/lit/ - Literature

>>6114275
Because, like born-again Christians, they leave no room for doubt. Wouldn't you be smug if you thought you had access to the objective truth about God's (non)existence?

>>6114275
it's difficult not be smug when you're correct

>>6114275
Because it's obvious.

Other atheists are the reason I tell people I'm agnostic. They are so fucking embarassing to associate with.

>>6114313
>tfw I'm intellectually convinced Catholicism is true but I don't tell anyone

>>6114315
>g-guys no wait
>guys
>the blood literally, litera--
>guys!
>the blood literally becomes wine guys
>and the
>guys no wait
>guys the bread
>literally
>literally becomes flesh

Because New Atheists have created a particular subcultural style and arrogance is an important part of that. It's not so different from being a teenage punk or a libertarian, you get a lot of pleasure from the belief that everyone around you is a braindead sheep following the heard and you are part of a tiny, enlightened (and euphoric) elite.

>>6114321
ayy fecked that one up

>>6114321
You gotta start with philosophy bro. Explain the Aristotelian substance-accident distinction and how it fits in with Catholic understanding of the Eucharist

>>6114326
>thinking anything can be explained using philosophy
kek sure is 350 BC in here

>>6114315
See? There you go proving my point again.
Have fun being edgy.

>tfw you realize everyone thinks life is miserable and awful because they don't believe in God and his absence makes them miserable
>tfw atheists are fucking stupid

>>6114335

That must be it, it can't possibly be the lack of evidence, undefined concepts or complete lack of falsifiability

>>6114334
Please tell me how I am being edgy when I avoid talking about it to people because I don't want to be edgy

>>6114321
Yes, during the last supper that "literally" happened. Why is it so hard for you to understand that an all powerful god can do something as simple as that

>>6114326

>thinking that nothing has happened between the 13th century and now
>aquinasfags

>>6114335
OK, but don't fall into the simple-minded American Evangelical trap of thinking that a Christian must always be happy and successful.

I don't really get Aquinas. Why does he assume there is no first term, and why does there not being one imply god. Wouldn't that also imply there are countless gods that were the first mover for each other

what really gets on my nerves is how people treat god's existence as the end-all be-all question of religiosity and once you've made up your mind, you're done, when actually ninety percent of christianity's impact is cultural and social, which fedoras don't get because they don't know anything about philosophy OR theology. I've spent ten times as long listening to some neckbeard explain how muh organized religion is evil because richard dawkins said so that I've ever had to listen to a christian talk about anything

>>6114346
transsubstitution happens every communion

>train substantial happens

how do you know?

>>6114370
>I don't actually want to understand anything pls spoonfeed me

Just watch the Amazing Atheist if you want a retard pandering to you

>>6114370

You're not losing much by not getting him.
He's more important in the history of philosophy rather than philosophy itself, his arguments are only considered good by hardcore catholics who have sold their reason to ideology.

>>6114389
>>I don't actually want to understand anything

Not the same guy, but what is this based on?

>>6114389
> I have no real answer so ill throw my default meme response.

>>6114275
>Why is New Atheist rhetoric so smug and obnoxious?
>Implying christfags are equally smug and obnoxious


>>6114378
>I've spent ten times as long listening to some neckbeard explain how muh organized religion is evil because richard dawkins said so that I've ever had to listen to a christian talk about anything

Kek, the reverse is happening to me on 4chan.

That's what being right looks like to the wrong. No worries though. You're probably not an idiot, just mislead.

>followers of New Atheism are smug so they're annoying me and therefore they're WRONG!!
Anti-atheists are the most anti-intellectual people on earth, you are a memetic plague

>>6114407
OK listen up retard. There is obviously no first term, do you think we just came from nothing? Something must have happened first. And so what conditions must there be to go from nothing to everything? The answer is pretty simple, a God must exist.

Was it really that hard, you can teach this to a fucking 12 year old and they would understand it better than you cucks

>>6114427
3/10

poorly disguised Christian trying to discredit Athiests

>>6114429

>And so what conditions must there be to go from nothing to everything? The answer is pretty simple, a God must exist

this is bullshit
demonstrate how the latter follows from the former

>>6114429
>Something must have happened first
>The answer is pretty simple, a God must exist.

How did you get from 'Something must happen' to 'This something must possess intelligence and a conscious will'? Where did God's intelligence and consciousness come from?

>>6114439
No, I'm not an anti-theist but I firmly believe that New Atheism gets criticized unjustly
>hurrrr I get bullied by Atheists now fuck New Atheism fucking fedoras :(((((
How about you stop being such anti-intellectual twat and let counter-memes dictate your political and/or spiritual affiliatons

These Sam Harris pictures I'm posting are ironic, Harris is the opposite of smug and condescending, which is why I find it funny

>>6114448
That's not necessarily what god is, we as humans have interpreted this absolutist being as analogous to humans, in the form and shape.

But in reality, that guy was right. To justify God, you simply use a chain of causation. Eventually, there will have to be one thing that was the ultimate cause, which caused other things to then have effects, and those effects all chained to get you to where you are today.

The Abrahamic god probably isn't the 'correct god', but that was never really the point of religion.

>>6114449
>let counter-memes dictate your political and/or spiritual affiliatons
Do you seriously believe all Christians do this. Have been on 4chan so long that you genuinely believe this website reflects societal discourses at large?
Unless this is some covert shitposting, it would appear that everyone is in on the joke except you.

>>6114275
Because it is pseudophilosophy only made possible by capitalist culture and decay in academia; while posturing as philosophy, it may only be considered as such if one refuses to study or take any interest in philosophy, as most if not all of their ideas have been refuted hundred of years ago and are only made interesting to fedorafags and single mothers by acting as if it were all science, due to the ammount of praise science gets nowadays.

It's literally trash. If you want to read some real atheism with real method, not some pop-science mixed with pop-philosophy, read La Mettrie or Nietzsche.

>>6114469
>Nietzsche
>real method

>>6114469
Are the greatest arguments for Christianity more reasonable or less reasonable than the greatest arguments against Christianity?

>>6114464
>To justify God, you simply use a chain of causation. Eventually, there will have to be one thing that was the ultimate cause, which caused other things to then have effects, and those effects all chained to get you to where you are today.

But such an approach assumes a top down form of organization, and we know that a good portion of systems use a bottom up approach. Self-organization is in fact much more common than organization by command.

Look for instance at pic related. There's no 'leader' in this swarm of birds, they merely react to small changes that other birds make, which become amplified by constant positive feedback

>>6114275
There was a time when the brightest minds discussed atheism.

Now, the matter is settled. That unfortunately means that the playing field is left to teenagers and extremists.
And when everything has been said and argued already, the only way to still get attention is to be loud and to make up strawmen so you still have something to battle against.

As a consequence, you have religious fundamentalists on one side and fedoras on the other hand who just can't let go and don't understand that what they do is like trying to bring someone to quit heroin with nothing but "it's obviously bad for you, you just gotta stop doing it mate".

>>6114466
No, but the enemies of New Atheism who have fedora.jpgs saved on their computers.
Again, not an anti-theist. Read.

>>6114489
>Now, the matter is settled
How was the matter settled? Who has made the most convincing case for atheism? And when did it happen in philosophy?

>>6114492
>not an anti-theist

>>6114486
But in order for those birds to exist, required many causes in the past, impossible to completely list out, yet causes nonetheless.

Causation does not imply top-down, it is simply a function of reality.

>>6114505

Then how do you get from causality to a world where a God organizes reality by command? Just about everything in the concept of God and worship of God assumes a top down approach where God organizes reality according to his ruling. The ten commandments were called commandments, not "patterns by which religious behavior emerges".

>>6114497
Basically with Feuerbach, religion was philosophically dead.

After that, it needed a decade or two to sink into public conscience, and after that, the only believers you had left were either due to really strict education, deathbed catholicism, or the "shit's so amazing, there must be /something/" from scientists like Einstein which some other people then interpret as "well he was smart and believed in God, so I should be fine believing *bizarre nonsense*.

>>6114480
You don't know shit, son. Open a book someday.

>>6114485
What do you consider as the greatest arguments?

>>6114532
What a fantastic refutation. I truly see the error of my argument.
Twat

>>6114307
how is it obvious?

>>6114536
You haven't read Nietzsche and probably not much else, and criticize it based on /lit/ memes. Please leave.

>>6114427
2/10
Just because they think they are right doesn't give them any reason to tell me that I am wrong. If I think I am wrong, I will change. If they somehow persuade me to change, it wouldn't be because of them. I would read up on it on my own time.

>>6114532
>What do you consider as the greatest arguments?
Not him, but Aquinas seems to be popular around here.

Almost all of Plato's dialogues are free from amazon to get on a kindle. Is this a good way of reading them? They're translated by Jowett, and I finished the Apology yesterday on it with enough ease.

>>6114522
>Then how do you get from causality to a world where a God organizes reality by command?
Now this I never said. As stated before, I find it very unlikely there would be some arbitrary judicature in the skies that decide our fate as people of a religion. I think it is a very abstract concept, this god, and besides being able to logically understand that he encompasses the fourth dimension as well as logically necessarily existing from a chain of causation, it's relatively impossible to prove anything else out about god.

In a transcendentalist way, however, I believe the more natural communications you have determines the level of your connection with God. And I think God, rather than a man, should be thought of as this abstract entity.

>ITT: People who think religion requires metaphysical claims

Do you even theological non-realism?

>>6114552
Epic. I sure can't come back from that.
Google 'Argumentum ad hominem'

>>6114614
oh fuck off

>>6114614
what the other dude said.

contribute or gtfo

>>6114542
>Y'alls religions is stupid! except for mine!
>It's true because look at the philosophical history defending it! you think you're smarter than 2000 years of history?
>2000 years of smart people can't be wrong, right?
>It's not like any other doctrine would've resulted in the exact same thing, defended with the same vigour or anything
>Nicaea? What's that?
>Maronites? Greek Orthodox? Armenian Church? Protestant? Muslims? Jews? Polytheists? Zoroastrianists? Nah, man, they're all going to hell, man.
>I have an eternal soul that will live forever in the Kingdom of God

I mean, c'mon.

>>6114623
Okay, fine. Please point out Nietzche's methodological sceptics that he applies to demonstrate the non-existence of god.
Before you resort to more baseless ad hominems I have actually read Nietzsche.

>>6114633
methodological scepticism*

>>6114630
Just because every religion before us was wrong doesn't mean that there is no higher power. It just means that every religion before us was wrong.

>>6114580
>I think it is a very abstract concept, this god, and besides being able to logically understand that he encompasses the fourth dimension as well as logically necessarily existing from a chain of causation, it's relatively impossible to prove anything else out about god.

Such a conception of God would barely differ from nature. Why would you go to church, do all these rituals and have all this worship for a God that barely differs from nature, if it differs at all?

>>6114664
I don't know, go ask the people who go to Church.

>>6114565
You're wrong because you obviously are retard. "Maybe there is a god afterall ;_;" =\= christianity has a 50/50 shot of being correct.

>>6114646
Every religion will be wrong, because man can not know God. God is unknowable, any man made construct prescribing Its will is a futile invention. (unless you want to mobilize people, found states or make shit loads of money, etc. I'm talking ''philosophically futile'' here)

>>6114672
Every religion will be wrong, because man can not know there is God (or not). God (or lack thereof) is unknowable, any man made construct prescribing Its will (or lack thereof) is a futile invention. (unless you want to mobilize people, found states or make shit loads of money, etc. I'm talking ''philosophically futile'' here)

>>6114633
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_%28philosophy%29

read

>>6114299
This

>>6114664
Faith.

Honestly dude, you can be intellectually convinced in theism like you can in any philosophical position but actually feeling drawn to worship the Creator of the entire universe is a whole different thing.
I used to be basically apathetic towards this but after being exposed to a lot of things I started feeling drawn to monotheism. It wasn't predominantly rational - in fact, my mind kept coming up with rationalizations why this doesn't make sense, that I'm being indoctrinated and so on.
But when you're in the middle of Mass and feel for the first time what people mean by faith, the incomprehensible combination of joy and fearful respect towards a being so beyond your reach you can't possibly understand it logically - then all the reasons you can give fall apart and you feel there is something here.

>>6114681
No fuck off I'm not reading a wikipedia article. You asserted that Nietzsche provides a 'method' for ascertaining the truth of god's existence. Show textual examples of this from his work if you want to further your argument.
Have you even fucking read Nietzsche or just a smattering of wikipedia articles?

>>6114693
perhaps he has better things to do than to spoon feed you with philosophy.

>>6114705
He's wrong though and has likely never even read Nietzsche. Wait are you him?

>>6114680
kek

>>6114686

>Faith.

dropped

>>6114708
no

>>6114693
>You asserted that Nietzsche provides a 'method' for ascertaining the truth of god's existence.
Never said that. You have the reading comprehension of a toddler.

Insecurity.

>>6114680
I don't see your point, mate. Are you trying to turn the phrase to say atheism is the same as religion or something?

>>6114742
be honest, if it were possible to go back in time and suck Nietzsche's syphilis infested dick you would do it wouldn't you?

>>6114752
>Coming from a cultist who wishes people who aren't in the right sect of his cult go to hell

Hahahahahahahaha

>because you're wrong
>no YOU'RE WRONG
>well you're WRONGER
great thread guys

>>6114776
Nah, but I'd tongue his bumhole a little.

>>6114796
christ threads are always shit threads

>>6114828
And stupid topics warrant stupid responses.

>>6114833
/lit/ deserves a better moderation. We have this thread like 8 times a week.

>Atheists circlejerk to scientific thinking
>use it to fuel their egos
>despite us knowing practically nothing about the universe and having never met any other life outside of earth, they claim to KNOW there is no god or gods
>don't realize agnosticism is the truth path as where there is a lack of knowedge we must simply say "we don't know"

There could be aliens that have achieved godhood via technology or evolution, we could be part of some super organism we cannot comprehend, or we could be a simulation with the programmers being gods.

Literally anything is possible but Atheists just want an ego booster

Wasn't Wonderland all a dream?

>>6114857
Again, agnosticism does not mean "it's probably christianity". Shut up.

>>6114857

Obligatory

>>6114857
>Literally anything is possible

>>6114857
That's not what atheism says. Atheism says we have no reasons or proofs to believe there are gods. But religions (some of them) always bet there is one/more than one. Christians for example believes that God exists, and that you cannot doubt about its existence

>>6114873
Atheism is the active belief in there not being a god or gods.

>>6114879

>what is a strawman

>6114879
Yes, that is the meaning of Atheism, at least one of the meanings. But "New Atheism" does not believe there are no Gods as religious believe God must exists. Religious (most of them) say "We have faith God exists because this prophet said it". Nowdays atheism denounces the nonsense of this statement.

>>6114275
The only thing aggrevating about the new atheist rhetoric is the commitment to technological society, in other words the fundamental assumption that technology and material wellbeing are the only ways of improving the human condition. That being said, one need only look at televangelists and the prosperity gospel to see that the cult of materialism is adhered to by the religious as well as the irreligious: the atheists threw out the baby with the bathwater, the religious contented themselves with just throwing out the baby.

>>6114881
>disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

that's the definition

it's idiotic to believe or disbelieve in a concept when we know nothing about it either way. We have to keep an open mind. If Atheists love logical thinking, that should be their conclusion.

>>6114903
>lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
>active belief in there not being a god or gods.

See these two? These two are not the same. Also:

>If Atheists love logical thinking, that should be their conclusion.
>let me tell you what you ought to believe

>>6114907
>lack of belief
aka not believing, disbelief, doubt

that is taking a side in something we know absolutely nothing about.

>>6114903
Again, as i said here >>6114895
that's not actually what is happening here. The actual discussion is not whether it cannot or not exists God but:
-Whether we need the figure of God to explain the universe or not.
-Whether the God describen in the Bible/Coran is the actual one.

New Atheism argues that, since religions cannot know how God (if it exits) is, it is pointless to believe in it.

>>6114913

Doubting something for which there exists precisely zero evidence is bad?

>>6114920
But anon, you gotta have *FAITH*

That's better than silly old empirical proof any day of the week!

>>6114920
There are books some barely literate people wrote.

>>6114920
The concept of beings being greater than us having powers we cannot understand and would ascribe the title of "god" too isn't a far fetched notion.

We are already talking about transforming matter by rearranging subatomic particles. There could be beings that already have that ability perfected and improved beyond our level of understanding.

They could turn an orange into a concrete brick and then into a miniature living horse. Surely at our level, we would call them gods.

However, as of yet, we have never met aliens or even different forms of life past what we're related too. For all we know, there could be beings made of gas living in the vacuum of creatures made of radiation. The approach to concepts like this should simply be "I don't know yet".

Do you doubt there could be aliens simply because we have no proof of them yet?

>>6114934
>There could be beings that already have that ability perfected and improved beyond our level of understanding.

The essential word here is 'could'. Until such beings demonstrably exist, we have no rational justification to believe they do. That's simply the creed of knowledge. Something is bullshit until proven otherwise

>>6114934
There is a rather fundamental distinction however, between an inconceivably powerful alien intelligence, and a god with a doctrine that he wants you to follow, or else he sends you to the bad place.

>>6114944
>things don't exist until we for sure know they exist and I will carry that mindset until someone else with an open mind seeks to learn more due to admission of his own ignorance.

I'm glad scientists don't have the mindset of you and actually say they don't know before seeking to know more in a field as opposed to already believing or disbelieving something without evidence.

>>6114957
Well he said previosly
>Doubting something for which there exists precisely zero evidence is bad?

>>6114961
you should only doubt something when there is enough evidence to ponder upon leading to a rational questioning of the concept.

Daily reminder that no one could practically follow the "scientific" mindset in their life and people who claim to are full of shit.

>>6114969
But religion thrives in the void of evidence.
It is the product of ignorance.

See; God of the gaps

>>6114788
More insecurity.

>>6114979
define "scientific mindset"

>>6114981
I'm arguing for agnosticism, not for religion.

>>6114981
>>6114998

let me rephrase

you can only believe or doubt a concept when there is some amount of evidence to reflect upon to bring forth a conclusion of some sort.

>>6114998

Agnosticism has nothing to do with religion or lack of religion. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, while theism and atheism are theological positions

>>6115005
But the same argument can be used to defend any old utter nonsense that I might pull out of mine arse.

For example, I am actually famous actress Jessica Simpson.

You cannot falsify this statement with your current means, and as such have no reason to doubt me.

>>6114754
Since we can't prove there is a God, we cannot prove that there is not a God.

Simple as that.

>>6114872
Anything could be possible for something that isn't us.

>>6115108

>could

Again, this being the essential word

>>6115098
But burden of proof rests on he who makes the proposal.

And the proposal that there is a thing called god is unverifiable, so it doesn't need to be disproven.

Reading this thread, I'm incredibly happy I'm no longer a fedora.
I'm sorry, fellow Christians.

>>6115130

>>6115098
Template: Since we can't prove there is a [something imaginary], we cannot prove that there is not a [something imaginary].

Since we can't prove there is a Unicorn, we cannot prove that there is not a Unicorn.
Since we can't prove there is a Dragon, we cannot prove that there is not a Dragon.
Since we can't prove there is a Martian, we cannot prove that there is not a Martian.
Since we can't prove there is a Angle, we cannot prove that there is not a Angle.
Since we can't prove there is a Heaven, we cannot prove that there is not a Heaven.

The list could go on

>>6115098
I can't prove that you're not eating a bowl of feces right now either. I also can't prove that you don't have Down's, but like the nonexistance of a god, we have enough evidence here to make inferences.

>>6115138
Dank meme!

>>6115143
I think you mean Angel.

>>6115147

You're not familiar with the Angles? The guardians of Frothelworth, the Kingdom of Frothel the Noble One?

>>6114275
Because you're a Christian and there's no defense against their arguments, so instead of addressing their points you do what all Christians do: feel offended and whinge.

>>6115147
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

>>6115157

Don't forget the esteemed theorem of You Wear a Hat, Therefore You're Wrong

>>6115047
Doubtful but possible though. You certainly use the same logic she would

Yeah, I had a militant atheist phase. That ended around the time I turned 17 when I decided that I don't give a shit what people believe; let them believe what makes them happy as long as they're not being an ass about it or hurting/oppressing other people.

It could have something to do with the fact that I moved from Texas to Europe.

>>6115874
cultural catholic master race

>>6114293
>implying I haven't read Thomas Aquinas
>implying it wasn't illogical, medieval masturbation with no redeeming philosophical thought.

Yeah shit's cash to read but it doesn't exactly stand up to modern physics/philosophy

/lit/ seriously needs to stop fellating medieval theologians just to be contrarian. it's just embarrassing

>>6114313
no, people don't actually associate you with fedoras IRL
that stereotype only exists on /lit/ (or maybe the USA, I can't speak for the other side of the pond)
in fact, in the UK, you'll probably be seen as an intellectual coward if you're a grown man and can't figure something out for yourself.

not to mention the fact that all agnostics are BY DEFINITION atheists, and Thomas Huxley did us a great disservice by coining such a useless term.

I am an Atheist because I have seen no persuasive evidence for the existence of a God, and on top of that I feel that religion probably does more good than bad in the world. This does not mean I haven't read enough. This does not mean I am emotionally void or incapabe of appreciating beauty. This does not mean I cannot empathise with the eistential struggle of the believer. I can't make Kierkegaard's Leap of faith, the same as most intellectual atheists.

the atheist population in the developed world has a demonstrably higher IQ, and is also more highly represented in the Academic sphere.
of course there are stupid 12 year old edgy atheists, but lets be honest here, there are far more edgy 12 year old preachy christians - indoctrinated by their parents.

There is more reason to be embarrassed by spineless "oh but I'm so humble bla bla bla butter can't melt bla bla bla I wouldn't able to decide for myself bla bla bla fencesitting bla bla bla I turned 15 last week bla bla bla my cupsize is a B now Yay!" Agnostics.

>>6114505
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE

/LIT\ YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE INNER WORKING OF THE UNIVERSE BY READING FICTION AND THEOLOGY
AT LEAST AN IOTA OF SCIENTIFIC APTITUDE IS REQUIRED

I AM STUDYING POST-GRAD PHYSICS AND I'M PRETTY SURE AN A-LEVEL STUDENT COULD POINT A WHOLE IN YOUR LOGIC

When you're right about something repeatedly, some amount of pretension is acceptable.

>>6115989
breh god rules the world lmao science is of course still valid it's just the anthropocentric empiricism of god's physical laws get it right how do people not get this wow

>>6114671
NO IT DOESN'T

IF YOU FACTOR IN ALL THE OTHER RELIGIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY DEVOUT SHEEP THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEN IT'S PROBABLY MORE LIKE 0.1%

THE ONLY THING MAKING YOU A CHRISTIAN AND NOT AN HELLENIST/JAINIST/MORMON/TAOIST/ANIMIST IS YOUR PARENTS/NATIONALITY/COINCIDENCE/THE FACT THAT SOME FAT MONK NAILED A REFORMATION ONTO THE CHURCH DOOR 500 YEARS AGO

>>6116021
I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN WASTE MY TIME ON YOUR STUPIDITY/POSTURING

>>6114275
It's obnoxious, but it is a fucking joke compared to the rhetoric of protestantism, especially in the south United States. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just lying to themselves. Atheists are vocal minority. The protestants are an openly oppressive and aggressive majority.

CAPITAL LETTERS

>>6114899
underrated post

>>6114464
>but that was never really the point of religion.
Except you're wrong. At least for the major religions which people complain about.

There probably is/was a prime mover. But I doubt he looks like Abraham's dad floating up in the sky, and I doubt he cares if you worship him or not.

>>6114334
i dont think you know what "edgy" means

>>6114275
I grew up without religion and I've noticed that the non-religious who quit their families' religions are usually the more obnoxious ones.
It's like they have to get back at their parents for taking them to church every Sunday.

>>6116178
kek

>>6116178
I'm ready to say that we're very far from understanding the universe, even with science and especially with religion. For all we know Based HP Lovecraft is closest to the truth and something like Yogsothoth is out there.

>>6116199
And then they find other rebellious atheists on the internet so they seep further into their position without examining it
Theists are guilty of this as well, although they're not as vocal (outside of /lit/)

>>6116178
That's hilarious.

>>6115143
>spaghetti monster rhetorics
Off to SMBC with you...!

>>6116120
>he

Haha, what makes you think it has to be sapient?

Let alone a "he" in any sense.

>>6114275
Because they're right, and the theist side are running out of arguments and credibility.

Deeper thinkers my ass. It doesn't take genius to figure out god isn't.

>>6114429
why do i share a board with morons of your magnitude

>>6116334
>Because they're right, and the theist side are running out of arguments and credibility
Theists have a ridiculous amount of credibility built upon arguments that have been advanced and formulated since the beginning of civilization. Atheists have very little other than "God doesn't real lol" and "muh scientism"

>>6114275
The concept of New Atheism is a generally meaningless term on account of the fact that, although it can by it's very nature only account for a select group of militant atheists, several thiests tend to use it as an umbrella term applying to anybody who even doubt's the existance of their (generally) Catholic God. They know it's spurious and silly, which is why whenever somebody says something that fails to correspond to Christian orthodoxy, the fedora meme is wheeled out; allowing them to both ignore the argument and caricature the argumentee in one fell swoop. If you believed everyone in this thread, Athiests are by and large 12, angry at their religious parents, and/or stupid. You'd also believe that Atheism is a recent movement, as in turning up in the last 100 years or so.

>>6116266
Exactly, the prime mover is probably not even remotely anthropomorphic let alone possessing any of the traits of the abrahamic god, described either by the bible, or Aquinus's fan-fiction.

>>6116452
>butthurt theist

lmaoing my ass off

>>6116563
So you agree. Good

>>6114313
Other atheists are the reason agnosticism is a thing people identify as. It's essentially meaningless.
>tfw I don't tell people jack shit about my beliefs because I live in the South.

>>6114686
>drawn toward monotheism
>I woke up one day, smelled a flower, and said, "I'm going to participate in the exact same faith as the last 10 generations of my family!"