't have more scientific information than we have at our disposal.  You act like you do, obviously, but that is my point - there are plenty of respectful, intelligent and articulate atheists out there who respect their "opponents" (i.e., theists and non-atheists) and therefore feel the need to provide thoroughly researched and well-reasoned theories of their own, along with an appreciation for the complexity and wonder of the debate in general.  You don't, and frankly that is why you will continue to get appropriately sarcastic and dismissive responses to your (let's be real) trolling.  You can chalk it up to you just being an atheist and "telling it like it is" or whatever, but I suspect deep down you kind of know it is the (very underwhelming and surface level) WAY in which you product-push your "views" on the Universe that earn you a bit of scorn.

P.S.  Your claim that a "majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics" is not really true.  Most polls show a high plurality or small majority of scientists usually believing in something with a very large minority being atheists.  I have also seen studies that it varies a lot by subject, with biologists being much more atheistic than chemists or physicists.  This probably isn't worth my time, but if you actually at all found this subject interesting rather than just a platform for you to shout teenage edgelord atheist talking points, I would highly suggest checking out the physicist Paul Davies.  He is not religious and does not believe in an overly personal God, but he consistently points out the flaws in an atheistic model to the Universe as we know it.

[Xing]

I mean, this thread is called hot/bad/unpopular takes for a reason. I wouldn't come here expecting a respectful discussion of religion.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

EC, have you ever seriously wondered if like....you’re wrong? Like, what if you die and actually do go to whatever form of hell (literal or more metaphorical) exists? Does that not trouble you even a little bit? If I’m wrong, I just rot in the ground. But if you’re wrong...?

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

-words n stuff-

I realize I come across as an "edgy 16 year old atheist", but I'm neither 16 years old nor intentionally trying to be edgy. the burden of proof should be on people who claim a God or Gods or Goddesses exist, not on people like me who say there's no evidence they do and as such, no reason to believe they do. yes, I realize science can't answer everything, but it is still all we have unless you want to blindly follow religion and superstition, and many, many aspects of the Bible itself go against what is scientifically possible, and yeah, I know - "muh miracles", "muh anything is possible through Jeebus", but those aren't arguments. if I tell you that I can lift a 1,500lb car with my bare hands and refuse to show any verifiable proof, would you blindly say it's a likely story when I claim I did it through the power of Christ or something to that effect? I see religion as a remnant of our more primitive past where we didn't have science and made up Gods and Goddesses just to explain things that science can easily explain now. there is simply no need for religion in modern society, and the sooner it's eradicated to the dust bin of history, the better. and also, I don't mean to sound like Richard Dawkins because I in fact have numerous disagreements with him - but these are largely political differences rather than me disagreeing with his views on religion. I've never been to a church in my entire life and I'm damn proud of that - I also think forcing children to go to church is basically child abuse.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

EC, have you ever seriously wondered if like....you’re wrong? Like, what if you die and actually do go to whatever form of hell (literal or more metaphorical) exists? Does that not trouble you even a little bit? If I’m wrong, I just rot in the ground. But if you’re wrong...?

I admit it's possible I could be wrong, but it's also possible that little green men from a distant Galaxy are abducting humans and probing their buttholes. just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it's likely or even probable, and I'm so sure, based on all available science and facts, that hell doesn't exist, that I'm 100% not afraid of going there when I die. and if I am wrong, at least I can say I lived my life the way I wanted to and actually enjoyed it, rather than following the rules from a 2000 year old garbage book so I can go to some lame heaven for squares.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

I see our dear friend Enlightened Centrist (that’s his name, right?) has yet to hear of guerrilla warfare.

What are you saying? guerilla warfare is miraculous or can't be explained by science? I apologize, but whatever you mean by this went over my head