/lit/ - Literature

He didnt.

/thread

Daily reminder that Christfags are the cancer killing /lit/.

>>7217535
t. ricky 'watson dawkins

>>7217538
op didn't specify christianity

people here are so illiterate and anti intellectual, think before you post

Yeah because when i hear "deathbed conversion," i think hinduism

>>7217535
>"Chris was very lucid during his final minutes. He went as he lived, loudly, but not without some grace. A coughing fit overtook him in his final moments and he gasped one more breath before losing himself, and gazing off into the unknown. Minutes earlier, he admitted to having a revelation, and now looked forward to spending time with Christ on death. This was of course shocking to me, but I comforted him all the same as he spoke of the divinity of Jesus and greatness of God until the end." - Carol Blue [14][15]

>>7217533

See:

http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/post/111561484839/re-atheism

And:

http://mundusmillennialis.com

>31.
>THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF PERSON: NOBLE, AND IGNOBLE.
>THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF BELIEVER: THE GNOSTIC —THE ONE WHO KNOWS, AND THEREFORE BELIEVES—, THE IDOLATER —THE ONE WHO IGNORES, AND THEREFORE IS EASILY DECEIVED—, THE DISAVOWER —THE ONE WHO ACTIVELY REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE KOSMIC TRUTH.

>>7217558
When I hear "deathbed conversion" myths , I go from tolerating Christianity to thinking it really is as canerous as the New Atheists think it is. You're just proving them right. It's hard to think of a more disgusting and underhand tactic to use.

>>7217560
Kill yourself
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-hitchens-widow-on-his-death-god-never-came-up/

He didn't, you simple man, but he did say this

"If I convert it's because it's better that a believer dies than an atheist does."

>>7217580
How is New Atheism cancerous? It's people arguing against cancer and retardation. And I don't get why it's called "new" atheism.

>>7217605
There is no reason for saying that unless that he believed that there was some kind of supernatural judging power waiting for him after death.

>>7217626
Nah, he just means he wants theists dead.

Nice chap that Hitchie, can see why you're so desperate to claim him.

Has his head on straight.

>>7217617
Because it replaces genuine thinking about important issues with simpleminded emotional arguments and memes.

It's "new" because it has no rigor to it. It's not David Hume or Bertrand Russell, it's Black Science Man and that guy from Youtube who sodomized himself with a banana.

>>7217680
So he would convert just before dying in order to supposedly rid the world of one more theist? Did you even think before typing that? That is like cutting a wound onto someone then stitch him up because you like taking care of people.

>>7217706
>it replaces genuine thinking about important issues with simpleminded emotional arguments and memes
>it's Black Science Man and that guy from Youtube who sodomized himself with a banana.
Doesn't seem like you're any better tbh

>>7217706
There's nothing more limiting than religion. I googled New Atheism and saw this. If this is what it is, sure, completely reasonable.

>>7217710
You're not really supposed to take it so literally, fam. He never really intended on doing that tbh

>>7217721
>There's nothing more limiting than religion.
Is that why Christianity has produced The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, and the Sistine Chapel while the fedoras have produced The Martian, Ready Player One, and Family Guy?

I'm not even a Christian, but Christianity obviously has more going for it than New Atheists give it credit for.

It's obvious his deathbed conversion is pure myth, but what if it wasn't? Are you atheists so entrenched in bigotry toward people with a superior morality that you find it offensive to even entertain the possibility?

>>7217533
What anal flatus! He was an anti-theist till the end. I was there beside him.

>>7217721
>ideology
>completely reasonable
lol, nice one, i bet you think the Courtier's reply is reasonable arguing

Also, you can replace "religion" with "morality", "government" or whatever the hell you want. It still isnt more than Bogeyman whining

>>7217748
Not really obvious its a fraud, citation needed

>>7217768
myth is not fraud.

these threads all suck, i guess now that midterms are coming up the only people around are basement dwelling fuckwits

>>7217755
But after he died he converted to Mormonism.

>>7217533
Reminder that he cucked his brother, and nothing was ever the same again.

>>7217775
Misread post sry

>>7217742
>majority of people in Western countries have been and still are Christian
>there is a lot of great art made by Christians
no surprises there

there is nothing special about Christianity with regard to the creation of art

also,
>that cherrypicking

>>7217742
People produced the Sistine Chapel, and people wrote those works. I wouldn't attribute those people's talents to religion anymore than I attribute Virginia Woolf's to atheism. And as far as stories go, the Greeks did a much better job. If Christianity didn't exist, would Milton have produced great work about something else—probably, yeah. Your argument is stupid.

>>7217762
Are you trying to say something

>>7217533
I've read that Voltaire did that.

I've also recently read "Madame Bovary" where a priest says that Voltaire was eating his own shit while dying.

Did that actually happen?

HOLY SHIT! FEDORAS BTFO!!
FEDORAS ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!

>>7217849
My point was that "New Atheism" is aesthetically barren because it only appeals to dipshits. Christianity inspires greater art because it nourishes the aesthetic sense better. Granted, there is aesthetically repulsive Christian art, but overall a genius will do more with Christian inspiration than with "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!"

>>7217883
>OP lies through teeth
>Baits poorly
>Declares unilateral victory after exposure

Man, what's your home life like?

Do you have friends?

Is this a reflection of how you act in the real world?

Are you lonely?

Do you crave validation?

>>7217742
>The Martian
If Watney's crewmate wasn't so Catholic that he insisted on bringing a wooden cross to Mars, the main character would've been completely fucked.

>>7217900
There is no "new atheism". It is just a meme repeated by religious people to discredit age old practice of rejecting religious ideas. Most of these "new religions" are younger than atheism so in their struggle for legitimacy they have to try and turn the practice of criticism into a belief system.

>>7217560
If this was even close to being true, Peter would have mentioned it.

>>7217900
>we need a a vicious organization that terrorizes billions of people for thousands of years and is responsible for oppression and widespread suffering - for aesthetic reasons.

If you think people couldn't produce beautiful things without Christianity, you're retarded. Is this really the last argument you guys have for it? There's not a sliver of truth in it, and even if there was, it's still a terrible argument.

>>7217936
eh, you think peter would be THAT open with the press etc.? hell , im not even sure he and chris let alone his wife got along towards the end

>people still believe that atheism is intellectual achievment

>>7217954
Not being retarded isn't much of an achievement, but it's better than being retarded.

>>7217849
How are you on this board and do not understand what he is saying?

>>7217971
do you really believe that everyone who isn't an atheist is a retard?

>>7217971
You should visit reddit dot com, friend

>>7217533
Because the atheist movement boils down to nothing more than a shallow "I'm smarter than thou" mentality.

I think this thread produces nothing worthwhile. This isn't a discussion, it's an endless flow of insults and people being condescending to each other. Why do you, believers of this exchange, need atheists' validation? I can hardly see how it is connected to literature, anyway.

>>7218027
Lazy edit for any fellow meme collectors

>>7218027

yeah, and also empiricism; the theory that everything is based upon ever and gets shit done


stop being a contrarian faggot you dont actually believe in a god and if you do then you could at least not try to justify it with your shit "logic" and just shut the fuck up

>>7218031
Welcome to /lit/ the land of politics and religious politics loosely connected to books.

>>7218044
>empiricism
>implying there aren't volumes worth of observations of miracles giving credence to God

>>7218064
>what if it's a big hoax and we became better people for nothing

Why can't you just be a good person for the sake of being a good person rather than to avoid chastisement from a higher power?

>>7218094
Because without a higher power all christians would be scumbags. They need fear eternal suffering to be decent people.

>>7218064

jesus christ you cant actually be this stupid

vague reports of "visions" provide literally no supporting evidence to belief. it's hearsay.

that said youre probably "trolling" or something, which is depressing

>>7217533
why is it that all of the contemporary atheist movement (that is: new atheists) are so profoundly critical of religious authority, but seem to accept state authority as if they were sucking the shit right from Dawkin's colon? i'm amazed at the seemingly endless capacity for new atheists to prop up and defend brutal western war crimes just because they have the consequence of blowing up some arabs (oh, i mean muslims -- this isn't a race thing, after all).

in short: new atheists believe in the state religion of the civilized west (to such a degree that they'll defend the leveling of half a city block in Iraq with a precision drone strike). why is this?

Can any christposter cite any real evidence for God? If not, can you justify why you believe?

Be specific please.

>>7218194
>Can any christposter cite any real evidence for God?
Of course not.
> If not, can you justify why you believe?
Faith or some retarded reason.

>>7218179
Not just authority, but having been part of a couple of atheist forums for various years, they seem to usually be 'skeptical' only when it comes to religious matters.
Morality in my experience is the n°1 topic where they act totally dissonant i.e the way they take things for granted is baffling. But also don't even try to have a discussion about metaphysics in general.

>>7218158
>vague reports of "visions" provide literally no supporting evidence to belief

Stop blindly believing in atheist memes that there are no documented miracles, do you also believe the holocaust was a hoax because of /pol/? There are thousands of medically document miracles and millions of witnesses to visual miracles.

>>7218194
>can you justify why you believe?
Why do they have to? Why is the burden of proof on them here?

Why do you believe that being intelligent for its own sake is important? Why do you believe in philosopher X over philosopher Y? Why do you believe you shouldn't murder someone? Why do you believe human life has an intrinsic value? Why do you believe whatever else?

>>7217920
>OP
im not OP
>Declares unilateral victory
did you see pic related? it's the man who, after years and years of defending atheism, rejected it in favor of DEISM and rustled his fellow atheists jimmies

>>7218044
>stop being a contrarian faggot you dont actually believe in a god and if you do then you could at least not try to justify it with your shit "logic" and just shut the fuck up

This is the worst run-on sentence I've ever seen.

>>7218233
>Why is the burden of proof on them here?
Probably because they're claiming the existence of a supernatural deity with an extremely specific history, identity, and set of abilities. If they can't provide evidence for their ridiculous claim, I'm inclined to doubt its veracity

>>7218094
What does it mean to be a good person?

Furthermore, what is good?

>>7218200
>Can any christposter cite any real evidence for God?
>Of course not.
> If not, can you justify why you believe?
>Faith or some retarded reason.
"I've literally never heard of Thomas Aquinas!"

New atheists are obviously pleb. What are some patrician atheist philosophers to look up to?

>>7217991
You have to be something very near retarded to believe in a god.

>>7218003
Great one XD

>>7218040
You've made the meme accurate. Saved.

>>7218268
10/10 pleb bait

>>7218268
>all have PhD's
>all acclaimed scientist and/or journalist
>HURRR LE FEDORA MAYMAY

Sam Harris is objectively the best though.

>>7218245
Then doubt away. I just find it odd that the religious are the only ones that you feel need to justify their beliefs when there are a hundred things you do and believe that I would no doubt find odd that you would be extremely offended if I asked you to justify.

>>7217852
probably so. a hardcore satanist till the end, smiling in deaths face with a shit eating grin.

>>7218275
>You have to be something very near retarded to believe in a god.
Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, William of Ockham, Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Descartes, Isaac Newton...

ALL VERY NEAR RETARDED

>>7218268
there are none

>>7218300
In this day and age*
(not the same guy)

>>7218290
Sam Harris is objectively an apologist for Western crimes. He's substituted faith in some sort of theistic religion with faith in state doctrine, faith in the myth of Western enlightenment, etc., and he's obsessed with these weird "but what if A-rabs were in control of the world, we'd all be dead, so be very afraid," thought experiments. He's a shit historian (such that I'm not even sure he's aware of history), he's unwittingly a tool of state propaganda, and I think that's largely why he's so popular.

>>7218300
>implying any of them actually believed in God

sheeple status confirmed

>>7218275
>You have to be something very near retarded to believe in a god.

>>7218311
Alisdair MacIntyre.

Daily reminder that gnostic theism is a far more intelligent stance than gnostic atheism.

>>7218275
>You have to be something very near retarded to believe in a god.
this is why atheists as a whole are made fun of

>>7218315
No he heavily condemned all Iraqi invasions, he only ever defended Afghanistan (and he was right to do so).

>"but what if A-rabs were in control of the world, we'd all be dead, so be very afraid,"
You are probably talking about when Sam Harris talked about Israel, and he's right, if Hamas took over Jerusalem the Jews would be fucking dead in that region.
There's no reason to doubt this.

Just because he doesn't buy into the big bad evil west meme doesn't mean he's a state apologist or is spouting propaganda, there is no doubt in my mind that Harris genuinely believes that the western guilt is exaggerated and knowing his intellect and demeanor, I have little reason to assume that he is -absolutely- wrong.

Sure he might have been led astray (I personally can't judge), but then I wouldn't even blame him for that.

His popularity has little to do with his geo-political stances.

>>7218275
>>7218311
You'd also have to be near-retarded to consume endless amounts of literature on God's non-existence (a fact so obvious to most it's not worth acknowledging) in this day and age.

Do something that takes an ounce of intellectual rigour, and invest your intellectual capital in real issues.

>>7218275
>You have to be something very near retarded to believe in a god.

It's not everyday you hear stuff as dumb as this, I really want reddit to leave

>>7218333
I agree with this, but it's an absolutely unrelated point.
Sounds like you were just venting some random anger?

>>7218300
Ok, if you want to be technical. None of them believe in God - they believed in God.
You know better, but I'll correct it anyways. If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded. If you said you believed in God in times when you could face punishment for not believing retarded things, you are not necessarily retarded. If you believed or said you believed in God in a time when we couldn't explain the wind, you are not necessarily retarded.

>>7218357
>le only believed out of feare xD meme

>>7218357
>it's 2015 u guize! how can u shitlords believe in gawd? haven't u seen black science man on cosmos?

>>7218226

Number of witnesses doesnt mean shit and often they are uneducated or religiously biased. It's not that im saying they haven't happened, but rather that it's not even worth considering they have happened due to an inability to confirm

>>7218364
Not the same guy, how insecure are you in your beliefs that you apply such anti-intellectual shitposting?

>>7218357
I MEAN COME ON PEOPLE

>>7218318
>>7218325
>>7218334
The retards and retard enablers have arrived. They've already resorted to fedora memes and referencing Reddit. Timeless arguments against facts.

>>7218333
>religion isn't a real issue

>>7218371
>>7218364

Why can't you just argue normally? Just talk normally for fuck's sake, stop jumping to conclusions. It's also pretty said that you have a legit image of a steampunk neckbeard on your computer in case this topic comes up

>>7218334
>>7218364
>>7218371
>>7218325
>>7218378
>>7218318


>>7217538

>>7218376
I shitpost in a shitposting favourable environment.
There is no serious discussion going on here.

>>7218383
It's pretty evident you shitpost because it's your natural way of communication, and/or you are insanely insecure about your beliefs and can't intellectually approach a discourse.

>>7218381
>if u beliebe ur dum xD
>dude 2015 lmao
is this what classifies as 'serious discussion' on r/atheism?

>>7218328
Sam Harris hardly "condemns" the invasions of Iraq; his strongest criticisms are along the lines of, "oh, it was a tactical error," or "the Bush administration handled the invasion incompetently." He never says anything like "the invasion is fundamentally wrong and immoral, in total opposition to international law," something I'd consider an actual condemnation.

He also routinely provides fodder for Western jingoists by endlessly expounding on the "depravity" and the "barbarism" of our "enemies" (who happen sometimes to be friends: consider US-Saudi relations, the States' financing and arming of jihadist groups in Afghanistan, etc.), never allowing for the intellectual step, "hey, you know, maybe these people have something against the West because, for the past 70+ years, we've backed brutal dictatorships, stamped out any moves toward secular Arab nationalism (bad for economic imperialism), and routinely sponsored or engaged in illegal wars of aggression." Dude's a sap with no concept of historical inertia, and he's a vulgar propagandist.

>>7218390
>>"xD"
>>"dude X lmao"
>has the audacity to complain about other people's posts
This is embarrassing.

>>7218389
nice strawman you got there mr. serious discussion
I don't start talking seriously in a thread that isn't serious to begin with and already filled with ego filled ad hominems
>>7218393
>what is cause->effect?

>>7218226
The holohoax did indeed happen, but

1) Jews weren't specifically targeted
2) The 6 million Jews figure is greatly exaggerated
3) It is used as a political tool to guilt trip gullible liberals into voting against their interests and for Jewish interests

>>7218392
No I'm pretty sure Sam Harris said we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, ever.

>He also routinely provides fodder for Western jingoists by endlessly expounding on the "depravity" and the "barbarism" of our "enemies" (who happen sometimes to be friends: consider US-Saudi relations, the States' financing and arming of jihadist groups in Afghanistan, etc.)
Uhm exactly, and he is 100% right.
Are you not aware that Harris also condemns the US government for co-operating with the Saudis, and thinks it's the greatest betrayal of the west?
He always talks about this.

Sam Harris never denied that the west interfering with the Arab world had any influence on how they feel about the west as a result, his point is that -without- Islam you wouldn't see terrorism like you see it today.

Africa and India were exploited and abused more severely than any Islamic nation and you don't see Africans and Indians blowing themselves up while screaming in absolute ecstasy.

>>7218383

>Argues and quickly realizes he has no argument.

>Post memes until people point out this is the extent of his new argument.

>Says there was never a serious argument, which he hopes will excuse his retardation.

>>7218235
Man, I neither know nor care who he is, because not believing in God isn't a dogmatic stance with saints and prophets.

If the man wants to change his outlook on life good for him, may it make him happy.

I'm just seeing bales and bales of intellectual dishonesty from both sides of the argument here, but you'd expect god-fearing folks to hold themselves to a higher standard than so-called heathens.

>>7218398
>they disagree with me
>this means I can shitpost and act like a low-IQ asshat

Theists.
It speaks volumes that you have fedora meme JPGs saved.

what if the careers of some atheist writers are sponsored by private interest groups to put out anti-theistic material to influence people and preserve certain beliefs in society? what makes people think books are any different than the news media?

>>7218408
>>7218410
Never argued in the thread friends, but feel free to keep feeding your giant egos. Yes, another victory for atheism!
Try not to think everything revolves around you for a sec: people start posting fedora wearing people because they can't be bothered to seriously argue with someone who says, I'm quoting, "If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded.".

I bet you are the kinds of atheists I know who subscribe to religious forums, call everyone a dumb fairy-tale believing nigger faggot, then conclude, in few seconds, that the reason people have given up talking to them is because they have no arguments.

>>7218380
>Timeless arguments against facts
>facts
Keep telling yourself that.

>>7218403
>his point is that -without- Islam you wouldn't see terrorism like you see it today.

If I'm being generous, I'd call this a half-truth. If the West (England initially, the US since the mid 1940s) hadn't 1) routinely stamped out populist moves toward secular Arab nationalism (instilling brutal, often fundamentalist dictators as a consequence), and 2) allied with/propped up Saudi Arabia, the global centre/exporter of Wahhabism and the principal financier of violent extremist groups, I'd hazard a guess that Islamic radicalism would be nowhere near as common as it is today. The West has supported radical Islam at the exclusion of secular Arab nationalism every time its had the opportunity, and you'd have to be literally retarded not to factor this into criticisms of Islamic "barbarism" or "depravity."

>atheists in this thread calling theists retarded, 2015 ayy lmao, and having literally no arguments for their statements, and worst of all: they're legitimately atheist
>expecting a serious reply to atheist shitposting

>>7218423
I say you have no argument because you have no argument. For reference, see >>7218423 .

Atheists bring actual arguments to the table, and all religious people do is point out that some atheists use offensive words, therefor they're wrong. If you have to rely on memes and being a victim, you're probably retarded.

>>7218292
I challenge you to point out something so world changing as religion. But, go ahead, regardless of scope. Ask away.

>>7218449
>Atheists bring actual arguments
>"It's 2015"

>>7218403
>>7218441
And again, my larger point is that, in being such a shitty, reckless public "intellectual" he's stoking jingoism and inspiring popular support for brutal Western intervention, regardless of any mild criticisms of this or that "tactical error."

>Atheist: "I don't believe in God."
>Christfag: *posts fedora.jpg* "M'lady! XD"
>Atheist: "You have nothing to back your argument."
>Christfag: "I don't respond seriously to shitposting!"

>>7218449
>he keeps going
look at the thread again and see where the fedora pics start appearing
you will notice the pattern I'm talking about
I was quietly reading the thread, then you or whatever started to figuratively tip your fedora a bit too much for my taste.
Don't shitpost and expect to not get shitposted on, especially here.

>>7218462
you are also a liar I see
change that "I don't believe in God." with "If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded." please

also, btw, the latter doesn't actually contitute an argument just so you know

>>7218462
Pretty much this. Christcancer gonna Christcancer.

>>7218449
>Atheists bring actual arguments to the table

No, it's quite clear from the posts in this thread that the atheist shit-posters have only a fractional knowledge of whatever religion (all of them apparently) they deem indefensible.

You seem to believe that religion is as sophisticated as what your loudmouth uncle told you each thanksgiving, or as what a militant theist proclaims before dying.

>>7218456

the majority of people saying "it's 2015" are christfag dumbfucks like you who have no skills in argument and who are probably legitimately on the autism spectrum

its fine if you dont want to have a serious discussion, there are many boards here that will accommodate terrible people like yourself. fuck you

>>7218474
I'm not Christian, and the 2015 thing came from the atheist side.

>>7218464
Atheists makes sense, fedora pictures pop up. Atheists acknowledge the memes, the "you're just shit-posting!" begins.

See: >>7218462 .

Quit typing the same thing, actually make a good point about believing in God not being retarded, or kill yourself.

>>7218373
>if they don't agree with me then their opinions can be disregarded

>>7218471
>if I start saying you don't know what you're talking about, I'm right.

Why don't you say why religion is useful or how it's logical to believe in any god.

>>7218479

no, the 2015 thing came from some irellevant british lefty who for some reason /pol/ cares quite a lot about

not many genuine atheist arguments on this thread, or site, have revolved around "it's 2015". Also, it doesn't matter if you're not a christian if you're defending them

>Atheists makes sense
>If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded
>Atheists makes sense
>If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded
>Atheists makes sense
>If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded
>Atheists makes sense
>If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded
read again enlightened one
I'm trying to explain to you why people have fedora folders ready to be used

>>7218482
make*

My B.

>>7218489
meant for >>7218482

>>7218483

I didn't say that or imply that once

your brain has been fried from the sheer levels of hentai and /pol/ that you consume

stop straw manning and fuck off you degenerate cunt

>>7218489
Is one typo and being offended all you have?

Aside from "ayyy it's 2015 lmao," what arguments have the atheist side produced?

I'm sincerely asking what arguments in favor of atheism have been advanced here, because I have seen none.

>>7218498
I'm trying to explain you a simple 'fact' as you might call it about discussions.

Let me make it clear: if you call someone names, they aren't going to be willing to discuss seriously with you.
Now since you are emotionally involved into being constantly right about religion, you might mistake them giving up on you as a sign of victory on your part, but this might not be the case, because not many people are willing to have serious discussions with a fellow who goes around saying "If you believe in God in 2015, you are very near retarded".

Fedora pics were born for a reason.
I'm trying to help you out here man.

>>7218508
Proof for the nonexistance of god: Suppose god exists. Then god can will himself out of existance. God wills himself out of existance. Therefore god does not exist. QED

>>7218508

Read the actual thread.

>>7217742
>>7217849
>>7217900
>>7217947

After that last post, it turns into

>>7217971 (where they get offended)
>>7218318
>>7218325
>>7218334


The Christfags just stopped arguing entirely. They got all memey and angry.

>>7218510
You're an idiot. If you want respect, make a good argument. I won't get emotional and post memes if you call me a retard, but please just have an actual argument.

>>7218515
>Proof for the nonexistance of god: Suppose god exists.

OK

>Then god can will himself out of existance.

Unwarranted assumption. What does it mean to will oneself out of existence? We are naturally assuming God's omnipotence, but does omnipotence include the ability to perform absurdities (by which I mean logical contradictions)? Could God create a "square circle," for example?

Your question is much like this, as God would necessarily be eternal, willing himself out of existence would be contrary to that.

It also presumes that, in spite of being omnipotent, God would somehow be subject to change. It presumes a God who is merely a thing among things rather than the Ground of All Being, or Existence Itself (as God has often been defined).

It could be argued that the "willing himself out of existence" is a meaningless statement when applied to God, as it unduly assumes that God is a passable entity with temporal actions.

>God wills himself out of existance. Therefore god does not exist.

Notwithstanding the inherent problems with assuming that God willing himself out of existence is a meaningful concept, God having the ability to will himself out of existence would not be proof that he did, Furthermore, God is generally seen as the Ground of All Being; therefore, if God had indeed existed, willing himself out of existence would nullify all other existence as well.

>>7218582
of course it does. omnipotent means all powerful. if god can't will himself out of existence, then he is impotent rather than omnipotent.

>>7218610
>of course it does. omnipotent means all powerful. if god can't will himself out of existence, then he is impotent rather than omnipotent.

No. The debate is not over whether God is all-powerful, but whether "God willing himself out of existence" is a meaningful statement or not.

This is a matter of language.

>>7218610

>As to the substance: Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round square or a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift). The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power. (And if an atheist insists that an omnipotent being would have to have such a power, that only hurts his own case. For that enables the theist to say, in response to any possible objection that the atheist could ever raise: “Since God can make contradictions true, He can make it true that He exists even though your argument shows He doesn’t!”)

>>7218515
>>7218610

Can God perform logical absurdities? Can he make 1+1=3? You argument is based on absolute omnipotence, and is self destroying in itself, God can make 1+1=3, God can will himself out of existence, God can escape the grasp of formal logic.

You seem to think that God can do all, but he cannot do anything outside of his nature, by definition he cannot have flaws, he is all powerful, can God lie as well? He retains only values, not flaws.

A 'paradox' like this is superfluous, state your definition of omnipotence and other factors, rather than throwing out tidbits you read on wikipedia.

Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers

>>7218656
Pick the right axioms and you can make 1+1 equal 3. The concept of god is self destroying, yes

>>7218666
>Pick the right axioms and you can make 1+1 equal 3.
pick the right axioms and you can refute any
argument ever.
>The concept of god is self destroying, yes

empty refutations and avoiding any detailed argument, newageatheism101

>>7218656
>>7218666
atheist """""""""""refutation"""""""""""

beyond autism

>>7218676
"I can refute the existence of God by deconstructing reason itself! Atheism is rational!"

>>7218064
Why not just be a good person without having to be intolerant of rights for underprivileged groups?

>>7218686
What does it mean to be a good person?

>>7218684
wrong post reply lad?

>>7217617
Because it's essentialist and in so being, a religion of itself. There is no room in New Atheism for any interpretation beyond the purely scientific, and it conveniently ignores that all of science is based on the faith that consciousness is physical and perception is objective and accurate. If you want a critique of scientism beyond "muh bible", I recommend reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn.

>>7218676
So why did you ask me if he could make 1+1=3? Of course he can. So can I, you don't need omnipotence to make up axioms

And I gave you a detailed argument several posts ago. God's existance is self contradicting. You are having difficulty wining this debate because you literally have to violate the law of noncontradiction to believe in god

>>7218684
it's called proof by contradiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7QZgH1eP2o

>>7218691
>You are having difficulty wining this debate because you literally have to violate the law of noncontradiction to believe in god

No, we're asserting the law of non-contradiction. You're just insistent on redefining omnipotence in a way no theist has ever defined it and use arguments that have been refuted thousands of times.

>>7218691
>Proof for the nonexistance of god: Suppose god exists. Then god can will himself out of existance. God wills himself out of existance. Therefore god does not exist. QED

detailed argument for noncontradiction? top fucking lel

So you accept God is capable of absolute omnipotence and can make logical contradictions true and yet still think your argument stands?

>>7218699
well tell them to pick up a dictionary and use a different word.

>>7218700
no because omnipotence is self contradicting. nothing can be omnipotent.

>>7218717
>As to the substance: Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round square or a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift). The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power. (And if an atheist insists that an omnipotent being would have to have such a power, that only hurts his own case. For that enables the theist to say, in response to any possible objection that the atheist could ever raise: “Since God can make contradictions true, He can make it true that He exists even though your argument shows He doesn’t!”)

>>7218717
You're approaching your argument against religion all wrong, my man. Just thought I'd let you know.

>>7218717
you can't be serious write? please continue to refuse to address any points at all, or even state that when you say omnipotence you mean absolute omnipotence.

Your first axiom - God has absolute omnipotence

and you refuse to acknowledge this axiom in the rest of your logic, you made a logical paradox, gj, too bad your necesary axiom was that God has absolute omnipotence which allows him to negate the logical error.

At this point I'm beginning to believe you're a troll

>>7218722
his last point is wrong. you can't use contradictions in *your* objection because then you violate the law of noncontradiction.

>>7218729
>you made a logical paradox
thats the point. i showed that the concept of god is fallacious. therefore, god does not exist

>>7218738

Please stop

>>7218731
He didn't violate non-contradiction. He was pointed out the absurdity of using logical contradictions in an argument where earlier you presumed the possibility of logical contradictions.

He was pointing out a contradiction, not employing one.

>>7218691
>>7218666
>>7218515
>>7218717
>>7218738
Can we start shitposting again? We gave them a chance for serious discussion and they pull this shit

>>7218746
his hypothetical christian violated noncontradiction. it's absurb because the concept of omnipotence is absurd, and by extension, the concept of god is absurb, as demonstrated by my nonabsurb argument.

as a matter of fact, I pointed out a contradiction, not he

>>7218752
Can you read?

>>7218752
I don't think I'll ever be able to take atheist's seriously again after today

>>7218760
Can you? His imaginary Christian apologist can't make that objection without contradicting himself. I can because I'm doing it to show that the existance of god is logically impossible

>>7217852
Yes, a 19th century catholic priest claiming that a well-known atheist intellectual did something gross on his deathbed that also happens to to refer to one of Dante's circles of hell was definitely telling the truth and nothing else.

>>7218752
>>7218768
>God is allowed to disprove himself through omnipotence
>God isn't allowed to prove himself through omnipotence

This fucking guy

>>7218747
You're an idiot who never had an argument, so you can't really talk. But I'm watching and cringing too.

I'll check on this thread tomorrow. Hopefully the Christfags can bring something to the table.

>>7218738
You, please no more. I can't take it.

>>7218775
Why are you attacking the only person trying to defend atheism intellectually?

>>7218774
It's called a contradiction. God is logically impossible. If you want to believe in him for illogical reasons, do as you wish

>>7218775
>Tells me I never had an argument
>In next reply shames fellow atheist for not non-refutation to my argument

lmao good ad hominem laddy + I'm not a theist, simply defending theology from atheist """"arguments""""

>>7218782
>a contradiction.
>God is logically impossible.

Well I'll be darned, we haven't heard that before, dw bout it tho bud they weren't addressed in every response to your post continually asserting this

cause it is like a gamble. He bet his whole life he had on this earth against something he doesn't wanted to accept. So on one hand he lost this gamble but on the other hand he won if a "christian afterlife" is reality.

What does he loose besides a life until death?

Your final moments are your last possibilities to change everything or nothing.

So what are some crappy years for a peacefull eternity?

The only argument I can see for religion is that it deludes people into forgetting their fear of nonexistence and the permanent loss of family members to make them more productive members of society.

Outside of a need to have a brainwashed nation of hyperproductive people, religion is unnecessary. You can't logically support religion.

"But religion is external to logic!" the religious claim. And yet, if they understood anything about the nature of language they would know that it's impossible to escape logic. (See Philosophical Investigations, or really any work from the 20th century onward).

I think that religion can be dangerous because it keeps thought confined to a certain number of principles, disallowing humans to reach their true potential.

>>7218811
>"But religion is external to logic!" the religious claim.

No, they don't.

>>7218822
Explain what a "soul" is, then.

>>7218829
Look up Edward Feser "What is a soul?"

I'd post the link but 4chan thinks the link is spam.

>>7218851
Alright, I read it.

Now go read Philosophical Investigations and learn about why this so-called "rationality" isn't exclusive to humans.

>>7217533
>man whose brain is shutting down professes Christianity in his last moments
>Christians think this makes Christianity more valid.

>>7218897
Literally no one said that, despite this being false the assertion as clearly stated was 'atheist movement writers lack integrity'.

>>7218897
There's a saying in my country: "A man goes about his life ignoring religion and only becomes religious on his deathbed"

>>7217617
Old atheists were usually Left. New atheists are liberals and reactionaries.

>>7218064
Being Christian doesn't make you a better person, whereas the original cartoon's correct that ending capitalism's waste-growth actually does make us all better people.

>>7218924
>brain is freaking out, denying him oxygen and releasing shit like DMT and various painkillers
>dude contradicts the things he thought when his brain was functioning normally
Yes, what a Pharisee.

>>7218935
>ignoring religion
I don't think writing about something all the time is the same as ignoring it, but I could be wrong. See above.

>>7217533

When the school shooter pulls the gun to your head and asks what religion you are, what do you tell him?

>>7218969
This thread just reminded me of the saying. It just implies that man lives his whole life sinning and only asks for forgiveness when he's about to die.

>>7218976
#IamChristian
I stand with #God

Where do YOU stand?

>>7218976
>school shooter pulls the gun to your head
If he asks what religion I am, he's just being edgy. The only responses that get you out alive are either.
>You're a big guy/have we started the fire/other Baneposting
or
>RRREEEEEEEEEEE/Normies/other /r9k/ stuff

The problem begins when he tries to give you his sidearm so you can join him.

>>7218990
Do you join him to save yourself?

>>7218995
take his gun, shoot him, call him a beta bitch while he dies, walk out a hero for saving the school, get pussy

>>7218990
relationship goals

>>7218990
Pick up the firearm and shoot him in the head. Now you are the brave hero that stopped the shooter's rampage. Go on 50 interview shows and write a shitty book on what happened, make millions.

>>7219002
But I'm gay

>>7217953
>implying that peter would miss an opportunity to be a cunt

>>7219008
>>7219002
These are correct. Even though I kinda feel for robots, they're generally pretty shitty, bitter people who resist any kind of hope and I'd gladly put one down for personal gain.

>>7219010
get butthole*

>>7219008

Why don't people ever do that when this happens in real life? The only successful case has been when that IS train guy was accidentally molested by a frenchman in the bathroom while he was cleaning his barrel.

>>7219029
because no spree shooting sperglord ever got tricked into giving a gun to a normie pretending to be a fellow sperg, did you not read the whole thread? fag

>>7219029
No spree-shooter has ever armed a potential victim. There have, however, been a few cases of armed people stopping potential spree-shooters, but I'll leave it up to you to guess as to why you haven't heard about them.

>>7218969
Ok? I never said I agreed, you blatantly misinterpreted what OP was suggesting

>>7218443
God's been dead for a while. You can hear the dirges behind every ad on TV.

>>7217721
>countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument

this is what i hate about atheists

they want to be transparently aggressive against ideas which do not mesh with their own

but then they claim to be just "doing their job" like if it were up to them everyone would just get along but hey they *have* to "expose" religion as untrue

"it's not my fault i'm an asshole, the process of logical argumentation, of which i am merely an avatar, is the bane of my religious opponents woes"

>>7218462
Non-atheist: "I am sceptical of certain scientific ideas and open to religious ones."
>Atheist: *posts black and white image of Neil Degrasse Tyson with inspirational quote* "back to le tumblr XD"
>Non-atheist: "You have nothing to back your argument."
>Atheist: "I don't respond seriously to shitposting!"

>>7219084
>they want to be transparently aggressive against ideas which do not mesh with their own
If you believed that people need to believe in a God, and so we should leave them along, that would be an example of an idea that does not mesh with my own.

When you say that there is, factually and for certain, a male deity who interacted with specific people in the middle east at known times and places who then switched his whole identity and demeanour around at roughly 4 A.D. and inspired a specific number of men to flawlessly record his goings-on and no more despite there existing hundreds of other versions with no less verifiable claims truth, and that if I don't buy the forgiveness potion this deity is selling I will suffer forever, but you can't show me anything concrete and I just have to take him into my heart in a moment of need, i.e. when I'm at rock-bottom and emotionally vulnerable, then you're promoting something other than just an idea. It is indeed the job of any reasonable person to prevent you from getting into the minds of wounded people and children.

OP here, just stopping in to laugh about how many replies this got.

>>7217715
Irrelevant to the argument.

>>7219246
>mfw I'll never be as accomplished of a shitposter as you

At least I have my books.

>>7218466
>asking for evidence doesn't count as an argument
>what is burden of proof

>>7218811
what else is "true potential" than becoming more productive member of society? I'm not even religious, you're argument is a bit silly, also considering that religion is no more "dangerous" than any secular ideology such as fascism or communism, which, whatever way you cut it, were responsible for an unprecedented amount of slaughter beyond anything seen before. In comparison the catholic-leaning dictators of the 20th century could be cruel, but their regimes didn't result in mass death (save for slovakia and croatia during wwii, which were enabled by hitler at the end of the day though)

>tfw theists are still so buttblasted by the Hitch they need to lie about the circumstances surrounding his death as their only means of answering his many thorough dickings

>>7218656
How could god have created something from nothing when that's a logical absurdity?

>>7219681
Except it's not.

>>7219576
Progression + development > productivity in outdated forms

>>7217540
That fag's still right, though.

>>7219681
God invented causality and the laws of logic.

>>7219711

Why do we need a god then to start the universe?

>>7221826

And this is based on..?

>>7221833
Why do you assume that everything material had a beginning but the laws of causality (themselves a very material thing) didn't? Seems a bit illogical.

>>7221854

I assume anything, I asked what your claim that God invented causality and the laws of logic is based on

>>7221868

*didn't

>>7221868
>I asked what your claim that God invented causality and the laws of logic is based on
I answered. Occam's razor should be enough.

>>7221887

An infinitely complex being with a conscious will that wills the universe, causality and logic into being and exists without leaving any testable trace of him is the explanation with the least assumptions?

>>7221901
>This is what Christians actually believe.

>>7217533 >>7217535 >>7217538 >>7217539 >>7217540 >>7217558 >>7217560 >>7217578
>>7217580 >>7217605 >>7217617 >>7217626 >>7217680 >>7217706 >>7217710 >>7217715
>>7217721 >>7217722 >>7217742 >>7217748 >>7217755 >>7217762 >>7217768 >>7217775
>>7217781 >>7217787 >>7217788 >>7217793 >>7217827 >>7217849 >>7217852 >>7217883
>>7217900 >>7217920 >>7217923 >>7217926 >>7217936 >>7217947 >>7217953 >>7217954
>>7217971 >>7217979 >>7217991 >>7218003 >>7218027 >>7218031 >>7218040 >>7218044
>>7218052 >>7218064 >>7218094 >>7218143 >>7218158 >>7218179 >>7218194 >>7218200
>>7218225 >>7218226 >>7218233 >>7218235 >>7218236 >>7218245 >>7218248 >>7218258
>>7218268 >>7218275 >>7218283 >>7218286 >>7218290 >>7218292 >>7218296 >>7218300
>>7218310 >>7218311 >>7218315 >>7218317 >>7218318 >>7218323 >>7218324 >>7218325
>>7218328 >>7218333 >>7218334 >>7218337 >>7218357 >>7218364 >>7218371 >>7218373
>>7218376 >>7218378 >>7218380 >>7218381 >>7218382 >>7218383 >>7218389 >>7218390
>>7218392 >>7218393 >>7218398 >>7218400 >>7218403 >>7218408 >>7218409 >>7218410
>>7218415 >>7218423 >>7218434 >>7218441 >>7218443 >>7218449 >>7218452 >>7218456
>>7218459 >>7218462 >>7218464 >>7218466 >>7218467 >>7218471 >>7218474 >>7218479
>>7218482 >>7218483 >>7218486 >>7218488 >>7218489 >>7218490 >>7218495 >>7218496
>>7218498 >>7218508 >>7218510 >>7218515 >>7218580 >>7218582 >>7218610 >>7218625
>>7218647 >>7218656 >>7218660 >>7218666 >>7218676 >>7218682 >>7218684 >>7218686
>>7218687 >>7218688 >>7218690 >>7218691 >>7218693 >>7218699 >>7218700 >>7218717
>>7218722 >>7218723 >>7218729 >>7218731 >>7218738 >>7218742 >>7218746 >>7218747
>>7218752 >>7218760 >>7218765 >>7218768 >>7218773 >>7218774 >>7218775 >>7218779
>>7218782 >>7218783 >>7218791 >>7218792 >>7218811 >>7218822 >>7218829 >>7218851
>>7218878 >>7218897 >>7218924 >>7218935 >>7218946 >>7218956 >>7218969 >>7218976
>>7218981 >>7218986 >>7218990 >>7218995 >>7219002 >>7219004 >>7219008 >>7219010
>>7219014 >>7219018 >>7219025 >>7219029 >>7219032 >>7219039 >>7219056 >>7219059
>>7219084 >>7219104 >>7219225 >>7219246 >>7219251 >>7219346 >>7219466 >>7219576
>>7219655 >>7219681 >>7219711 >>7221807 >>7221818 >>7221826 >>7221829 >>7221833
>>7221854 >>7221868 >>7221871 >>7221887 >>7221901 >>7222665 >>7266856

Kill yourselves.

>>7218976
>living in America

>>7222772
harsh, fam

>>7222772
behold the famed irreligious morality

>>7221901
Atheists have never heard of Divine Simplicity and insist that God must be "infinitely complex" because "Dawkinz sed so."

>tfw people think Dawkins is smarter than Plato

>>7223042
>complexity infers design, therefore God did it
>simplicity infers perfection, therefore God did it
If it can't be falsified, it means it's doubly true.

>>7217533
Fear is the great irony of belief in that if you don't believe you fear you will and if you do believe you fear you won't.

Ultimately it's just to be just in arguments for and against the stances of the afterlife and what life looks like it should yield in accordance with such.

>>7223045
You don't know what "Divine Simplicity" means (it refers to God, not His creation), and Classical Theists don't believe in "Intelligent Design." That's an Evangelical meme based on reductionist, anthropomorphic ideas of God.

Atheists will spend all their time arguing against things their opponents don't believe.

And fuck your "falsification" meme. Popper's epistemology is self-refuting.

>>7223042
Irrelevant. "Divine sinplicit" is still a characteristic that is impossible to prove and which is contingent on god being existent into he first place.

Gods very existence (the necessity of which is questionable on all but the need for the initial creation of matter) is extremely contrived.

><Jesus Christ this subject needs a containment board. This shit happens on /pol/ too

>tfw you wish you could just be a true christian believer and call it a day but there are too many historical and scientific contradictions with the bible to sell you on the idea.

>>7223105
>Gods very existence (the necessity of which is questionable on all but the need for the initial creation of matter) is extremely contrived.

It's cute that you think that. You're still stuck on the "Intelligent Design" quasi-Deist watchmaker conception of God. You clearly have no knowledge of Classical Theism.

>>7218976
implying I would just stand there

>>7223134
Why would I waste my time reading theology? I have no interest in arguments about god.

All I mean to say is that it has been empirically proven that there are naturalistic explanations to about 90% of the universe's phenomenon. And theories or hypothesises on a lot of what they don't.

When the NEED for a God is ONLY necessary for the initial creation of matter it becomes a matter of probabiltiy for me.

Its POSSIBLE for a deistic god that could create the big bang and then fuck off for eternity but what kind of being with that power would leave no trace of OBJECTIVE evidence for himself?

For monotheistic religions, how do you reconcile ALL other religions? Which is true? How can you know?
>different interpretations of the same god!
A 6 armed elephant or some crazy shit is not in anyway comparable to the gos of Abraham.

I fail to see any genuine argument that contradicts these ideas that doesn't come down to pure sophistry.

Faith is what makes you religious, and it can be a strong and inspiring thing, but ffs dont claim your belief is as reliable as others.

>>7217560
That's just low.

>>7223128
Damn, it's been a while since I've seen the Stu Pickles meme.

>>7217533
>Reminder that he converted on his death bed.
No, he did not.
>Why is it that all of the atheist movement writers lack integrity?
Ayn Rand

>>7223161
>All I mean to say is that it has been empirically proven that there are naturalistic explanations to about 90% of the universe's phenomenon.
well sure, if by "explaining" you mean hiding it under the "it's all in the mind bruh" label, then sure, whatever

>>7217538
its never going awayyyyyyyyyyyy

>>7223128
you read the bible too literally then/

its not about what it says exactly, its about what it says to you

>+235 replies and 37 images omitted. Click here to view.

Jesus, /lit/.

>>7223814
Why would one give any credence to what the Bible says about them if they don't think there's anything special about the Bible already?

Ted Kaczynski got his mind a little twisted in a psych experiment where a talented lawyer read a personal statement he wrote and then berated him over various things he wrote in it. Is there any reason to believe that lawyer had a special inside track on understanding Ted Kaczynski or is he just a talented manipulator?

>>7217533
Nice book thread fam.
/pol/ for politics, /lit/ for literature.

>>7223853
and /hm/ for your sex life

>>7223893
>everyone is a man on 4chinz
go away 9gag

>>7223161
>Why would I waste my time reading theology? I have no interest in arguments about god.
"Why would I waste time reading about something I'm actively arguing against? Why attempt to understand my opponents arguments when I can go off on unrelated tangents?"

>>7223927
>implying much if any theology bothers with non-presuppositional apologetics
I hope you don't think presuppositional apologetics are worth anyone's time.

>>7223939
Presuppositional apologetics is a tiny Calvinist intellectual ghetto that started in the 20th century.

I think you probably learned that term at some point but never looked up what it meant.