/lit/ - Literature

The God Delusion

>Do they have a primary source for their claim that God does not exist
Yes, reality

>>14899694
Can you explain that any further? It's not exactly self-evident.

>>14899682
> Primary source

Catechisms are for the weak. Worse yet, you can't fathom others developing their opinions without one and a thread died for this.

>>14899682
Is there a primary source for God existing? It sure isn't the Bible.

>>14899719
Why not just prove your claim?

>>14899713
Well, it's a lot like reading and comprehending the Bible. For example, if someone came up to you and said that he read the Bible and from it learned that Jesus was gay, you'd think he's wrong and an idiot who can't read, because nothing in the text necessarily suggests that he was gay. In the same way, you can read and comprehend the reality around us.

>>14899744
The burden of proof actually lies on the theist.

>>14899682
>Do they have a primary source for their claim that God does not exist
Wew lad

>>14899761
The atheist is the one making the claim that God does not exist.
The atheist is not one who is unconvinced. The atheist is making a claim with certainty that God does not exist.
Does the atheist have a source for his claim?

>>14899801
The athiest makes the claim that God does not exist because they have not experienced anything that has suggested his existence as true. They have no reason to believe in God in the same way they believe that fire is harmful. That's literally it. It's up to the theist to convince the athiest that the existence of God is as real as the existence of fire. The "source" is just a simple observation of reality.

>>14899682
Why would atheists have a bible? What's so groundbreaking about atheism? It's a lack of belief in a deity.
>>14899801
You must be trolling, right?! I'd like to say you're willingly ignorant but I'll go with trolling.
>The atheist is the one making the claim that God does not exist.
An atheist doesn't claim that there's no god(s). Instead, no evidence has been provided for a god's existence. In fact, we could go further by claiming that some gods are clearly falsifiable, all which don't exist. The rest are non-falsifiable, which aren't bothering with anyway.
>The atheist is not one who is unconvinced.
No evidence has ever been presented for the existence of a god so yes, an atheist is quite unconvinced about it.
>The atheist is making a claim with certainty that God does not exist.
Where are you taking this from?

>>14899682
Atheism is a negative position.

>>14899801
>The atheist is the one making the claim that God does not exist.

This falsity STILL persists?

How? Why? Who keeps perpetuating it?

>>14899801
The last reply was a different anon but I guess I'll bite. What you're expecting is some artful gymnastics to point out a violation of first principles forming the basis of your belief system. The fundamental issue is that I have no idea how rigid or flexible that system is, what it purports itself to be, and what it actually is. I'm 100% certain that you can't answer those questions either, since the inability to ascertain concretely what you believe in has ossified itself into the virtue of faith.

>>14899801
>The atheist is the one making the claim that God does not exist.
No, that's not how it works. The burden of proof is always with the side asserting existence.

>>14899691
I really want to read that one, the problem with most of the atheist position is that there is no humility in atheism, there's no positive position in atheism. You can't be atheist and have moral integrity as strong as a debut person. The mere concept of God is to shame yourself in front of him, shame is the utility of the soul, those who don't want to fulfill their soul will push intellectualism and rationality as their ultimate tool, but even there, they realize that they don't know anything, there is a "wall" in front of them so they will use only rhetorics to prove their ignorance.

>>14899848
No, theist should not have to prove anything to anyone as God reveals himself just to the ignorant and pure of earth, it is not a "school" is something else.

>>14899877
Which is why we don’t really have a bible or a church. It’s just the way it is. Our doubt leads us ...

>>14900202
But if there is doubt then you can't be an atheist, an atheist is someone who says that the TRUTH is "there's no God" so no doubt in there.

Theists are sure that God exists and they don't need to prove it because they know.

I think atheists are actually the weak believers that there's nothing.

>>14900202
You can't claim to have doubt if you don't have faith. They are opposing moments related to one another. All theists are doubters and believers simultaneously. If you are an atheist based on "doubt", you are really just a theist who hasn't realised their faith. However you define yourself as an atheist, it needs to be via something that isn't essentially related to religion.

Remember: the one who looks the strongest is the weaker, the one who looks the weaker is the strongest.

Those who are "weak enough" to have faith there are stronger than those who think they can control reality. Just a disease, a little disturb, a bad relationship, an accident and they are reduced to the same as the others. Nature is the ultimate way to show humans that they are nothing, the same, and in God's will.

>>14900209
You’re grasping at straws. The doubt leads a theist to agnosticism, which is at one point actually 50/50. But this state of things begins to shift upon further contemplation, or indoctrination if the agnostic is swaying back to theism.
“Our doubt leads us...” I wrote. It is a progression one makes. And it leads us not only to the truth but the best frame of mind. The odds left for some deity, creation, soul and afterlife, are fantastically bad, one has to look at what’s left, of what we know. And what we know now, thanks to science, is vast and expanding. Expanding without god and all the rest.

>>14900209
> tries to understand the perspective of non-belief by asking for a literary analog of a bible
> tries to foist burden of evidence with 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'
> can only imagine that an Athiest must have been a failed theist who just needed to belieeeeve, and is therefore weak, but as a Christian who needs Catechisms

Blinkers are for horses not humans.Every single response you've given shows how little you can venture beyond a Christian perspective. I can't help but feel sorry for the poverty of thought you've demonstrated.

>>14899682
Isn't part of the attraction for most is the fact that there isn't a Bible or equivalent text?

>>14900209
No such thing as true athiests. They think about God everyday

>>14900250
No, as progress doesn't exist, we are not progressing at anything, mater is just a changing state but doesn't solve the answers of our existence. You can explain just one part of the cosmos with physics but not all. That the universe is expanding or vast doesn't validate the existence of God. "I only know that I know nothing" is the full circle of rationality, but for the theist, the other truth reveals in a personal way, that's why it is difficult for everybody to believe and easier to believe in the apple falling from the tree. That's why at a Quantum level Einstein is proved wrong.

The problem is that, is something you can't control, even if you don't believe in it, it is just a matter of time. The strongest point of faith is that there's no "real answer", you have to believe, no certainty. Certainty is what droves to social insolation and fear.

If the "theist" was lead to agnosticism then he is not an atheist because "faith" is the token to God, no prove, no formula, no nothing, just faith, that's why it is so rare but at the same the most powerful force. see "faith" as the same as a thermodynamic law for the souls. Most of the people who are wrong indoctrinated into faith from younger ages they run from it when they are older and return to it when they are old and death is near.

And nobody will ever convince you, no argument because God is irrational, total contradiction, so to "accept God" is rejecting these laws so that's why is very difficult.

Off-topic threads are fine so long as I can debate about how God doesn't real or tell you about what anarchism is. Just don't post any BLOWjacks, OK?

>>14900261
You are implying a lot of things. Remember, God is not something that is at your will, is the opposite, you can't control it, that's why you can't believe in Him because you want him to come and show you something, but that would break the position of God, you surrender to him, not otherwise.

But yeah, is difficult, that's why it is rare, but rare is good, only people who believe can agree with me, that's how everything works, the atheist will "believe" in your arguments and so on.

>>14900250
And finally, you are just a theist like me, the only thing that changes is "the God you worship" you worship science and technology and that's fine if that gives you the answer you need about your life and I hope it will all your life. If they tell you that with some masks you are going to protect yourself from a virus you will agree, if they tell you that sit and cover will protect you from a mass shooting or an atomic bomb you will believe it and you will die for it, is exactly the same.

People choose their Gods all the time and that's okay.

Atheists and Christians are really horrible at communicating with one another. Often conversations revolve in the same way as Hegel conceives Enlightenment thinking, with atheists entirely misunderstanding Christian terms but Christians being unable to refute them in the post-Enlightenment framework. Atheists are sometimes unwilling to acknowledge how their own certainty is really based upon faith in the opposite under a Christian framework, and Christians are sometimes unwilling to recognise how agnostic doubt is an essential part of Christianity that leads them to a leap of faith.

>>14900250
>the odds
Odds is precisely one of these words that marks the inability of atheists and Christians to communicate with one another, because Christianity isn't dealing with quantifiable probabilities of God's existence at all. The probably of God's existence CAN'T be quantified for the Christian, precisely because it is the necessary One by which all other existences are contingent and therefore infinitely less probable. To talk in those terms to a Christian is absurd. However, atheists are operating under their belief in the scientific method, so they require everything to be explained under their terms to assert the holistic nature of their belief system, when in fact the very things they are dealing with in discussions on religion are incapable of being spoken about under scientific terms, just as the Christian sees science and empiricism as essentially irrelevant.

This entire thread as always will continue to be mere miscommmunication.

>>14900352
>The probably of God's existence CAN'T be quantified for the Christian,
After Pascal spam I hope nobody would agree with this statement
>just as the Christian sees science and empiricism as essentially irrelevant
Honestly you're making Christians look worse than they are, like some new age cult (you just have to belieeeve man, trust me!). There are tons of devout Christians who have dedicated their lives to the study of science and nature, finding it deeply important and worthwhile. Fuck, this doesn't even mesh with somebody like Aquinas, for example, who builds the "first mover" argument for God's existence largely from the empirical (causality). That is a line of thought very much comprehensible to a "scientific" mind, but you're unable to replicate it, because of your own limits, your cultist treatment of religion, that many of your important theologians would likely find disagreeable.
I'm not the anon you've been talking to, your posts are just glaringly bad. If there is miscommunication in your dialogue, it is your fault no less than the atheist's.

>>14900310
>cuz blo-jack is totally a book
And the endless “philosophy” discussions (I do not bring up) concerning theism/atheism, I can do without, but it is so damn popular, and theists are so damn lost.
Look at this mofo >>14900303 “progress doesn’t real. Einstein says...” calling on atheists to defend theism. Lost up his own asshole. “Therefore you are theist like me!”

>>14899682
I don't believe in god but identifying as an atheist is so unecessary, what bearing does it have on your life whether other people believe in god anyway? Religion is dying out in developed countries so being hardcore anti-religious just doesn't make much sense to me, and I say that as someone with very little respect for religion (except Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto and Daoism (if you can call that a religion))

>>14899756
Bro...you have to be 18 to post here. I can refer you to a great website that has the full collection of rick and morty episodes if you want but you have to leave.

>>14900421
The problem with this is the "need for an argument". "Faith" is the wall that can't even be proved. Everything is reduced to individual practice. Even those like Aquinas are wrong by trying to prove God's existence by rationality. The ultimate believer is like Jesus Christ, completely contradictory and irrational, there's where the power of faith comes from. All spiritualism can't be proved by physicists and that's the whole point of it.

>>14900456
lol

>>14900462
>Even those like Aquinas are wrong
wew
the absolute state of modern Christianity

>>14900421
I'm a new poster, I've posted one post in this thread before and that's it. I'm reading Pascal at the moment, if he views God's existence as a probability then that's in contradiction with a lot of Neoplatonist thought and theology. I never said that science wasn't important to Christians, I said that Christian thought specifically about the world can't be sublated unto a secular/scientific framework. Christianity supersedes science, containing it as a small part of it, something that Pascal believes himself from what I've read of Pensees.
>many of your important theologians would likely find disagreeable.
I'm basing what I'm saying mostly on Kierkegaard.
> If there is miscommunication in your dialogue, it is your fault no less than the atheist's.
That's essentially what I've been saying, although I haven't been participating in this debate thus far.

>>14900442
Sounds like you have a lot wrapped up in this off-topic discussion. I can only pray the janny will be merciless.

>>14900485
There's no such thing as modern Christianity, or you believe or not, or you follow or not, everything else is just semantics.

>>14900485
There's only one person I know that is my best example of a believer and a perfect Christian and that is Tarkovsky the film director, the best one will ever be.

You should read about him, see his movies and stuff and maybe you will see.

>>14900498
Vixie. Haven’t seen you all day. Are you Ed, the one I responded to, or actually different?

Atheism is an unproven belief.
Atheism is not a fact.
Atheists do not have absolute certainty that atheism is true.

>>14900442
Digits and you have to get baptized.

If I'm not positively certain that a god or gods do not exist but I take the position that, even if they existed, us humans are not morally obligued towards them in any way and all the forms of cult are completely pointless does that make me an agnostic or atheist?

>>14900596
Wrong. It is the absence of belief in all that is unproven in theism.

>>14900612
I’m more baptized than a catholic

>>14900659
>Wrong. It is the absence of belief in all that is unproven in theism.

Wrong. That is the atheist's mental gymnastics trying to redefine atheism because they cant prove God isnt real.

>>14900697
That is the literal definition right there.
Your bullet points are the gymnastics.

>>14900765
The literal definition of atheism is the belief God does not exist. Other secondary meanings are used by mental gymnasts,

>The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

>>14900765
Purpose of attempting to dilute the definition of atheism
The purpose of all these exercises in the redefinition of atheism is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers because:
1) Atheism lacks proof and evidence that is true.

>But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...

>Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

>One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Attempts_to_dilute_the_definition_of_atheism

>>14899682
my diary dosu

>>14900881
>https://www.conservapedia.com/Attempts_to_dilute_the_definition_of_atheism
based

>>14900946
>conservapedia
>Attempts_to_dilute
>implying ~[[[-_-]]]~ isn’t diluting NON-THEIST
>>14900881
>is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers
Schizophrenia is a hell of a condition

>>14900946
Indeed, one page completely BTFO dishonest 'weak' atheists.

These so-called atheists suddenly become agnostics when they are pressed to prove their assertions that God does not exist.

>This redefinition blurs the distinction between saying, "There is no God", and "I don't know whether God exists or not." It lets people say, "I don't believe in God," without clarifying whether they are denying God's existence (which is atheism) or are merely uncertain about it (which is agnosticism).

William Lane Craig writes:
"If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

>>14900988
reply to the other namefag, I don't wish to converse with you

>>14900997
lol she made the same post twice. not a good look to be posting drunk this early in the week

>>14900995
>dishonest

Lets read that one little snippet from “conservapedia”
> in favor of the atheists and against believers
How dishonest. “Believers”. No, THEISTS.
DON’T FUCK WITH ME

>>14901004
You tried to play the 'redefine atheism to mean agnosticism' mental gymnastics. Pathetic.

Atheism is such a weak belief that atheists have to redefine atheism to mean agnosticism just because they cant rationally argue that God does not exist.

>>14901016
>It is the absence of belief in (all that is unproven in) theism.

Stop your schizo-babbling

>>14899682
Reason and Faith actually are mutually exclusive. If you understand this, you will understand the atheist is a faithless subscriber to nothing. A theist subscribes to a belief which by definition cannot be proven. The most important question you want to ask yourself is: which one is happier?

>>14901040
Why is happiness even relevant, though?

>>14901086
Because your brain runs on it. When you're out of happiness, there are few options left to a man

>>14901027
>you're crazy
You just admitted defeat, being an intellectual is not for you.
take your meds!

>>14901040
>subscriber to nothing
Nothing theistic. There are real things and possibilities to put you “faith” in for the a-theist

>>14901111
>quads
God exists.

>>14901117
An antitheist gets quads and your god comes back to like? Gimme a break.

>>14901128
>antitheist
kek

>>14901131
Nervous laugh?

>>14900505
>Protestantism never happened
>Protestantism has not evolved to fundamentally change some sects of the Church
It's not that easy... you must believe, that is step one. But you also must make attempts at understanding good and evil and the way.

>>14899761
prove that the burden of proof is real a not a mental construct.

>>14899682
It's daddy issues. See Paul C. Vitz - Faith of the Fatherless: the psychology of atheism.
Besides daddy issues, it's childlike arguments like the problem of evil.

>>14899761
Incorrect. That's just because atheists can't argue. They have a floating level of skepticism, so that can never be obtained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGVeB_SPJg
Andy Bannister - The Atheist Who Didn't Exist: Or: the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments
Christian Smith - Atheist Overreach: What Atheism Can't Deliver
Edward Feser - The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
Paul Copan & William Lane Craig - Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors
Mitch Stokes - How to Be an Atheist Why Many Skeptics Aren't Skeptical Enough
Rupert Shortt - Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism
Trent Horn - Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity
Samuel Gregg - Reason, Faith, and the Strungle for Western Civilization
Stephen T. Asma - Why We Need Religion
Zachary Broom - Without God: Science, Belief, Morality, and the Meaning of Life

Enjoy.

>>14899682
>he thinks atheists claim God does not exist
Atheists don't make the claim God doesn't exist. The simply understand that we can't possibly know whether a God exists or not so they don't believe in one. Theists are the ones making the positive claim.

>>14901305
I mean that's often not the case, many atheists state there is no God. They are making a claim. A poor one that doesn't work as a logical argument, but they still make one.

>>14901305
The atheist is not an unconvinced bystander with no care for the discussion.
The atheist propels the discussion with his claim that God does not exist.
Atheism would not be without this claim.

>>14901295
>childlike arguments like the problem of evil.
it’s always funny to see how deluded modern christoids have become

>>14901479
Nobody uses the problem of evil because it's shoddy. Lots of books deal with it. The only people who hold it are low-IQ people called atheists.

>>14901190
Prove that it isn’t.
We seem to reside in the universe that your god does not. The burden is yours.

>>14901348
It works fine as the odds have become astronomical. Is there a chance? Verrrrrrry teeny tiny and what god(s) can exist sure as hell aren’t worshipped, aren’t sending us holy writ, etc.
it’s simply a child’s mathematical mistake you’re quibbling over.
There’s most likely no creator(s) or soul or afterlife. Bring me proof and don’t tell me this is a test. That’s moronic.

>>14901725
You've said before in another thread that there is no God (I remember your stupid namefagging) just today. Now you're saying there might be. Which is it? You're claiming lack of belief because you don't want to be held accountable.

>Bring me proof
Why should I? If you want to know, you would look for it. You don't. You're desperate to cling to your desire for there not to be a God because you're afraid of being held accountable.

>>14900456
He's over 18. Not sure about you and the moron who started this thread, though.

>>14899682
And then Satan said "And I told them about evolution and they fucking believed me!"

>>14901756
>If you want to know, you would look for it
I did. And I’m telling you for your own good there isn’t any and I live at peace in this world your kind have turned into a hell.
A grain of sand of theism is left and you don’t worship it. You worship your god. Your perversion of a perversion X1000. The God of you brain. Your personal God. You worship wrong.

>>14901789
>I did
I doubt it
>the rest
Take your meds. Filtered.

>>14901795
I was born into a Christian conservative family, of course I did.

>>14899682
What ideology is it if I truly don't care about god?
I don't believe there is nobody, it's just that when people talk to me about him it's such an alien idea to me it's like aliens starting conversing with me whether zalogulo should win the election

>>14901808
>What ideology is it if I truly don't care about god?
Apatheism?
Not a good system though. Better to just say yes/no desu

>>14901816
It's not a system it's what I feel

>>14901808
It’s just common sense coming in contact with schizos
>Apatheism
Hah, whatever. I recommend Epicureanism.

>>14901825
>Gods exist but do not interfer with human life.
So why should I care?

>>14901844
Exactly.

>>14900516

THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THYSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE...

>>14901768
OP here, over 18. Just wanted to know if atheists had anything to back up their claim that God doesn't exist.
So far, the answer is no.

To be clear, atheists are not impartial or otherwise indifferent observers. They make a claim and hold a stake. They claim that God does not exist.
To me, this seems extremely juvenile as the entire basis of their claim - that because God is not of the material world he cannot be proven to exist - can be used against them as well, through their failure to prove he does not.
They could then go on to say that nothing outside the material world exists, that God's realm is impossible, but there too they fall into the same trap they themselves have created. They cannot prove that it doesn't exist.

Atheists make a claim and then require others to prove their claim for them, all whilst proclaiming themselves to be the intellectual vanguard of the present, an act of both tremendous hubris and abject ignorance.
Atheism is the height of modernity and a sign that we are very close to the end.

>>14899682
Why yes of course we have a book that says atheism is correct because it being written in a book makes it true
Retard
>>14899691
>>14899694
Based
>>14899801
No. The atheist is the one who rejects the theist's claim that God exists.
>>14899877
/thread
>>14901190
Prove that God is real and not a mental construct

>>14901111
Checked. Auntie, I think you are a smart girl but I do not know why you are so dismissive of religion. I understand hating these religious larpers that have silly proofs just to couple with their regressive social views and I understand hating religious institutions, ideology, and dogma but have you honestly never read a religious work that gave you wisdom and inspired you? I am not saying this in defense of “theism” as you “atheists” like to say, I am just wondering why you are so hostile to religious ideas when many of them can make people draw the same political and moral conclusions that you do. It is off-putting to many people on this board, like me, who have moved beyond a/theism.

>>14899682
As an agnostic, I'd say no, however some of the most cited arguments for (the Christian) God (as someone who has studied them in both religious and secular contexts) are a little flawed with some modern scientific evidence (Though - particularly that of Aquinas - was groundbreaking for it's day).

These particular arguments rely on the idea that everything has to have a "first cause", firmly rejecting the idea of infinite regression. However both of these have some proposed contradictions with recent science. Quarks have been observed to do shit seemingly of their own accord (although you have to ask yourself if the uncertainty principle may be at play), and the "Big Bounce" is a framework that is infinitely regressive.

As I said though, I'm agnostic. I don't particularly believe that there is a higher power, however there's no definitive evidence either way. Anyone who says they know for fact that God is false, specifically the ones who try and call other people retarded because they dare believe in one, are either 12 or autistic and shouldn't be posting here

>>14902102
>a little flawed with some modern scientific evidence
What kind of things are you thinking of? Was it just Quarks and the Big Bounce that came to mind, or something else?

>>14902102
>Anyone who says they know for fact that God is false, specifically the ones who try and call other people retarded because they dare believe in one, are either 12 or autistic and shouldn't be posting here
I gotta say that this shit is strange to see

>>14902152
I gotta agree, and say that this shit is strange to see
I don't know why they're like that, but it's creepy

>>14902102
>Quarks have been observed to do shit seemingly of their own accord
lel what does this even mean?
>and the "Big Bounce" is
probably bullshit based on the data we have

>>14899761
I dont claim God exists, I merely believe he does because I have faith. By the very nature of faith, it cannot be proven

>>14902189
>By the very nature of faith, it cannot be proven
There, /thread/ closed this is what basically what of all this is about, anything else is retarded autism.

The atheist frowns at his impotence in the world and recaptures a small portion of his self-esteem by claiming ownership of secret knowledge - that the highest orders of existence do not exist.

The atheist either knows this to be false and only wants to succeed in agitation or believes his secret knowledge to be true and thereby shows the complete and total emptiness of his person.

>>14902189
This is true.

The atheist will also claim he has no belief or faith, that he is a man of science and facts.

That is not true, though. He believes, and claims, that God does not exist. He believes certainly enough. Atheism is utter confusion.

>>14902182
Virtual particles, I believe.

>>14899884
>>14899973
I usually never reply to these threads since they're for moutbreathing tourists who obviously don't read, but he's right in the sense that if you were not claiming that God does not exist you would not be an atheist.

>>14902152
Just with my (albeit limited) understanding of the more complex areas of physics, I've had to realise that things we thought were concrete empirical observations turned out to be bullshit, or at least partly bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if we've got causality all wrong or some weird shit like that

>>14902249
I mean I completely agree with you, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out something we considered correct that was basic turned out to be incorrect following newer evidence, but I don't understand how this would be an issue to God, even the Christian God. What is it that you're thinking of that I'm overlooking?

Lol at all these niggers playing tic tac toe in the sand, arguing if this thing exists that they cannot even begin to define. it’s literal sophistry. it’s a distraction. it’s protestantism. you are all wasting your time unless you truly have something of substance to say

>>14902267
stop saying ‘the christian God’ you retard. you are the kind of midwit that thinks there is a definition of God in christianity (there isn’t, and only the “””atheists””” think there is). all christianity is, is a moral and metaphysical interpretation of reality. it’s beyond science, like all religions.

>>14902332
People know what is meant by "the Christian God" = the conception as defined by Christianity.
You literally have no argument, you just want to feel smart. Unfortunately for you, you're not as smart as you would like to think.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gjbSCEhmjJA

>>14902030
Because it is damaging to people and society. If we can have everyone question the validity or outright drop their On True Faith books and churches and simply be agnostic about the whole thong, the world would be a better place.
But we’ll have to do that the other way around, I can see.

Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.
- Francois Tremblay

>>14900190
>>14901988

I posted The God Delusion, it was a joke. Jesus, Atheists are so cringy.

>>14902655
I don’t understand how you can see this as so one sided. I of course sympathize that you grew up around wicked religious people. But to think that religions just harm people and don’t help any people seems pathological to me. Have you honestly not met one good person who was inspired by religion? I know several people who were in dark places and attribute religious thought to giving them the inspiration to grow and change their life. Why do you have to look at things so black and white. You claim to be one who wants dialectic but I see a disconnect here that I can only assume is due to your upbringing.
I already said I see your point and you are right that religion is quite bad perhaps even most of the time in this world. But there is genuine goodness that people derive from “religious poetry”. Can you please just accept this as true? Don’t fault an honest person for having the audacity to believe that this life is sacred and that humanity loved and care for, because I know you agree with this too just not the wording probably.
You aren’t going to get anywhere by defining yourself in opposition to genuine people. They may not be here but they exist. I tend to always look at a person’s character, not their explicit beliefs whether they be ‘atheist’ or ‘theist’. There are many different paths towards understanding yourself and the world, and I would never say to anyone that they went the wrong way if they are in a good place. Please understand <3

>>14902655
Furthermore, “religion” “morals” “philosophy” is nothing fixed or define. I don’t believe inheriting dogma or an identity is healthy ever. Whether it be political, cultural, religious. I agree with you that there needs to be a revolution of sorts of the mind. I am not even disagreeing with you that we would be better off abandoning ‘Christianity’. All I am saying is that AT SOME POINT, religious thought arose out of a genuine desire to benefit humanity. And my worry is that you are killing this desire when you just wholly attack religion without considering this. It will only make people hostile towards you, because in essence you are attacking their desire to improve themselves. It just won’t go anywhere.

>>14901988
>Prove that God is real and nota mental construct
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.
;)

>>14903511
I grew up in a world and studied history of wicked things and I know why, you see?
Where you see it “help” them is a delusional illusion. Children must be handled carefully and not exposed to some of the traumas of life, but we do it anyway, and then we lie to them, and we keep the lie going. All to coddle, never to mature.
That’s what I think Gnosticism was trying to do. Make a mysteries cult where initiates would gradually mature into some kind of agnostic/gnostic discordian sort.

There’s nothing I can do to change people’s minds, short of taking up their tactics and try to proselytize. But no, I’d rather live by example.
It is /lit/, my home board, which used to be about a variety of books but has now been invaded by followers of The One Book Club, that continually bring this issue up, to bait and agitate, and proselytize. Here I will debate.

>the audacity to believe that this life is sacred
This one and only, don’t you see, is far more sacred to the non believers.
>I tend to always look at a person’s character
Hard to do on failchan
Respect

>>14903543
>And my worry is that you are killing this desire
I doubt. First things first though. We have to pull away from capitalism.

Bump for my question >>14900640
Can anyone answer me?

>>14903591
>define God as the greatest possible being
>imagine God
>imagine yourself imagining God
>imagine God exceeding your imagination in your imagination
>imagine God

>>14900209
>an atheist is someone who says that the TRUTH is "there's no God"
Utterly untrue. As I said in >>14899861, an atheist is someone who "lacks the belief in any deity." While they are some atheists who claim they know there's no god of any kind, that doesn't pertain to (a)theism but (a)gnosticism. I am myself an agnostic atheist because, while we can prove the god of any of the human religious text doesn't exist, I cannot prove with certainty that no other entity with god-like attributes exist. Atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge; they aren't mutually exclusive.
>Theists are sure that God exists and they don't need to prove it because they know.
See pic related. A theist who claims to know the existence is a "gnostic theist" which it's quite ridiculous if you think of it. Then, they're "agnostic theists" who believes in a god but they don't claim to know that a god exists. However, this begs the question: Why even have such a belief if there's no an ounce of evidence to corroborate it? Probably hopeful thinking?!
>I think atheists are actually the weak believers that there's nothing.
Atheists aren't believers in the non-existence of a god, they "lack the belief" in any deity. Atheism is a religion as much as non-stamp collecting is a hobby. Atheism is only relevant as a term, because of the prevalence of theism. If 80% of people collected stamps, then non-stamp collecting would be notable. And you might even see a variety of forums based around it. Especially if stamp collecting involved various rituals and rules spanning people's lives.

>>14900352
the only lucid post in this thread

I'm gonna go read some bible

>>14900452
>I don't believe in god but identifying as an atheist is so unecessary
This is totally fine. I think the term "atheism" is good insofar as it helps you to get your point across (i.e., lack of belief of any deity) and that's it. Otherwise, you might find yourself in situations in which people ask you "you don't believe in a god. Well, what about this other god?". In any case, you don't have to label yourself if you don't want.
>whether other people believe in god anyway? Religion is dying out in developed countries so being hardcore anti-religious just doesn't make much sense to me, and I say that as someone with very little respect for religion
I totally agree with you. As long as a religion doesn't teach its followers to enact acts that endanger other people's lives for them to be saved, then I don't see any problem. One of Dawkins's problems is that he thinks leaving people ignorant is like depriving them of what humanity knows so far and thus undermining their intelligence. Well, it might be that some people cannot make sense of the world without the framework that the religion provide for them and nothing that you throw at them will make any difference.

>>14901967
Oh, please. Just drop the idiocy. The atheist's "claim" is simply lack of belief, in line with observed reality. The theist's claim is not. Nobody can "prove" a negative or prove anything exists absolutely, but we assume the reality or lack of reality of a million things every day. You just disbelieve in one fewer concept than I do, probably due to early childhood conditioning.

Theists often seem confused about what's implied by atheism. Being an agnostic atheist (and essentially all atheists are to some degree, in the sense that some stunning proof of a deity's existence--Thor landing in front of them with lightning blazing, etc.--would cause them to rethink their views: atheism is largely a desire for evidence that isn't forthcoming) just means I don't see enough proof that any deities exist, and so choose not to believe in them. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution, Big Bang, or any other theory. It doesn't mean I read Dawkins, worship science or even think the world is round. I can believe in ghosts, UFOs, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, and Atlantis. Literally the only requirement is that I don't believe in any supernatural beings that I consider holy or sacred. I don't have to explain the fossil record or the history of the universe. It doesn't mean I hate religion, or churches, or want to see the end of anyone else's faith. It has nothing to do with whether I give to charities, try to be moral or ethical, or obey the law. It doesn't mean I think life is meaningless, or care what anyone else believes or thinks. I just reject theist explanations for lack of compelling evidence, just as theists reject other faiths.

>>14900596
God, deliver us from willfull ignorance.
>Atheism is an unproven belief.
It isn't a belief to start with.
>Atheism is not a fact.
Fact as in what?
>Atheists do not have absolute certainty that atheism is true.
Atheists don't claim truth to anything; they just lack the belief in any deity because so far NOBODY has ever come up with evidence that can be corroborated.
>>14900640
>does that make me an agnostic or atheist?
See >>14904103. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. Regarding belief, you're an atheist. People who respond with "I'm an agnostic" when asked if they've any belief in a deity don't know what they're talking about. Atheism ang agnosticism answer two different questions.

>>14903614
Gnostic sympathies? That is something I find interesting ^^. I understand where you are coming from a bit more now. And I do agree these discussions detract from talking about anything important really. Not sure what you mean by the ‘discordian sort’ part.
And I agree, we should pull away from capitalism and towards God <3

>>14900640
That is agnostic

>>14904231
My gradual extraction took me through a gnostic period rather than the deist path. Ancient and antique history has always interested me.
Discordianism is a pseudo-faith/philosophy by Robert Anton Wilson. Namesake taken from the Greek goddess Discordia who set the Trojan war in motion with a golden apple.
Going “towards god” never actually worked. Economics needs a renovation, not the realm of faiths

>>14904188
>It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution, Big Bang, or any other theory. It doesn't mean I read Dawkins, worship science or even think the world is round. I can believe in ghosts, UFOs, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, and Atlantis.
Thank you for pointing this out. For some reasons, theists think that atheism is some sect when in fact, it's just a matter of lacking a belief for things people usually claim they exist. The only sure thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief due to the nonexistence of any evidence whatsover to backup theists's claims. Aside from belief in a deity, atheists can believe as many wacky shit as theists. Science in no way answers to atheism; it's just the best tool humanity has at its disposition to discover truth about the universe through a slow and self-correcting process.

>>14904188
>>14904306
Conflating terms to weaken your position so as to avoid making a claim you cannot prove is possible, but only if you reject the general tenets of atheism.

A "lack of belief" would entail disinterest. The atheist is not disinterested, he is one half of the argument, if not more.

In fact, it is only the atheist that makes any claim whatsoever. I make now claim, I know that God exists. This is my faith.

I know that God exists - it is not my claim - and this understanding is my faith. I fully realize that it is not possible to convince one limited to the sensible or material world of any existence of non-material power, life, or energy. It is not within them to conceive it. Therefore, it is not necessary or even thought of by those of such faith.

The atheist cannot stand this. It is my understanding of his character that such metaphysical realizations or understandings harm him because he is entirely unable to grasp or even comprehend the same. Therefore, as a measure of self defense, he rejects in entirely on the basis that nothing beyond the natural world exists, standing proudly, and solely, upon the rock of "you must prove your God by way of the senses."

Well, no one of faith cares to entertain such childishness nor is it required to keep faith. This is only the domain of the atheist, a small and mentally, but even more so spiritually, reductive den.

Not only does the atheist make a claim - the claim that, with certainty, God does not exist - he is the only one making any claim with respect to God's existence whatsoever.

The other side is faith, true knowledge, and this requires no claim.

>>14904239
I think it depends on what questions >>14900640 is trying to answer.
>Does he believe in the existence of a deity?
This is a belief question. Either he'll be a theist or an atheist.
>Does he claim to have some knowledge about the existence of a deity?
This is a knowledge question. Either he'll be a gnostic or an agnostic.

For what I gather, he's not certain that a god or gods exist so he's an agnostic (just like me) regarding the knowledge question. I myself lack the belief in any deity because there's never been any evidence that can be corroborated to prove the existence of a deity so I'm an atheist regarding the belief question. So now the question is: Does >>14900640 believe in a deity?
It seems pretty common for people to conflate atheism (or theism) and agnosticism (and gnosticism); they answer different question and thus are mutually exclusive. For example, when asked about their belief some people mistakenly answer with "I'm agnostic".

>>14904351
PART 1:
>Conflating terms to weaken your position so as to avoid making a claim you cannot prove is possible, but only if you reject the general tenets of atheism.
I'm neither conflating terms nor rejecting any tenets of atheism. Atheism is simply "a lack of belief in a deity due to lack of evidence for its existence". As for tenets, atheism has none whatsoever. Atheism (as a term) is only a thing because theism is a thing and it has affected civilization in multiple ways. If nobody said "I believe in some deity", you wouldn't find anyone saying "I lack the belief in any deity because nobody has ever provided proof of it". For instance, you don't find anyone saying "I lack the belief in Fourchandreialavaf because nobody has ever provided proof of Fourchandreialavaf". This is because you don't find anyone saying "I believe in Fourchandreialavaf" to start with.

>A "lack of belief" would entail disinterest. The atheist is not disinterested, he is one half of the argument, if not more.
Yes, atheists are disenterested in the belief about a deity question because no evidence that can be corroborated by others has ever been provided. Provide some evidence, you'll get atheists interested. As for "The atheist is not disinterested", if that's the notion of atheism you want to roll, go with it. After all, nobody can't change your mind but you.

>In fact, it is only the atheist that makes any claim whatsoever. I make now claim, I know that God exists. This is my faith.
I thought theists were disingenuous but you take it to a whole new level? How does atheism make any claim? I do concede that some atheist might make some claim but that's got nothing to do with atheism. You state that "I make no claim," yet you "know that God exists."
How can you tolerate this level of dissonance? I won't try to convince you of anything but if there's anything you can take from this "conversation" is the definition of atheism. Atheism is just the lack of belief in any deity. Nothing less, nothing more.

>I know that God exists - it is not my claim - and this understanding is my faith. I fully realize that it is not possible to convince one limited to the sensible or material world of any existence of non-material power, life, or energy. It is not within them to conceive it. Therefore, it is not necessary or even thought of by those of such faith.
If you know that God exists, the least you could do is try to provide evidence for such existence. And I mean, evidence that can be corroborated by other people. I'm not sure what a good proof might be but asking God to imprint the solution to some unsolved mathematical problem in the surface of a star/planet might get some attention. BTW, I'm not trying to be condescending here.

>>14904351
>>14904535
PART 2:
>The atheist cannot stand this. It is my understanding of his character that such metaphysical realizations or understandings harm him because he is entirely unable to grasp or even comprehend the same. Therefore, as a measure of self defense, he rejects in entirely on the basis that nothing beyond the natural world exists, standing proudly, and solely, upon the rock of "you must prove your God by way of the senses."
Well, I can stand it; I'm here "talking" to you. I'm not sure how the realizations you allude can harm anyone; only you have access to them
as you describe them. There's nothing you can do to prove to other people of their veracity.

>Well, no one of faith cares to entertain such childishness nor is it required to keep faith. This is only the domain of the atheist, a small and mentally, but even more so spiritually, reductive den.
I think this is one of the main problems of theists who allude to knowledge only they have. Calling someone childish because they inquire about such knowledge is the antithesis of what humanity has been able to achieve. It's unfortunate you've such a reductive view of people that for lack of a better term decide to label themselves atheists.

>Not only does the atheist make a claim - the claim that, with certainty, God does not exist - he is the only one making any claim with respect to God's existence whatsoever.
I won't repeat myself; see above.

>The other side is faith, true knowledge, and this requires no claim.
By definition, faith is belief without evidence. By claiming that faith is true knowledge, whether you admit it or not, you're making a claim to something. Whether you can substantiate such claim is another thing.

>>14904535
>>14904541

It is therefore proven that the atheist is unable to discern between a claim and faith, that latter of which is understood in some quantity approximating zero.
I hope you don't receive this as some intentional offense, it surely isn't.
I only understand your position perfectly - it's really not that complicated - and know that atheists fail to understand that of faith.

This is the key difference, and even other atheists in this thread have admitted it.
The atheist makes a claim, faith holds belief.
One approaches the divine with a measuring device, the other accepts the truth of higher order.
Acceptance is something difference than making a claim. There we must agree.

>>14904541
>By definition, faith is belief without evidence

Is that the primary or necessary definition of Faith?

FAITH
1a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company's president
b(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
especially : a system of religious beliefs
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

>>14904103
>However, this begs the question: Why even have such a belief if there's no an ounce of evidence to corroborate it? Probably hopeful thinking?

-Reason (conceptions of God can be rational, sophisticated, plausible)
-Personal experience of God (having transcendent, divine or religious experiences)
-Testimony of others (Holy books, the religious experiences of others)

With these, even if one cannot conclusively prove God's existence logically or have conclusive evidence, one is justified in having belief in God.

>>14904710
>This is the key difference, and even other atheists in this thread have admitted it.
To be honest, you'll have to add me to that list as well. I must confess that I cannot comprehend faith in the religious way; I might understand what someone alludes with faith but not further than that.
In any case, it was nice discussing things with you. I guess some of us human are more inclined to the divinity of things than other people. I think as long as religion (and for extent, faith) doesn't try to convince people of things that are better explained by science, I don't see any problem. For once, science doesn't try to prove deities, gods, faith, etc. because it cannot; science is grounded on the material world and as fallible creatures, scientists use science and its method to explain the universe around us to the best of science's ability.
>The atheist makes a claim, faith holds belief.
Again, atheism makes no claim whatsoever and this is something I want you to at least take away from this discussion.

In any case, it was nice discussing things with you.
>>14904769
I was using it in the context of religious belief. I myself have faith in different things but not of the religious type that I assume >>14904351 was referring to.

>>14901295
so which of these do you recommend first? trying to find God over here..reading some CS Lewis and Karen Armstrong right now.

God is the ethical order of objective spirit.

>>14904710
First off, the people in this thread aren't "the atheist," any more than you are "the Christian." Second, you're making a distinction that is horseshit: all theists claim their god(s) exists, including you. Go read the Nicene creed, or the Lord's Prayer, or any other article of faith. Just because you want to pretend that affirmations of faith aren't "claims" because, ya know, they're just true, holds no water. You could argue that the faith precedes the claim (though that's not necessarily true--many people pay lip service to faiths they don't believe), but the claim is present the moment you identify yourself as a theist. Faith is the belief in a god, and stating that you have such faith is asserting that god's existence. You can be in denial about this if it makes you feel unjustifiably smug, but spare the rest of us the nonsense, and stop pasting dictionary definitions, please.

Atheist:
God doesnt exist!

Theist:
How do you know?

Atheist:
Atheism is a LACK of belief! I dont need proof!

Theist:
Atheism is also the belief that God does not exist, which you professed earlier.

Atheist:
Rocks and babies are atheists too!

>>14899682
>What is the bible for Atheists?
>Do they have a primary source for their claim that God does not exist or is it all just edgy teenage angst and effete attention-seeking?

In history atheism arises at the revolutionary break and is just so associated with political radicalism. So they then make their own bible with their progressive ideas.

History has it that there was Spinoza with his Pantheistic view which was that God is Nature. He developed along the lines of Agnosticism which is denial of the possibility of knowledge concerning the objective world. Then came the belief that the causes of things could not be known and that we humans could only work things out for practical purposes with enough knowledge, this was known as Skepticism. It was Hume that developed this idea, and which heavily influenced the French Revolution.

>>14905057
>Atheism is a LACK of belief IN THEISM
You’re trying to equate atheism with nihilism.
Nihilism is something you’re not mentally capable of dealing with right now.

Babies are born knowing only mother.

>>14905242
Butterfly why haven't you ever addressed scholastic philosophy ie. Aquinas instead of responding to retarded protestants?

>>14905262
My parents were religious, and I hate my parents. I am getting old and this is all I have. What don't you understand?

>>14905242
Philosophically, atheism is the belief God does not exist.

>Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.
Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

>>14905380
>This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”

This is what Dr Craig is talking about:

There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.
>>14900881

>>14904285
When you go towards God the concept of economics becomes less relevant. Going towards God is a metaphor btw, it means taking the right actions whatever they may be. Economics is beyond materialism, it has a lot to do with human intentions as I am sure you know.

>>14905632
>God is a metaphor btw, it means taking the right actions whatever they may be
God is an existing entity and the rightness of the actions you speak is right directly through him.
Man cannot and has never himself originated righteousness.
Even those who deny God are affected by God.
Those who choose righteousness and ignorance must, insofar as I am capable of knowing, be better off than those who choose wickedness and rejection.

>>14901988
Your mentality can't create objective morality and objective morality can't be inherently interchangeable, but since morality itself if a tool of sentience, a supreme transcendent sentience has to establish it throughout eternity.

In plain terms, why do you believe in God? I never have, wasn't raised in a religious place, never really understood. I don't feel the need for God at all.
>muh Aquinas
Grow up.

>>14906787
>Grow up.
Not an argument. Your position is unjustified

>>14905401
I'm out. I can't even conceive of the insanity that is required for someone to say with a straight face "Why should it be a default position to not believe these ancient mythologies with no proof?" It's not worth anyone's time.

Due to deep mystical experiences i have all the proof needed of absolute reality beyond the manifested
All is brahman, the supreme eternal consciousness

>>14905274
>hates parents
>old roastie
>socialist/communist
>gnostic atheist spreg
>promotes shit that doesn't read herself
>low tier pseudo intelectual
>gets btfo by retard protestants
>probably gay

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

>>14906981
Consider the works of Thomas Aquinas

>>14905632
When people wrap themselves up in spiritual nonsense, the economic elite become the rulers of all and whatever they say goes. This has been done repeatedly, and it ruins us. Fuck gods. Pay attention to the world you LIVE in not the pretend world of the dead

>>14905262
I make little of the distinctions. Not sure what you mean.

>>14905274
Your mum

>>14907274
Thomism. The concept of purus actus. Do you reject causality or where do you take issue with Aquinas' philosophy? Most of what you're responding to only applies to Protestants

>>14904188
>Oh, please. Just drop the idiocy.
It's like I'm really on reddit.

>>14900244
Extremely based post

>>14907288
He wrote a lot and I’m not reading any of it

>>14907320
But its essential reading for an understanding of philosophy and you only need to understand a few of his concepts

>>14907320
Wait, you haven't even read the best theistic arguments and you dismiss it nonetheless? Butterfly, I expected better from you. Thomism is true if we operate under the assumption that Kant and Hume didn't btfo objective causality.

>>14900244>>14907307

i'm sorry i just do not care about your mental gymnastic

>>14907388
>the best theistic argument
Which are...?
> Thomism is true if we operate under the assumption
So it’s not true. I’ve probably heard these arguments before. I hear they assume there is a god and twist everything towards that end

>>14907786
Okay, where do you take issue with Aquinas' first way?

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. (an infinite chain of causes would have no motion to drive this causation; think of a train with an infinite set of boxcars, it needs an engine to cause the train to move, a mover)

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (The first mover must be pure actuality. If it were not pure, a mover beyond it would be implied, yet since an infinite chain is impossible, the first mover must be pure. Pure actuality necessarily entails what we call God, as it contains the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, immateriality, it must be one thing etc.)

>>14906981
Nice list of articles written by low test faggots, faggot.
Get me a peer reviewed study or two next time.

>>14907890
>Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Silly starting point.
> and this everyone understands to be God
And where did your god come from? It sets up a faked understanding of the universe and then draws a faker king of it all.

>>14907987
>>14907987
Transcendence doesn't have to come from anywhere. It's literally the definition of being before being is or ever was.
And the other anon is right. You need a prime mover for the designed existence as we have, both physical and moral.
If you don't believe that, you might as well believe in all sorts of random bullshit.

>>14907987
>And where did your god come from?
Causation only exists in motion generated to realize an impure actual. Since God is pure actuality, He does not exist from causation, considering causation only exists when realizing something impure.

>isn't this special pleading and arbitrary?
No, something that is purely actual logically follows from the argument. You may reject individual premises though.
>It sets up a faked understanding of the universe
Causality is how we understand the universe. Fire is caused by combustion. You cannot do science without causality.
>then draws a faker king of it all.
No, pure actuality logically follows. Keep in mind that I am not yet arguing for a Christian God here, I am arguing for a general being.
>even if this god exists, he isn't observable or anything
Since goodness is being, this God would logically have created for the sake of goodness and would have to be wholly good as a result of being fully being. He would also have to be actively sustaining and driving motion in this universe, and all rationality would be an extension of a divine intellect.

>>14908014
So your Kal-El is given the attributes that the universe has. Like Marduk slaying Tiamat.
All theism is a heresy to nature.

>>14908055
>isn't this special pleading and arbitrary?
>No, something that is purely actual logically follows from the argument
Your god is not actual

>>14908099
By purely actual I mean a thing consisting of everything in existence.

>>14899694
/thread

>>14907267
I agree with what you are saying, but spiritual language is poetic. Following God may mean to stagnate and not develop in the contemporary Christian sense, but that’s not the way I am using it. So, there is no need to blame my language miss.
Also, the number one priority should always be developing consciousness. If you just keep hounding the message to destroy capitalism, you are just hoping people will follow and they aren’t developing as people at all. Things will never improve until our intentions change. Wanting people to be drones for an ideology will ruin us. Even if your intentions are good. So, that is why there is a need for this spiritual mumbo jumbo as you view it. It is about changing intentions, because if you force a material change but people still have the same old intentions, your system can’t be supported. Also, it goes without saying that we have to be ready when we destroy the status quo. We have to be ready to replace it. Do you honestly believe that if we just destroyed the status quo that everything will start improving? We have to destroy it at the right time, and we can only know that time if our minds are in the right place. Tell me what you think if that made sense.

>atheists have a burden of proof to deny a belief
>we can't prove god exists because it's faith
>but all other religions are false because we don't have faith in those ones
holy shit, this is literally the level of thinking some people have

>>14908078
>All theism is a heresy to nature
Very paganly said, but who established nature? Chaos? Who established chaos? Nothing? Who established nothing?
So on and on and on.
Then you ask who established God? The true Christian answer is establishment itself is a work of a transcendent, immovable God.
Pagans would gladly call that stupid bullshit. But then they'd go and worship their pussy idols, giving them attributes that nature has.
The same nature that by any metaphysical sense is established by a more powerful entity than any pagan deity.
But what am I talking about, you don't believe in God or gods.
You're a free thinking individual who establishes your own right and wrong. Or in other words, being a NEET in God's universe on the universe's tad.

>>14908147
>we can't prove god exists
What is the cosmological argument? What is the moral argument? What is Aquinas's five ways? What are a plethora of evidence that proves the bare bone basic need for a primal mover?
You know what?
The same stubborn ignorance and blindness that religious fundamentalists have.
Atheist are literally on the same tier as the fundamentalist trash they so proudly fight, if not lower.

>>14906981
You are not aware of what science is.

>>14903591
Is this Anselms argument or Descartes? I have trouble distinguishing them

>>14901967
The only argument against God, rather than an argument against argunents that are for God, comes from Sartre. He says that Humans have private minds. An existent God would contradict that. Therefore God isnt real.
Or least, thats as far as I understood it. Its entirely likely its more complicated than that

William L. Rowe destroyed Christian theism decades ago. Apologists have been only been coping since then.

>>14908684
Retroactively refuted by Augustine

>>14908719
>some cope medieval theodicy
>refuting anything
Mega cringe

>>14906803
There is no logical justification for a "default view" of any kind

Atheist:
>God does not exist.

Man
>Prove it.

Atheist:
>Wait.. what?

>>14908389
>the beginning of time requires a cause, which presupposes cause and effect, which requires time
certified retard

>>14908927
Why can causality occur only in time?

>>14908793
Atheist:
>Yahweh has the exact likelihood of existing as Vishnu or Allah

Butthurt Christfag:
>BUT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY HE DOESN'T EXIST!

>>14908976
If something can occur without a cause that preceded it in time, why would you need a prime mover that existed before it?

>>14908978
Fairly dumb argument.
What does it say that all cultures, real cultures based in thousands of years of tradition, all have some understanding of God and the atheist tries to use this as proof that religion is wrong in a very misguided "gotcha" attempt parroted from a Ricky Gervais meme?
Well, it tells me that atheists are not very intelligent. I try not to make generalizations but most of them do what you have just done.
How terribly brave and unique....

Stop limiting yourself and seek to understand.

>>14908979
I think you misunderstood my question altogether. Why is temporality necessary for causality?

>>14909100
define causality

>>14909031
All it speaks to is the group dynamics of a social species

But by all means, gloss over the manifold contradictions between those universal "understandings"

>>14909258
You didn't say anything.

>>14906803
The default position is "I dont know".
The default position is NOT "God does not exist".

If you assert that God does not exist
or believe God does not exist
then you need to justify your belief as much as theists do.

>>14903614
I think that your loss to Urantia seems to contradict your all but one of your three claims - agitation - though this seems to be derived from you being unable to confront the truth that faith does have some merit, which is in stark contrast to your supposedly traumatic experience with Christianity in your childhood.

Therefore it seems to me that most of your qualms are centred around your refusal to accept the intellectual merits of Christianity, instead resorting to insults like you did after being decisively defeated in semi-debate with Urantia.

>>14909258
cant lie, he just made you look like a fucking idiot lol.

>>14908378
>who established nature? Who established chaos?
Chaos is a part of nature. But they’re just words to describe the things that are. “God” is the name of a character created well after, and not coincidentally after human beings invented it.

>>14910089
>loss to Urantia
HAHAHA.. wait where?
>The truth ... that make people feel ... traumatic
I wasn’t traumatized, ala Fanny and Alexander like, I was raised wrong. It was a mundane regular wrong way that all Christians are taking. It is the wrong perspective on life, though the worse faith wrecking the world right now is capitalism, the dull witted followers of yhwh etc. are big time status quo supporters.
>decisively defeated
Hahaha. By that schizo? He doesn’t even know the definition of atheist. I don’t even care where you made your decision

>>14909902
>If you assert that God does not exist
Which god?
Any god evidently invented by mush brains. The concept of god/gods/goddess? Still open up for debate. But now we haggle over the nature of these possible gods. Are they weak, malevolent, etc.
Yeah, we’re back to debating “pagan” kinds of gods because that’s all that’s left to you. A slim (generously 0.1 chance) of a creator/afterlife/soul

>>14910468
>>14910442
>gets plebe filtered by anon discussing actual thomistic arguments
>goes back to replying to retarded protestants about nature or some shit
wow who would have thought that butterfly doesn't know that much about religious philosophy

I honestly wish this were 2013 so everyone would just spam the fedora meme instead of engaging with a tripfag whose idea of an intellectual is Christopher Hitchens and whose idea of a counterpoint is "I don't read philosopy." Kill yourselves

>>14910888
>theists need to just admit they don't have an argument and spam tired memes instead
hot take there bud

>>14911097
>still hasn't refuted aquinas

>>14899691
I read a little of that book and had to stop when the author started bitching about Bush. And then Tucker Carlson is mentioned for some reason. And at no point do I recall him talking about atheism.

>>14899682
Milwaukee Atheists on Youtube is pretty much the best they get tbqh

>>14910872
I wasn’t raised Catholic. And I already btfo your Aquinas point.

>>14910442
>Chaos is a part of nature.
Bullshit. Nature at its most chaotic still pertains to its own order and needs an objective order at a fundamental level to not be utter chaos.
>“God” is the name of a character created well after
Also bull. The (((character))) of God as you say, can't be a mere human invention since it's not something you can subjugate. You can try, but all those who try, fail.
God's true character is in objective morality, which in the same way you can buy into as transcendent and eternal, or subjugate it to some guy imagining it all up. Now that's sweet that you want to ignore metaphysics and logic, and just drift away into hedonistic bullshit, but if you want to convince a true Christian that he's wrong, well, you kind of need something to destroy the foundation with and you vehemently refuse to accept that there is one. That's why atheism is so cringe, it's just toothless sperging.

>>14911146

>>14911176
So? It’s all just nature.

>God’s
Goddess’

>>14911185
What are their arguments inthat video?

>>14911189
>it's just nature bro
>Goddess’
In Christianity we call those false idols.
>>14911196
That virginity disproves of any objective justice in life.

>>14899682
Atheism dosen't need "bible".

>>14900198
>i have dragon in my house but it's invisible

>>14899682
>Do they have a primary source for their claim that God does not exist or is it all just edgy teenage angst and effete attention-seeking?

The bible is a compilation of the torah, a real document and a bunch of word of mouth stories put together by priests long after the death of Jesus.

Jesus was the bastard child of a Roman soldier and a Jewish mother who was so upset about his half blood status he created an entire false religion around himself being the Jewish Messiah and the "son of god".

The bible is just the torah + his larp as the foretold Messiah.

Basically the same as what the Jews believe but we also don't believe in the rabbi's ability to speak with a god.

>>14899694
Science doesnt even understand reality, lmao.

>>14911529
In that case, please throw away all technology, and heal yourself through prayer alone. Of course you won’t, because deep down inside, you’re an atheist. Words lie, deeds don’t

has the definition of atheism changed in the last decade?
according to the dictionary it may as well just mean "idk lol"
what happened to the militant atheism, "no gods exist" isnt that the original atheist belief? and a firm belief at that. and of course the firm association alongside atheism of the last 100 years that flat out denies ANY supernatural happening. aliens? sure, maybe. yet any true atheist will still deny any evidence you have to say them regarding other life.
no spirits, no demons, no astral projection, no reincarnation, esp does not exist in the mind of an atheist and they will dismiss all of it immediately without considering anything.

the half assed "atheists" itt claiming they are unsure and they have belief in their uncertainty. what the fuck lmao.

>>14911542
6/10 was about to reply

>>14911542
Medicine and the church were closely related for hundreds and hundreds of years. People during those days didn't just pray and sit around waiting for ailments to go away, they built up modern medicine piece by piece.

>>14901967
>what is occam's razor
>>14904825
What the fuck is this chart?
>>14902030
Because religion in CURRENTYEAR is cancer on society

>>14911100
Why "Primal mover" have to be transcendental?.

>>14899973
Saying God does not exist is an assertion. The scientific answer is to say " we don't know". If you can't tell the difference between the two, then you're retarded.

>>14911552
And? What’s your point? You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be godly, yet at the same time rely on godless science that doesn’t require any faith whatsoever to work. That’s not consistent. If you were actually consistent in your beliefs, you’d also rely on them in times of peril. When believers get shot, why do they go to the hospital, and rely on medicine, which is flawed human knowledge? Why don’t they pray to God for them to save them? I tell you why, because when it comes down to actual actions, they only care about cold hard scientific facts. Your post is little more than a red herring. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why rely on flawed man made science in times of peril? Why not rely fully on God?

>>14911678
>medical industry treats patients as consumers
>militaries now capable of permanently destroying all life
>popular tech brainwashes and spies on user

>godless science

you might be onto something there

>>14911678
>Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’ ”
>Y U NO TEMPT GOD BY MAKING GOD EVERYTHING WHILE U ROT IN FLESH
>STAY AWAY FROM MUH SCENIES ITS MINE
Nice.

>>14906997
>one guy from 1000 years ago invalidates this obvious trend
>>14907927
>being this illiterate
>>14908617
>NOOOO SCIENCE DONE BY ATHEISTS ISNT REAL NOOOOOO
You guys are doing a really great job proving his point

>>14912095
cope harder

>>14912095
Seething atheist cope

>>14912095
>one guy from 1000 years ago invalidates this obvious trend
Yeah.
Aquinas hasn't been invalidates a 1000 years later either.

Not for atheists but for physicists/scientists.
The first chapter is solely focused on refuting Materialism, so its definitely not the bible of atheists even if they Fucking Love "Science".

>>14911678
>godless science that doesn’t require any faith whatsoever to work.
the state of undergrads

>>14913467
Nobody in the field of philosophy of mind takes Penrose Orch-OR nonsense seriously.

>>14907890
None of that bullshit is consistent with modern physics.

>>14913727
>thinks physics is relevant at all to aquinas' arguments here

>>14913732
"Motion" does not exist in the way Aquinas describes. His argument is nonsense.

>>14913738
>change does not exist in the way Aquinas describes

>>14913382
Dude, nobody uses the Aristotelian metaphysics his arguments rely on anymore. That shit is as obsolete as it gets, which is why not even Christian apologists bother with his arguments, only catholic LARPers on the internet do.

>>14899682
This time the answer is actually Reddit

>>14911657
>Saying God does not exist is an assertion.
No shit, Sherlock. It's an assertion of non-existence, not existence.

>The scientific answer is to say " we don't know".
No it isn't. The scientific answer is to believe only in what is supported by evidence.

>If you can't tell the difference between the two, then you're retarded.
The difference between what "two"? You're not making any sense.

>>14913744
Correct.

>>14913772
unjustified claim

>>14913776
"Change" and "Motion" are illusions, according to physics.

>>14913776
Eternalism BTFO thomism forever. Just give up already.

>>14911222
Turns out Yhwh is the false idol

>>14913467
Is this any good?

>>14913758
And what is supported by evidence? Ironically, there is more reason to presuppose the existence of a God than there is nothing.
And if you're talking about what is supported by the evidence, I hope you're aware that not a lot actually is. Much of it is conjecture. For example, much on diet. (Yes, I know it's a weird comparison, but this is one of the areas I focus on.)

>>14914128
>Is this any good?

>>14914156
Fuck off tripfag

>>14899682
>Do they have a primary source for their claim that God does not exist or is it all just edgy teenage angst and effete attention-seeking?
Ironically, its the Bible, atheism is a Christian heresy.

>>14914186
Close: it's Vegetales, atheists can't deal with deeper arguments than what they learnt in Sunday school

It's honestly amazing that the atheists have yet to cite a single source for their claim.

>>14913758
>The scientific answer is to believe only in what is supported by evidence.
Science is based on falsification. Ironically, the scientfic approach to atheism would be to disprove God. Science cannot disprove God. What cannot be falsified is taken to be true. Therefore theres more scientific reason to believe God than disbelieve

>>14914193
I've been in that many discussions with atheists, and I'll tell you it's always the same. It's so pathetic and predictable. Atheists have become intellectual midgets. They don't require "proof" because they will claim something and then claim it's just disbelief. They will then demand proof and say it's not good enough. They will "ask" things that have been refuted and answered since the beginning. And call you names as they do it, because they aren't as smart as they think.

>>14914210
inb4 floating teapot in space or invisible pink unicorn arguments
inb4 spaghetti monster

>>14914210
>What cannot be falsified is taken to be true
Oh nonononon AHAHAHAHAHAA

>>14914210
>What cannot be falsified is taken to be true.
Based retard lmao
That’s not what falsificationism entails, you brainlet. What cannot be falsified is simply taken to be outside the scope of science, falsificationism makes no claims about their truth value.

>>14899682
Why would you need 'scripture' to not belief in random falsehoods?

Show me the texts that say that the oceans aren't wine, that the moon is not an old man, that you aren't a gullible retard
I'm waiting

>>14914250
So you cannot scientifically deal with God, so the scientific answer is to say "we dont know"
All meme atheists can now go fuck off.

>>14914266
Which is exactly that. You cannot make a positive statement without evidence. Saying 'I believe therefore it is', is shitting last nights 'bible study' cum out of your ass
Fuck off you fucking imbeciles

>>14914037
Yhwh's not a man made statue that you attribute features.
You're a pile of dust Yhwh made to attribute features.

>>14914279
And my power level is over 9000 fuckface

>>14913749
Didn't know methods of reasoning was a thing of fad.

>>14914288
And yet you're still a vegetable.

>>14914290
>Lighters use stones, all fire is made from stone

>>14914266
The scientific answer is “that’s outside the scope of science”, not “we don’t know”. These statements have very different implications.
Ultimately naturalism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, given our scientific understanding of the world, thus preferable.

>>14914298
Says the one defending neolithic bed time stories

>>14914290
Based brainlet

>>14914312
Sorry anon. My parents weren't rich enough to buy me a fedora.
>>14914303
>>14914318
Nice cope, boys. Keep at it.

>>14914347
>Nice cope
Nice ad homimens buttboy

>>14914307
>>14914275
The proposition that all true knowledge is within the scope of science is itself outside the scope of science

>>14914396
Scientific thinking is a tool. It is your defense against bullshit. While you are defending bullshit, because you swallowed it, and became invested in it, so now anyone questioning your specific flavor of bullshit is wrong on 'metaphysical' grounds
You are the one unable to question your own belief

>>14914193
If God allows me to post this post it means he's not real. Source: this post.

>>14914396
>The proposition that all true knowledge is within the scope of science is itself outside the scope of science
Never claimed anything of the sort. Falsificationism deals with the demarcation problem, not with epistemic justification as a whole. Try to keep up.

>>14914421
Justify the validity of your tool using only the scientific method alone

>>14912381
>>14913054
samefag, cringe, seethe, etc.

>>14914445
What you're expecting:
>That's because you're insignificant and God doesn't care about you
Reality
>You are not and he does
Enjoy your free will, it's a gift.

>>14914210
Lol, no.

>>14914595
Free will is inconsistent with the existence of God, heathen.

>>14914833
>Larping atheist defends weak position via proxy

>>14899682
It doesn't matter whether religion is true or not (or what part of it is true or not, and what we mean when we say that: "religion X is right/wrong about Y"), What the majority of basic-tier atheists don't get is that you can't do: "I'm gonna give people purely scientific and rational answers and destroy theists arguments, once and for all". Yea, there is no reason why religions exist, it's purely a coincidence that there was some kind of religion throughout the whole sum of human culture, society and history. (be it theistic or non-theistic: Buddhism, Daoism, Marxism -- yea, "smart" atheists consider this a religion since it's not "muh perfect view of western secularism" etc...). "It was simply the case that people, back in the day, were simply illogical and dumb [nevermind Pascal, Descartes, Da Vinci, Jack Parsons...], but now we are rational! By we, I mean: me, myself and I"
Why can't you do this?

Could it be that the human brain explains the world to itself: through stories, through metaphors, through parables, through morals and ultimately through the fantastical and the absurd? (and that this is also reflected in religion and then in society)

Could it be that the reason why the majority of people are not radical atheists is because atheism doesn't have anything that to give that would nurture the soul? (oh right, we are natural blobs, I forgot, there is no soul!)

Bottom line, Atheists do need an Atheist Bible.

the sports almanac

>>14913695
Who are the top philosophers in the field of philosophy of mind?

>>14901988
You can’t say /thread and yet add more to the thread.

>>14899682
>What is the bible for Atheists?
The world.

>>14911678
Where does it say in the Bible that medicine and science is a sin and should be avoided? I think you are confusing christian scientists with normal christians.
Please stop posting.

>>14911657
That's like saying no one ITT is billionare. Some one theoreticaly COULD BE but chances are so small that they are not even considered.

>>14900190
It sounds as if you're as quick to judge atheists' belief as they are quick to judge you for your faith.

>>14914558
Still a nigger.
Still coping.

>>14914387
>hehe it's all just neolithic bullshit
>NOOOO Y U AD HOMINEM ME U CANT DO THAT ONLY TO NEOLOTHIT BULLSHIT THAT I NOT UNDERSTEND NOOO
Your whole existence is an ad hominem to the human race lol

OP here.

At this point, even one piece of evidence for the atheist's claim that God does not exist would be appreciated.
Evidence must exist for their claim as atheists are men of science and facts.
There is simply no chance these types believe so adamantly in an idea founded on nothing.
It goes against everything they stand for.

>>14917236
"new atheists"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8tvzgZPuAs

>>14899682
>atheist bible
>irrelevant thought
contradiction on the cover, why would you even bother past that

>>14917236
>>14917253

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJO4aYoaleg

>>14914275
>You cannot make a positive statement without evidence
There's plenty of evidence for God but ignoring that is the fact that no non-theistic worldview can justify itself. All worldviews that deny God are either:

A) Philosophically incoherent

or

B) Fall into Solipsism

The main problem is that many atheists don't really like the logical consequences of their materialistic and reductionist worldview so they hold quasi-theistic metaphysical beliefs they brush under the rug and hope nobody notices. Hence the incoherence.

God is a necessary presupposition for all knowledge. Without God there is no knowledge so saying God doesn't exist because there isn't enough evidence to get over the bar needed for knowledge is pointless because there is no bar and no knowledge can be justified in a Godless world.

>>14899682
They are either homosexuals, adulterers, or otherwise people who want not to be held accountable for their behavior and find the moral structure of a coherent theology offensive because it is literally an offensive against them.

There is no rational reason to oppose Christianity except that you really, really like getting fucked by other men. As recent events have shown, God's wrath is very obviously real.

The great reaping of their shit-colored souls will be hysterical to watch. Good thing faggots are known for their cleanliness, respect for personal distance and strong immune systems.

>>14917236
>Evidence must exist for their claim
You shouldn't have outed yourself, OP. This just shows you didn't read none of the responses you had to read. Why you keep rehashing the same "atheists must provide evidence for their claims" rhetoric is beyond me. Just admit to yourself that no amount of discussion will be able to plant a doubt in your own mind. For the last time, atheism makes no claim whatosoever. It's simply a lack of belief.
>>14917324
>Without God there is no knowledge...
What do you mean by knowledge here? What kind of knowledge is unknowable without a deity?

>>14917567
>>14917567
> What do you mean by knowledge here? What kind of knowledge is unknowable without a deity?

I'm a different anon, but love this discussion and hope that I can contribute. The argument "without God there is no knowledge" is a fairly well-established argument (not saying that it's right/wrong). Here it goes, remember Dosto and the argument: "If there is no God, then EVERYTHING is permitted" Well, the whole thing goes in the other direction as well: "If there is no God, then NOTHING is permitted" (no free will, no knowledge, no shit). It depends, of course, on the religion that we are talking about (whether it's paganism or occcultism or whatever), BUT God is, usually (again, depends on the religion), not "a deity" but "The Deity" the primordial thing that holds everything together: reality, the universe(s), and so on or the will/order of the universe if you want to call it that.

Think of what Tillich says in 'Systematic Theology, vol. 1': "God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.”

>>14917567
>What kind of knowledge is unknowable without a deity?
God ain't no simple deity tho. God is the foundation and purpose of order and also the knowledge of it.

>>14917427
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>14913504
most undergrads that seriously dive into this stuff will readily admit the "flaws of science". most people that taut bs like that mostly only have a superficial understanding of ~science~

>>14913695
this is true, but no one in phil of mind who is taken srsly strongly (that im aware of) claims that brain dynamics can be explained in strictly electro-dynamics; even photosynthesis (and maayyybe smell) works on QM effects

>>14899682
what is the bump limit on /lit? 309?

>>14917427
>There is no rational reason to oppose Christianity except that you really, really like getting fucked by other men. As recent events have shown, God's wrath is very obviously real.
you just posted top tier cringe. Christianity is gay af. 90% of priests are homosexuals (and so are you)

>>14917626
Not true. Again, the atheist is not a disinterested bystander. The atheist claims that God does not exist. This claim would not exist without the atheist. Unless you are saying this claim does not exist, it is impossible to take your position that "atheism is just a lack of belief" seriously.

A simple lack of belief would go unnoticed and never be mentioned or talked about. I do not believe that the middle of the earth is made out of honey, for example. So I don't claim that it is. I don't believe that the stars are fake so I do not make that claim. A lack of belief entails a lack of energy to express that lack of belief in any way. In other words, it's a non event unless you turn it into a claim - which is exactly what the atheist does.

I believe in God. I claim He exists with certainty. I know it is true. This is my faith.

The first rejection of the atheist seems not to be God himself, but belief itself. As believe requires a certain "leap of faith" to be taken. The atheist refuses to take this and seems to believe that all who do are not rational. But the second rejection of the atheist is God, and the atheists claims God does not exist. This the atheist cannot prove and therefore, to get there, himself must take the leap of faith he deems irrational in others.

Unless of course they are holding back evidence of God's impossibility.

>>14918182
let's see

>>14918845
>>14918182
it's 310 newfags

We are all God's Children, even you atheist rascals.

>>14918604
Are you still spinning your wheels with these same points, over and over? A "leap of faith" is by its nature irrational (you said so yourself), so refusing to take that leap is a more rational position. If you want to call atheism a 'claim" instead of "a working strategy based on observable evidence," go ahead, but it's pointless. Nobody sane has ever claimed they could empirically disprove the existence of "God" (any deity) or any other invisible critter. But the difference between your "lack of belief" in fake stars and "a claim requiring energy" is your own personal semantic fuzziness. You stating that you don't believe stars are fake is no less an event than an atheist saying he doesn't believe in deities. Your line "a lack of belief entails a lack of energy to express that in any way" is just silly. You've put huge amounts of energy into making your claim, but noting the necessity of a "leap of faith" for theism destroys your own false equivalence. Being an atheist requires no leap of faith, so the positions are not equivalent. Whether we choose to debate them or not changes nothing.

>>14919192
What a vile picture.

The atheist takes a leap of faith when he claims that God does not exist. For this he has no proof, and in this he is doing exactly that for which he criticizes the man of God.

Atheist:
>God does not exist
Man of God
>Prove it
Atheist
>No you