Is Atheism intellectually bankrupt in light of overwhelming evidence for God?

[Anonymous No.2907787]

Critically discuss with reference to the failings of evolutionism, the soundness of the ontological proof, the impossibility of rationality in absence of a God, and the limitedness of science.

This is not a troll thread, intelligent posters only please.

[Anonymous No.2907808]

>>2907787
goto /x/

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2907819]

raged at the pic
9/10

[Anonymous No.2907830]

Can you give a link to this overwhelming evidence please. Maybe a pic or something.

[Anonymous No.2907829]

Boring trolls this early eh /sci?

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.2907833]

>in light of overwhelming evidence for God?

[Anonymous No.2907840]

>Post on a science board about faith
>faith
>As in lacking clear empirical evidence for your assumption but still believing in it anyway.


>>> You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.2907841]

>>2907830
If there is no God, then there is no rationality. There is rationality, hence there is a God.

[Anonymous No.2907848]

Surely after studying religion and deciding it sounds like bullshit you arrive at a conclusion and not back at your first assumption.

[Anonymous No.2907849]

>>2907830
If there is no non, then there is no sequitur. There is non, hence there is a sequitur.

[Anonymous No.2907851]

>this is not a troll thread
>not a troll thread
>troll thread

If you wanted intelengent posters you would have made some sort of argument

also does it really matter? Are you open to ideas? Believe it or not I am open to ideas, you just have to provide actual evidence that once peer reviewed does not cause the whole room to fall down laughing.

obvioustrollisobvious.jp

[Anonymous No.2907852]

>>2907841
That's not evidence. And at what point did God or the existence of a God become rational.

[Anonymous No.2907858]

>>2907841
If A then B. If B then A.

If you really posted that, then you're trolling.
If you are trolling then you would really post that.

My God! This whole thinking in a circle does work! Eureka!

[Anonymous No.2907861]

Which god are we talking about here?

[Anonymous No.2907866]

Sure is a valid argument for religions here, and definitely not a fail troll.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2907870]

>>2907861
indeed.

[Anonymous No.2907872]

>>2907841

If there is no Ra, there is no light. There is light, therefore there is Ra!

[Anonymous No.2907881]

>>2907852
Yes it is evidence in the epistemological sense of the word.

Seems like you want to restrict evidence to empirical observations. This just confirms the "atheist logic" depicted in the picture I posted.

>>2907851
I mentioned a couple of points in the OP. If you're unfamiliar with them and hence don't recognize them as arguments, this thread is probably too advanced for you. Sorry.

>>2907849
Witty. At least you recognize the validity of Modus Tollens. Since the first conditional is obviously true, it follows that God exists. Deal with it. No God, no rationality, hence there is a God because there plainly is rationality.

[Anonymous No.2907889]

>>2907858
No, the logic is actually If not-A, then not-B. But B, therefore A, which is a valid inference and also the logic underlying falsification in science. Retard.

[Anonymous No.2907897]

>>2907881
>Since the first conditional is obviously true, it follows that God exists.
No, it doesn't, you stupid fuck. That's precisely what makes it a non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.2907905]

>>2907881
>Seems like you want to restrict evidence to empirical observations.

Yes. Yes I do, in the same way as I'd want to see a unicorn if someone claimed it existed.

Crisps that look like modern depictions of Jesus don't count. We all know he would have been an Arab if he had existed.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2907916]

>>2907897
i chuckled

[Anonymous No.2907923]

>>2907881

No I was just making the comment that you aren't showing any evidence for your claims what so ever on a science/math board. I'm calling you out for being retarded not for your faith. :P Amidoingitrite?

[Anonymous No.2907927]

>>2907881

Describe how to verify observations that are not empirical.

Describe why god must exist in order for rationality to exist.

[Anonymous No.2907933]

>>2907897

Also, to get the idea that 'without god there is no rationality' you have to assume god exists in the first place, or clearly the world's rational beings do not need a god.

[Anonymous No.2907937]

I think the definition of rationality is also a bit vague. Actually, it's incredibly vague. Just what do you mean by rationality? The capacity for thought? The capacity to create value systems and maximize value therein? The capacity to seek objective truth?

[Anonymous No.2907938]

>>2907933
Argh, shut up already.

[Anonymous No.2907940]

>>2907897
Take a basic logic class, bro.
>>2907927
>Describe how to verify observations that are not empirical.
Demonstrate how anything of the sort is implied in my post.
>Describe why god must exist in order for rationality to exist.
Because rationality cannot be fully described in terms of the interaction of matter. In fact, nothing normative can.

[Anonymous No.2907948]

ITT: Actual creationist or just persistent troll?

bros and chick-bros: poe's law in action.

[Anonymous No.2907952]

[Anonymous No.2907956]

>>2907940

So, you do not rely on things being verifiable and demonstrable, just that they sound right to you?

And you cannot understand rationality, so you can make something up to explain it?

Also, what do you mean by rationality? Or normative, for that matter?

[Anonymous No.2907962]

Hey I have an idea.

I will first assert that my friend the Curly Brace in the Sky is the sole cause of all happiness.

Can't describe happiness soley in terms of crude materialism, can you, silly scientists. Can't explain that!

What, no of course I don't need to demonstrate that Curly Brace exists. He clearly exists, otherwise no one would be happy!

Totally isn't circular reasoning. How the fuck else are we happy then? Tide goes in, tide comes out. Never a miscommunication.

[Anonymous No.2907960]

[Anonymous No.2907958]

>>2907948

>implying the two are distinguishable

[Anonymous No.2907965]

>>2907940
>Take a basic logic class, bro.
No, just define your premise properly, you disgustingly dumb philosophuck. "No rationality = No God" isn't some axiomatic truth; it's just a stupid ass non sequitur with no argumentative value whatsoever.

>Because rationality cannot be fully described in terms of the interaction of matter. In fact, nothing normative can.
Which, even if taken as fact, doesn't logically require the existence of god.


You don't have the brains for this. Just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.2907969]

>>2907962
>I will first assert that my friend the Curly Brace in the Sky is the sole cause of all happiness.

Prove that and the rest of your argument stands up.

[Anonymous No.2907984]

>>2907969

Not the guy you're responding to, but;

My whole family believes in Curly Sue, and they are generally happy people.

[Anonymous No.2907991]

>>2907969
My brother who doesn't believe in the Curly Brace is unhappy and an alcoholic, ergo the Curly Brace is the source to happiness.

[Anonymous No.2908039]

>>2907881
scientists wanting observable evidence. Heaven forbid that happen...I personally have nothing against religion and respect those who listen to all sides of an argument, see the bigger picture, and still choose to believe what they believe. People who take it at face value and claim that everyone else is wrong because thier book Says so makes me lose respect for the whole practice of religion. I always thought Christians were supposed to respect people with differentiating opinions, but I guess that part of the Bible I read was wrong. The fact that you would go to a science board and laugh at us for wanting evidence about things is what I like best. 8/10 from me. well played.

[Anonymous No.2908072]

>>2908039

>>christians

>>read the bible

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Only atheists read the bible. Loyal sheep have it 'interpreted' and fed in family friendly chunks by the local priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ

Video link related, Dan Dennett explains what theology is and why there are atheists in the christian clergy.

[Anonymous No.2908618]

BUMPBUMP

[Anonymous No.2909930]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\bf{4}\mathbb{CHAN~}\bf{/}\mathbb{SCI}\bf{/}\mathbb{~RULES:}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\bf{1}\Rightarrow \bf{All~science~and~math~related~topics~welcome.}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\bf{2}\Rightarrow \bf{Homework~threads~will~be~deleted,~and~the~poster~banned.}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\bf{3}\Rightarrow \bf{No~"religion~vs.~science"~threads.}[/spoiler]
☑Reported
☐Not Reported

[Anonymous No.2909938]

>Is Atheism intellectually bankrupt in light of overwhelming evidence for God?
>failings of evolutionism
>This is not a troll thread
>post in /sci/
saged, reported and hidden.