If atheists destroy most theists in arguments what is there left remaining?

If atheists destroy most theists in arguments what is there left remaining? Why are there still Christians and why are they still seriously arguing with atheists? I see this all the time, Christians always get demolished. Which is ironic because you would think if this religion were true the atheist side wouldn't be able to pierce any weak spots but there are, and tons of weak spots in the Christian arguments. However atheists themselves are of questionable character so I wonder if they themselves are to be trusted with any of their arguments. In general you just don't really know who is right if you're extremely openminded like I am. But I am leaning towards both being wrong, there is probably a God but I doubt Christ, if he existed, had anything to do with It.

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't consider myself an atheist because it depends on the definition of God, I just think the Trinity is illogical

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheists used to "destroy" Christians in early 2005 where you still had creationists shamelessly uploading flat-earth proof onto YouTube. Any serious post-2012 debate is mostly just an impasse:
      >Atheist: Can you prove yiyr premises the way we want?
      >Theist: How do you want it?
      >Atheists: .... not sure.

      There is no method atheists have (or recognize) for investigating or establishing spiritual reality, so naturally the only outcome for them will be "still unconvinced". Christians aren't happy about it but it doesn't really affect me as a Christian that someone else check-mated himself into necessary ignorance. That's why we're still here, believing what we believe. And as long as there are public forums about beliefs, there will be arguments.

      It absolutely is. But it is still true.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes if you believe in moronic #MeToo-tier shit, you will be at an impasse with people that desire evidence and logic.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Go ahead. What evidence, specify your method of establishing spiritual reality. I will be genuinely happy if you will lol.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do I go outside right now, what tools can I use, what methods can I use, to observe your spiritual reality?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's what I'm asking you. Me myself I'm content to receive in prayer the same experiences as millions of people have reported across the globe across centuries. You're not. Feel free to suggest better methods. It's the best way to prove

            Atheists used to "destroy" Christians in early 2005 where you still had creationists shamelessly uploading flat-earth proof onto YouTube. Any serious post-2012 debate is mostly just an impasse:
            >Atheist: Can you prove yiyr premises the way we want?
            >Theist: How do you want it?
            >Atheists: .... not sure.

            There is no method atheists have (or recognize) for investigating or establishing spiritual reality, so naturally the only outcome for them will be "still unconvinced". Christians aren't happy about it but it doesn't really affect me as a Christian that someone else check-mated himself into necessary ignorance. That's why we're still here, believing what we believe. And as long as there are public forums about beliefs, there will be arguments.

            It absolutely is. But it is still true.

            wrong. Because my central point is that an atheist not only doesn't believe in matters of spirit, but can't find a way to establish them to his preferred certainty.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeh you cant prove or disprove something you cannot define in the first place.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            When you detect brain patterns while someone is experiencing a vision from god, and then compare that to brain activity during a dream. It will just prove either that they're lying or that it's a dream. There is indeed an impasse here, because you can't falsify this if someone just flips the table over and declares that it's impossible to truly observe your personal vision.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if you can observe personal visions, but MRI scans didn't push the envelope in this field of inquiry a whole lot. All you are finding out is which parts of the brain light up. Not what went on. If this were my only tool, I would likely also try to make it work as best as I can, but the inference of region-to-function just doesn't work well enough to draw these conclusions. Maybe with AI pattern detection it will, who knows.

            doesn't mean it's true
            If someone is high off of drugs all their life and they die while high everything went fine.

            It didn't.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists don’t destroy theists, they beg the question and then continue being moral relativists
    How can someone win in a moral debate when they don’t have morals?

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    This can be applied to anything. 99.99% of debate is useless since it's only used as a tool for self-affirmation and venting. If you simply just don't acknowledge the other side's points and double down on your beliefs, you get a dopamine rush.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Almost any debate with anyone is like a debate with a vegan who is screaming and crying to your face that you are a murderer and a rapist by eating a fish. That's of course a little bit of an exaggeration but debates are always like that - more or less. Very rarely, VERY rarely is it actually about loving the truth and wanting to know the truth. And even if it is, at that point it almost ceases to be a debate and just genuine seeking for truth.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That has no bearing on whether or not it's true. lol

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It actually does. When a belief leads you to intended outcome (which in here would be a good life), it's more likely to be true than the alternative. That's how evidence works on the most basic level. Consistency and prediction.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Believing that everything will be okay no matter what for all your life, regardless of what you endure will lead to better outcomes but it's obviously not true. Someone being optimistic doesn't mean it's true.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Believe things will generally work out
          >Things generally work out
          >Somehow doesn't mean it's true
          In this exact case there is a category fallacy because we're evaluating a claim that is directly affected by its own acting out. But in general we very clearly infer a claim's merit from its prediction power. If a claim helped me predict and manage my life, chances are good that it has more merit than a claim which didn't.

          Yeh you cant prove or disprove something you cannot define in the first place.

          Then define it. You run into the exact same problem - you don't like how we define it but you can't manage to define it any better. You are checked and mated by your own desire for precision. And the only thing where you find it is "I have precisely zero ways to understand."

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            doesn't mean it's true
            If someone is high off of drugs all their life and they die while high everything went fine.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you actually think you can demolish someone in argument, why would you be arguing in the first place? It makes no sense. I don't spend my time arguing with flat earthers for instance because I already know they're wrong even without debating them.

    The only reason you would want to debate someone is because you think it's worth debating them and they might be right.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It actually does. When a belief leads you to intended outcome (which in here would be a good life), it's more likely to be true than the alternative. That's how evidence works on the most basic level. Consistency and prediction.

    Most Christians in the west are fat, low IQ shitskins. Guess Christianity is wrong.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because most non-christians can't accept evidence even when presented to them. For example, the atheists who see these: https://pastelink.net/2w1ne

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