Being a bluepiled man is like believing in the existence of god.

[Jerek]

God doesn't exists, yet there are people that truly believe in the existence of a supernatural being. They know it's not there but they HAVE to believe it in order to cope with their life.

Being bluepilled, and this a cuck, is the same thing.

That's why trying to reason with IT Cucks is not possible, because they do not want to reason.

Cucks, an ugly person has two choices: either he stays alone or he tries to find a landwhale that settles with him, and this if he's "lucky" enough.

 

[Lester]

based

 

[Clonecel]

It's worse. Believing in god helps some people cope. Being bluepilled makes you a clueless cuck stuck in a circle of suffering you don't understand.

 

[esoteric]

based

 

[Lester]

It's worse. Believing in god helps some people cope

bro just lol if you actually believe in sky-daddy.

 

[Clonecel]

bro just lol if you actually believe in sky-daddy.

I don't but if it helps someone, who am I to judge?

 

[rabitter]

Cope.

Being a bluepilled man is believing in the existence of a benevolent god.

bro just lol if you actually believe in sky-daddy.

Sky daddy exists but he just doesn't care

 

[Barnacle]

How do you know if something exists or not that is not conceivable?

 

[HueHueBr]

How do you know if something exists or not that is not conceivable?

if god is perfect, he could not have created something imperfect like us. Each of us is proof of the absence of a god.

If God is all powerful, He suffices Himself. Therefore, he would not need a creation. The fact that creation exists is further proof that it does not exist.

There are other problems with believing in any god.

 

[Dionysus]

Bluepilled is way worse jfl

 

[randomguy1235]

How do you know if something exists or not that is not conceivable?

Using your logic you can justify anything that has zero empirical evidence of existing. For example: "How do you know Odin/Vishnu/etc doesn't exist if they're not conceivable?" It's irrational and fallacious, and no person would assume God is real unless they were indoctrinated from birth by family and society.

 

[rabitter]

if god is perfect, he could not have created something imperfect like us. Each of us is proof of the absence of a god.

If God is all powerful, He suffices Himself. Therefore, he would not need a creation. The fact that creation exists is further proof that it does not exist.

There are other problems with believing in any god.

God exists but he's a cunt.

 

[ironmanlet321]

Cucks think a 0/10 woman is more valuable than $100,000,000.

 

[JestER]

Ironically enough most soys identify themselves as atheists, yet when it comes to minority group religions they go batshit insane when you dare criticize them. Same applies to Feminazism which is also a religious cult, this is where the bluepill comes in, all normies worship the bluepill

 

[Neggr]

based

 

[Barnacle]

if god is perfect, he could not have created something imperfect like us. Each of us is proof of the absence of a god.

If God is all powerful, He suffices Himself. Therefore, he would not need a creation. The fact that creation exists is further proof that it does not exist.

There are other problems with believing in any god.

You put words in my mouth as I myself do not believe in some kind of personal God that would behave the way you describe him yet can't deny the supernatural.
I myself was once a diehard atheist until I realized that what many say about Atheists is true: It basically IS a religion in itself

Using your logic you can justify anything that has zero empirical evidence of existing. For example: "How do you know Odin/Vishnu/etc doesn't exist if they're not conceivable?" It's irrational and fallacious, and no person would assume God is real unless they were indoctrinated from birth by family and society.

Irrational is to believe that we Humans have the perfect way to analyse reality itself and as we do not have this we can't deny non-material or supernatural things with certainty.
To be agnostic or critical of atheism does NOT mean one has to believe in any of the organized religions, in contrast they are also just human dogmas that were once as much a "fact" as modern materialist "science" is.

 

[HueHueBr]

can't deny the supernatural.

If anything supernatural exists, there are two possibilities about it:

1) The supernatural has no real world influence. Here is a question: How do you know that something that has no real-world influence exists?

2) The supernatural has real world influence. Thus this influence can be isolated and tested in such a way that one can rule out all natural causes and conceive of a supernatural cause. So what are theists waiting to prove the supernatural ???

many say about Atheists is true: It basically IS a religion in itself

Religion is characterized by belief in the supernatural, and atheism is precisely no-that.

 

[Barnacle]

If anything supernatural exists, there are two possibilities about it:

1) The supernatural has no real world influence. Here is a question: How do you know that something that has no real-world influence exists?

2) The supernatural has real world influence. Thus this influence can be isolated and tested in such a way that one can rule out all natural causes and conceive of a supernatural cause. So what are theists waiting to prove the supernatural ???


Religion is characterized by belief in the supernatural, and atheism is precisely no-that.

1) Like I wrote, I claim not to know and you do not know either you may think to know but that is a different story

2) No, again, this is a HUMAN concept and a western one which has flaws and mistakes. It is purely materialistic and reductionists, so much that when Max Plank found out that the Universe has a quantum basis and thus is basically a wave and non-materialistc on the sub-atomic level that they tried to bury this new form of physics. You could say that is is ironic that this counters my point too as science did prove what you ask for in some ways.

Religion is the belief in a dogma, atheism is the dogmatic claim to know that there is no God, which no one can know.

 

[HueHueBr]

atheism is the dogmatic claim to know that there is no God, which no one can know.

Atheists follow as they please. There are no atheist leaders, atheist organizations, or anything like that.

To say that a god exists, you must first say what a god is. Based on the traditional concept of the religious, a god would be loving, perfect, unchanging, eternal, creator of everything, omnipotent and omniscient. And I can say without a doubt that a being with such characteristics does not exist.

If there is any other god with other characteristics, it does not interest me.

 

[Barnacle]

Atheists follow as they please. There are no atheist leaders, atheist organizations, or anything like that.

To say that a god exists, you must first say what a god is. Based on the traditional concept of the religious, a god would be loving, perfect, unchanging, eternal, creator of everything, omnipotent and omniscient. And I can say without a doubt that a being with such characteristics does not exist.

If there is any other god with other characteristics, it does not interest me.

Again, that is not the definition of a religion or faith. Atheists BELIEVE to KNOW that there is no God or anything beyond the material plain.

I do not believe in any semitic God as I see it as being clearly human in origin but that does not mean that I can deny any kind of Godlike figure as I do not have such knowledge or else I myself would be God(from a human perspective)

The last sentence is a personal sentiment and has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[KingOfRome]

It's worse. Believing in god helps some people cope. Being bluepilled makes you a clueless cuck stuck in a circle of suffering you don't understand.

There are also some high IQ ontological arguments for God's existence that put even top atheist intellectuals on their toes. Not so with the bluepill, whose believers mostly argue for it by plugging their ears with their fingers and making fart noises with their tongues.

 

[FinnCel]

I don't believe in ontological atheism.
You have the burden of proof

 

[HueHueBr]

gain, that is not the definition of a religion or faith. Atheists BELIEVE to KNOW that there is no God or anything beyond the material plain.

A perfect god is logically impossible to exist simply because the perfect cannot create the imperfect. If a god exists, he cannot be perfect.

An all-powerful god cannot exist either, because if he can do everything, he could create a stone that he cannot lift, which implies that he cannot all. Therefore, an almighty god does not exist! If god exists, he is not all powerful.

An eternal god in the face of a non-eternal universe would be eternally stationary throughout the pre-creation period, which makes no sense either. And a self-sufficient god would have no reason to create a universe, since he would not need it. If any god exists, he is neither self-sufficient nor eternal.

I agree with you that it is impossible to refute all possibilities of characteristics of any god. But the characteristics so far presented are logically impossible, which allows us to state without a doubt that such gods do not exist.

If you have any particular idea of what a god is, that is not important to me because I only discuss the gods officially presented by the religions.

 

[Barnacle]

A perfect god is logically impossible to exist simply because the perfect cannot create the imperfect. If a god exists, he cannot be perfect.

An all-powerful god cannot exist either, because if he can do everything, he could create a stone that he cannot lift, which implies that he cannot all. Therefore, an almighty god does not exist! If god exists, he is not all powerful.

An eternal god in the face of a non-eternal universe would be eternally stationary throughout the pre-creation period, which makes no sense either. And a self-sufficient god would have no reason to create a universe, since he would not need it. If any god exists, he is neither self-sufficient nor eternal.

I agree with you that it is impossible to refute all possibilities of characteristics of any god. But the characteristics so far presented are logically impossible, which allows us to state without a doubt that such gods do not exist.

If you have any particular idea of what a god is, that is not important to me because I only discuss the gods officially presented by the religions.

While your points are good and make sense it still has little to do with what I am arguing for.
You are speaking about a specific platonic-christian/abrahamic God-concept where these points you make kind of debunk their religions but again, I am not arguing for that.
There is too much evidence that a purely materialistic world is not the complete truth and "beneath the surface", if you will, there is much more to find out about.

I personally view the original Hindu and Dharmic concepts as more logical, not that I believe in them too much though.

 

[Subhuman Currycel]

God can exist and not give a fuck abut you or us its entirely possible.
But bluepill is worse.

 

[Deleted member 21883]

Existence is self evident and needs no first cause.

 

[BlkPillPres]

if god is perfect, he could not have created something imperfect like us. Each of us is proof of the absence of a god.

If God is all powerful, He suffices Himself. Therefore, he would not need a creation. The fact that creation exists is further proof that it does not exist.

There are other problems with believing in any god.

I think people like you keep falsely assuming that God by virtue of the traits ascribed to him MUST be "good" or "logical"

God could retain all those traits you defined (perfect, all powerful, etc) and just be a sadistic maniac, and then it makes perfect sense that he created an imperfect world and bothered creating period because he's crazy and did this random shit on a whim

So the universe being out of order isn't proof of anything, you are ironically just projecting your standards of what you think God SHOULD be onto him, and then stating that if he doesn't meet that standard he doesn't exist

God being "good" I think is just the ultimate cope, because its a scary thought to conceive that you are at the mercy of an all powerful psychopath, so to avoid that thought, most humans just assume that an all powerful being JUST HAS TO BE good, and logical, etc

Like rabitter said:

Sky daddy exists but he just doesn't care

That's a scarier truth to consider than God not existing

God doesn't exists, yet there are people that truly believe in the existence of a supernatural being. They know it's not there but they HAVE to believe it in order to cope with their life.

Being bluepilled, and this a cuck, is the same thing.

That's why trying to reason with IT Cucks is not possible, because they do not want to reason.

Cucks, an ugly person has two choices: either he stays alone or he tries to find a landwhale that settles with him, and this if he's "lucky" enough.

God could very well exist, he just doesn't fall into the ruleset described in all these "religious texts", Its weird to believe in all these different and extreme scientific theories like a multiverse, quantum mechanics, etc, yet find it impossible that a sole being or group of beings who live outside of these laws and can manipulate them, created the universe or at least helped form it

What we call "God" could just be some extradimensional being, and all the religious hoo haa came afterwards, and he (IT) is just as amused by religion as atheists are

 

[Deleted member 21227]

Religion is based, whether God exists or not.

 

[Mainländer]

Believing in something that might or not be true is not the same as believing in something that clearly isn't true.

 

[Deleted member 22237]

It's fun because cucks in their majority are atheists,yet theyre more delusional than a extremist christian or catholic.