/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14134969]

It seems to me that it is quite simple to dismantle the Christian faith. The method is quite simple; all that is needed is to ask one of the faith to prove their god. For godlyhood is a vague concept. There exists multiple ideas of what a god is, and the Christian idea is only one. Easily stated, no one is able to prove their god, for all that matters to them is faith, in which is irrational. I could state that I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I would be asked to prove it, and I could not be able to, as it is an absurd concept, just as any god is.

[Anonymous No.14135008]

>>14134969
>prove their god
Prove 1+1=2.

[Anonymous No.14135013]

the godlyhood of this post is quite vague too

[Anonymous No.14135015]

>>14134969
Oh look, it's the Reddit retard from the other thread. Still going on about muh spaghetti monster?

[Anonymous No.14135027]

Nihilism was a mistake.
If a thing is irrational you can't explain it rationally.
Also, why are atheists so obsessed with God?

[Anonymous No.14135030]

>>14135008
1 exists as a concept and is empirically observed, and is objectively true. When you put two 1's together, you get two, which is empirically observable.
>>14135015
Just as real as your god btw

[Anonymous No.14135039]

>>14135027
Rationality exists, yes. I use rationality to debunk your god.

[Anonymous No.14135041]

>>14134969
I don't think you understand religion. It doesn't work like science.

[Anonymous No.14135044]

>>14135030
Daddy Dawkins is that you?

[Anonymous No.14135050]

>>14135041
I tried to explain that to him last thread. He doesn't get it; he goes on and on about muh spaghetti monster.

[Anonymous No.14135065]

>>14135041
>>14135050
>>14135044
Still literally NO arguments for why your god is real. Burden of proof is on you all. Apes.

[Anonymous No.14135066]

>>14135030
>empirically
You can NOT empirically prove anything, are you fucking retarded?

There are numerous examples of things being empirically true in mathematics, but turn out to be false.
Numerous open problems are exactly like this, the collatz conjecture and Rieman hypothesis are both empirically true, yet neither is considered proven.

Same in physics, Newton's laws are "empirically true" at least they were until they were observed to be wrong, which they ard.

You have proven NOTHING, try again.

[Anonymous No.14135077]

>>14135065
>Burden of proof
Prove that 1+1=2.

You literally can not do it without essentially assuming it to be true and yet you still believe it.

The burden of proof is in the 1+1=2 believers and they have shown nothing in the last thousand years.

[Anonymous No.14135078]

>>14135065
Burden of proof lies on you to prove you're not a redditor

[Anonymous No.14135082]

>>14135066
Rationality is real. I use it to debunk your god and do math
>>14135077
All you have to do is prove your god. Burden of proof is on you. Stop deflecting.

[Anonymous No.14135083]

>>14134969
Funny how all the cool theories in science have been proposed by Christians. Evolution, Big Bang, etc. Even Tesla was Christian. If it worked for them, it can work for anyone.

[Anonymous No.14135088]

>>14135078
I use it from time to time but I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation. Prove your god. Burden of proof is on you, btw.
>>14135083
Tesla was an atheist

[Anonymous No.14135094]

>>14135082
You can not prove that 1+1=2, I get it.
You are just as completely irrational as any Christian and taking a leap of faith onto something you know you can not prove.

[Anonymous No.14135097]

>>14135088
>I use it from time to time
That's all I needed to know. Now I'm filtering your shit thread (that will be deleted anyways because it's off topic)

[Anonymous No.14135100]

>>14135094
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
>>14135097
Still no proof

[Anonymous No.14135107]

>>14135088
Tesla was Christian and Eisntein believed in God.

[Anonymous No.14135110]

Kek, no one has even attempted to prove that god exists. What is this thread

[Anonymous No.14135116]

>>14135100
Lmao, retard just went to Google and chose the first result
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html

[Anonymous No.14135126]

>>14135116
Prove that god is real retard

[Anonymous No.14135127]

>>14135116
TOP FUCKING KEKS

[Anonymous No.14135134]

>>14135126
LMAO shameless cunt just stfu

[Anonymous No.14135135]

>>14135100
>P1. 1 is in N.
>P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
>P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
>P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
>P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
>(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
That isn't a proof.
This is equivalent to citing the Bible to prove god existing and I know that you do not understand this "proof" else you wouldn't have posted it (it also doesn't prove that 1+1=2 since the only 2 in there is the one in P2).

You are LITERALLY just saying that certain things are true without ANY basis for it, that is the leap of faith I am talking about.

[Anonymous No.14135142]

>>14135126
Prove that 1+1=2.
We are still waiting.

[Anonymous No.14135163]

>>14135142
>>14135135
>>14135134
>>14135127
FFS JUST FUCK/ING PROVE THAT GOD IS REAL THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO LITERALLY JUST ONE ARGUM/ENT FOR ME TO DISMANTLE JSUT FUCKING TRY AND PROVE THAT GOD IS REAL YOU LITERALLY CANT

[Anonymous No.14135168]

>>14135163
SEETHING GAYTHIEST

[Anonymous No.14135172]

>>14135163
I prove that God is real AFTER you prove that 1+1=2 (without basically just assuming it to be true).

[Anonymous No.14135176]

>>14135163
And this is why I will never ever offer proof for God. It makes atheists seethe.

[Anonymous No.14135178]

>>14135168
You are absolutely fucking retarded all you need to do is present one proof and you can't do that holy fuck christians are next level stupid all you need is ONE fucking proof. I've been asking for hours just fucking TRY AND PROVE GOD IS REAL THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU

[Anonymous No.14135187]

>>14135178
>PROVE GOD IS REAL THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU
PROVE 1+1=2 THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU

[Anonymous No.14135191]

>>14135187
1+1 will never not be 3

[Anonymous No.14135193]

>>14135191
God will never not exist.

My proof is as good as your, either accept both or neither, your choice.

[Anonymous No.14135194]

>>14135178
keep going

[Anonymous No.14135198]

>>14134969
You do realise that's not an unChristian symbol, right? That's the cross of St. Peter. If you're trying to dismantle faith, then you gotta pick something that, you know, doesn't represent every sign of humility and tradition of faith?

[Anonymous No.14135202]

>>14135193
I will never not be fucking your mother
See, it's dumb to use faith alone

[Anonymous No.14135207]

>>14135187
Grab two rocks
Put them together, the total counts to two
Take them apart, they are no longer a total
D.one

[Anonymous No.14135216]

>christians resort to nihilist tier skepticism in order to protect their coping mechanism
Interesting

[Anonymous No.14135218]

>>14135030
>1 is empirically observed

[Anonymous No.14135220]

>>14135202
>See, it's dumb to use faith alone
All I see is you being unable to prove that 1+1=2 and yet you still believe it.

>>14135207
We went over empiricism already.
You CAN NOT use empiricism to prove things.
Newton's laws were empirically true, but now they are known to be false.

[Anonymous No.14135226]

>>14135116
The funny thing is that he didn't even post the whole theorem, (a rather interesting one) which means it's unlikely he took the time to understand it.

The interesting thing about this postulate in particular is that the hinge of the argument is that the addition of two identical entities cannot produce the same identical entity, so it easily proves that 1 + 1 can't equal 1. The proof that 1 + 1 equals specifically 2 is only in the recursive argument about "successor" – the idea that the "not 1" that follows "1" must be 2. It takes for granted the concept of "2" entirely, as far as I can tell. Maybe someone with better math skills can correct me.

This is sort of the same argument that OP is making about religious people. He thinks they take for granted the implicit fact of an additional element in this world. They're inventing a "2" in a situation where the only thing that's actually clear is that we have "not 1". Why couldn't the explanation for existence be "3", why couldn't 1+1 be 3? Not so easy to explain.

[Anonymous No.14135235]

>>14135216
Of course they have to do that.
Pure rationality leads down the path where you have to doubt everything and in the end you can say nothing about anything.

[Anonymous No.14135259]

>>14135226
>the idea that the "not 1" that follows "1" must be 2.
It is the definition of 2 that it is the successor of 1.
The entire axiomatization of the natural numbers is essentially nothing but proclaiming these things to be true and you can not even prove that they aren't self contradictory.

So the "obvious" mathematical statement that "1+1=2" is basically unjustifiable and it literally needs to be taken on faith by every mathematician that the whole thing isn't self contradictory.

[Anonymous No.14135294]

>>14134969
Why?

[Anonymous No.14135309]

>>14135044
it can't be dawkins, he's been talking recently about how christianity is a net positive

[Anonymous No.14135318]

Legit question: Why does God need to even exist exist for Christianity to be true?

[Anonymous No.14135333]

>>14135088
>I use it from time to time
it's time for you to go back
if you don't understand the nature of faith you shouldn't be here, I'm not a christian because of my own issues with doctrine and their theology but this attitude to proving god is retarded and completely misses the point, no wonder everyone could tell you were a redditor immediately
you can now slightly redeem yourself if you show that you are an agnostic rather than an atheist to show you aren't a hypocrite at least

[Anonymous No.14135342]

>>14135318
Rule number one: I am the lord thy God and thou shall have no other Gods before me.
it's literally the first fucking rule you fucking heretic, you're nearly half as retarded as the reddit gaytheist who started this thread

[Anonymous No.14135361]

Thanks for posting Saint Peter's Cross, OP, you ensured that this thread would be blessed.

[Anonymous No.14135397]

>>14135342
You don't understand, I'm not asking for a Christian perspective, I'm asking why fellow atheist believe the inability for Christians to prove God's existence invalidates every other aspect of Christianity, it doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.14135404]

>>14135361
This.

[Anonymous No.14135413]

ITT: /lit/ fucks a guys entire life view and he runs away like a coward

[Anonymous No.14135517]

Why haven't you become Unitarian yet?
The doctrine of the trinity is taught nowhere in the Bible.
Unitarians reject the doctrine of the Trinity for the following reasons:
(a) Because the doctrine of the Trinity is claimed to be derived from the Bible, but is nowhere plainly taught there. This difficult and profound doctrine, if it were so fundamental to Christianity, must have been presented by Jesus and his apostles with great clarity and precision and guarded from misconstruction with particular care. However, in the many passages that speak of God’s nature, there is not one in which we are told that God is a threefold being, or that God is three persons, or that God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In fact, the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity so entirely, that when Trinitarians wish to describe it, they are forced to go outside of the Bible and to invent words and phrases not found in Scripture. The Unitarian opinion is reflected well in the words of W. E. Channing: “That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected that it must be made out by inference and hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.”

[Anonymous No.14135529]

>>14135517
(b) Because the texts quoted in support of the Trinity are inadequate or irrelevant. Scriptural passages that list the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together prove nothing except that there are a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Frequently, Trinitarians make their argument by showing instances where Jesus and God are described as having the same attributes or titles. But using the same logic, let us notice that in the New Testament almost every “divine” attribute claimed for Jesus is also claimed for his disciples. Was he said to “know all things”? It is also said to them, “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things” (1 John 2:20). Is it said that he was “without sin”? It is also said of them, “Whoever is born of God does not sin” (1 John 5:18). Did Christ work miracles? He says of the believer, “Greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:12). Did God give to Christ a glory which he had before the world was? He says of his disciples, “The glory which you gave me, I have given them” (John 17:22). Did he rise from the dead to a higher life? Paul says: “If the dead are not to be raised up, neither has Christ been raised up” (1 Cor. 15:16) and “As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:49). Did Christ come to judge the world? It is said of the disciples, “Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2). Did God dwell in Christ? It is written of his followers, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16). No faith can be supported on this sort of reasoning. The Scriptural passage on which Trinitarians rely most heavily is John 1:1, which reads in most Bibles, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Most people agree that the Word refers to Jesus. What is important to note about this verse is that the first instance of “God” (theos) is preceded by the definite article (ho), whereas the second is not. The Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite or have a qualitative meaning, depending on the context. In this case, we should understand the final clause to mean that the Word was “godlike,” “divine,” or “a god” (Compare Acts 28:6). Many unbiased translations reflect this understanding. Surely to speak of the Word as God contradicts the earlier statement that he was with God.

[Anonymous No.14135534]

>>14135529
(c) Because there are many texts in the Bible plainly opposed to the Church doctrine of the Trinity. Such are the texts in which the Father is called the one or only God, which could not be said if the Son is also God and the Holy Spirit God: “For though there are many that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, (as there are many gods and many lords), to us there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:5,6); “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). Jesus prays to the Father, saying, “Father! The hour is come!” and immediately adds, “This is life eternal, that they might know you are the only true God” (John 17:3). He also says, “My Father, who gave me them, is greater than all (John 10:29), and then he makes it clear that he is one of the “all” when he says, “I go to the Father, for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). The apostle directs the Ephesians to give “thanks always, for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God, even the Father” (Eph. 5:20). If the Son were God, and the Holy Spirit God, it would be our duty to pray to them also. But all prayers are commanded to be addressed to the Father (See Matt. 6:9; John 4:23, 16:23).
(d) Because the Trinity teaching, said to come from Jesus, arose long after Jesus. The history of the evolution of the doctrine is well known. The Apostles’ Creed, which in its substance goes back to a very early Christian period, contains no trace of the doctrine of the Trinity. It calls God “the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” Before the outbreak of the Arian controversy, almost every theologian thought that the Son was in some sense subordinate to the Father. The original Nicene Creed (produced at the Council of Nicea in 325) took the first step and declared that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. A number of bishops were reluctant to sign the creed because of this expression, but they were coerced into doing so by an appeal to “unity.” Even so, the creed knows nothing of the Trinity. It calls Jesus “God,” but speaks of him as “God of God,” meaning “God derived from God,” and so makes his divinity derived and dependent. It was not until the year 381, after much controversy and party strife, that the doctrine of the Trinity was established in the Church at the Council of Constantinople. Immediately after the Council, Theodosius the Emperor issued an edict that decisively established this version of the Christian faith by threatening to declare anyone who did not accept it as a heretic.

[Anonymous No.14135554]

>Unitarianism

[Anonymous No.14135560]

>>14134969
>I could state that I believe in the flying spaghetti monster

Reddit is next door.

[Anonymous No.14135565]

>>14135066
>You can NOT empirically prove anything
can you empirically prove this

[Anonymous No.14135601]

Theistchads we are growing stronger

[Anonymous No.14135602]

>>14134969
>>14135198
It shows peak nu-atheist ignorance, and their disregard for actual truth and facts. Can't even figure basic iconography. And they regularly spit out falsehoods and historical distortions that actual atheist scholars don't even proclaim. Ridiculous shit, like "Christianity was invented by the Romans at Nicaea." But they don't care.
If they really had such predisposition to "critical thinking" or even just truth, they would actually discern what it means to be a Theist or a Christian, look at the thinking of the best individuals within, and critically examine their actual beliefs. And they would look at what historic atheists would have to say on such points. But they don't even feel the need to understand what they're criticizing, let alone read it. But if you ask this consistency, it's always
>oh wut you expect me to studyall of aquinas or kierkegard or the Bible for my whole life before I can say anything?
When, no, it's not about having an encyclopedic knowledge. But what's reasonable is that someone has a truthful comprehension of what they're criticizing before they speak.

[Anonymous No.14135712]

>>14134969
Hola reddit.

[Anonymous No.14135922]

>>14135030
>1's together, you get two, which is empirically observable
>empirically observable
>

[Anonymous No.14135935]

>>14135008
You can actually do this starting from the fundamentals of set theory.