How was Paul able to preemptively btfo Atheism so brutally?

How was Paul able to preemptively btfo Atheism so brutally?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Semitic babbling.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because modern atheism is just rebranded Epicureanism, with which Paul personally disputed (Acts 17:18)

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Most current atheists believe in a more moronic version of Epicureanism.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it real becuz i say so
    Wow. Inspiring.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No no, it's real because people in white coats say so. That's rationality

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Difference is that scientists and doctors have at least been able to document the phenomena and peer review it before spreading it to others
        OTOH, faith is such a critical pillar of Christianity BECAUSE it has no evidence beyond writings that have repeatedly been translated and corrupted over the millennia. The four synoptic gospels were most telling here, what with Mark being the earliest telling not even saying that Jesus had a divine birth or any of the other kooky shit the other gospels pull

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >scientists and doctors have at least been able to document the phenomena and peer review it before spreading it to others
          How do you know that?
          >faith is such a critical pillar of Christianity BECAUSE it has no evidence
          1. That's not what faith means, and 2. everything is evidence of Christianity

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what is a peer-reviewed journal
            I've gone through the process myself. Obviously, there's an element of faith in science as well. However we don't pretend that all science is 100% true - instead, we take it with a grain of salt and even reproduce it in the course of our own experiments wherever possible. OTOH, the Christian God is by definition infallible - you're making a hilarious false equivalency.

            Also, your argument that all of creation is an argument for Christianity's very silly considering that it's also an argument for essentially every other religion as well. What makes Christianity so unique?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However we don't pretend that all science is 100% true - instead, we take it with a grain of salt and even reproduce it in the course of our own experiments wherever possible
            Don't do your own research, trust the science.
            >you're making a hilarious false equivalency
            No, imbecile, I'm pointing out the failure of your appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are meaningless because either the authority will be defended on the basis of something other than their own authority (in which case the appeal is implicitly acknowledged to have justified nothing), or on the basis of their authority (in which case it is utterly circular and arbitrary).
            >it's also an argument for essentially every other religion as well.
            No it isn't.
            >What makes Christianity so unique?
            No other worldview can justify the preconditions of intelligibility which make knowledge possible.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not making an appeal to authority. If you have a problem with scientific evidence, you can test the validity yourself. It'll be tough sure, but it was even tougher for the guy who came up with the protocol to begin with. On the other hand, there is no way to test the validity of """Christian Truth.""" Your post reeks of 16 year old debate team tradcath.

            You can't do anything without presuppositions. Tell me what evidence is, how to recognize it, and how to draw a conclusion from it without presupposing anything.

            You're just being disingenuous now. There's a big difference between definitional or procedural axioms in a system of logic versus just claiming that it's axiomatic that the world existing presupposes the existence of Christianity. Many other religions have justifications for why humanity is sentient and intelligent, Christianity is not uniquely special.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but I think the other anon wants to point out that the scientific method appeals to authority - the axioms and steps in it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The scientific method is explicitly anti-appeal to authority. If you mean the corruption by modern celebrity scientists and the "I love science!" crowd in the West, then yeah that reeks of an infiltration of dictatorial celebrity culture - but the vast majority of science is done in quiet labs around the world where there is little celebrity backing to corrupt it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not making an appeal to authority
            Don't pretend like it isn't a pillar of your practical epistemology. These conversations always degenerate into your kind resting on fallacious appeals to authority, and your response to me attacking those appeals was literally to defend them.
            >If you have a problem with scientific evidence, you can test the validity yourself.
            As long as you come to the same conclusion as the established authority. If you come to a different conclusion then it doesn't count and it's not real science
            >On the other hand, there is no way to test the validity of """Christian Truth."""
            Indeed, since Christian truth is a precondition of the truth of anything. How can you test the validity of the very idea of truth?
            >There's a big difference between definitional or procedural axioms in a system of logic versus just claiming that it's axiomatic that the world existing presupposes the existence of Christianity.
            The logical a prioris which are necessary to think about anything ultimately presuppose the Christian Triune God.
            >Many other religions have justifications for why humanity is sentient and intelligent
            No other religion is intellectually defensible, as they all are either internally incoherent or undermine human reason and experience.
            [...]
            No, I don't think authority is part of the scientific method. The scientific method is not contingent on the existence of any external authority. The last man on earth would be able to do science

            I'm not trying to say that nor do I think the method is bad, just when you need to apply it you apply some axioms which aren't questioned. I guess it's not an authority, but something. New to this stuff.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not making an appeal to authority
            Don't pretend like it isn't a pillar of your practical epistemology. These conversations always degenerate into your kind resting on fallacious appeals to authority, and your response to me attacking those appeals was literally to defend them.
            >If you have a problem with scientific evidence, you can test the validity yourself.
            As long as you come to the same conclusion as the established authority. If you come to a different conclusion then it doesn't count and it's not real science
            >On the other hand, there is no way to test the validity of """Christian Truth."""
            Indeed, since Christian truth is a precondition of the truth of anything. How can you test the validity of the very idea of truth?
            >There's a big difference between definitional or procedural axioms in a system of logic versus just claiming that it's axiomatic that the world existing presupposes the existence of Christianity.
            The logical a prioris which are necessary to think about anything ultimately presuppose the Christian Triune God.
            >Many other religions have justifications for why humanity is sentient and intelligent
            No other religion is intellectually defensible, as they all are either internally incoherent or undermine human reason and experience.

            NTA, but I think the other anon wants to point out that the scientific method appeals to authority - the axioms and steps in it.

            No, I don't think authority is part of the scientific method. The scientific method is not contingent on the existence of any external authority. The last man on earth would be able to do science

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you come to a different conclusion then it doesn't count and it's not real science
            Well trolled, have a good day!

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have a good day fren!
            And if you find the time, I hope you'll read this book and find peace through the Savior it proclaims https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=ESV
            God bless!

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's equally valid to assume that logic exists and that a bastard from betlehem created the universe

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything is evidence of Christianity
            No one who is correct needs to pre-suppose they are correct. They can build a case with evidence that shows they are correct, not just claim it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't do anything without presuppositions. Tell me what evidence is, how to recognize it, and how to draw a conclusion from it without presupposing anything.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You put your finger on something interesting, which is that the god of christianity is a dead god, hence why the catholic trinity these days is mary, pope, and the eucharist cracker, and the protestant trinity is bible, the pastor's private jet, and israel.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    This recent trend of anti-science Christian apologetics are so incredibly stupid. It's just screaming "Trust the Science" and accusing people of scientism and appeal to authority without any proof. I'm not even sure who these people are arguing against, it seems like a strawman atheist.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Paul isn't even attempting to make a coherent argument here, it's just complete nonsense.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Paul isn't even attempting to make a coherent argument here
      You're absolutely right. Because Paul is letting God's wisdom speak through him, and not relying on his own.

  6. 7 months ago
    Chud Anon

    I hate Jesus Christ so much bros, I wish to see his church brought low and drug through the mud and his followers humiliated for being gentile cattle slaves to a israeli liar

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seethe more demon

      • 7 months ago
        Chud Anon

        I will be like a demon unto your wretched church.

        May immortal Satan guide my hand in purging these Christian rats.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I agree that where ever christianity flourishes foolishness is plentyful.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >mocks greek philosophers
    >church imagery puts Jesus in philosophers clothes to make him look smarter
    yep, christianity right here.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *