The definition of atheism is an oxymoron.

How can you lack a belief in something when your whole category revolves around it?
If you lack the belief in something, it absolutely implies you believe the contrary.
Or you just don't know, agnosticism.
Because there is no such thing as, "I don't believe you are alive and I don't believe you are dead".
>INB4: Babies.
Babies aren't matured enough to even conceive the idea of God.
You aren't a baby, you are an atheist whose whole position revolves around the idea of it.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    good points anon, but now what?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      These arrogant moron need to be reminded why agnosticism exists from time to time.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        *morons

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The term gnostic pertains to knowledge, it has nothing to do with belief. Agnostics are still either atheists or theists because they believe one of those scenarios to be more likely than the other.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >now what?
      Now you ask them the atheist question.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is all pilpul debate manipulation to brainwash people into worshiping the god of the israelites. Get lost moron. Magical flying hebrews aren't real.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >God could be real, therefore a magical flying hebrew from 2000 years ago is God!
        have a nice day moron. Also the 2nd sentence is a double negative and makes no sense. You know it makes no sense, because your a pilpul-artist israelite.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a simple Yes or No question which can't be answered by dishonest atheists.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a double negative. You can't even write at a grade school level. Fix the wording.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't answer the question.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's gibberish. Magical flying hebrews aren't real and you damn well know it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant opinion. You just can't answer the question due to your inherent dishonesty which is atheism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a question. You made a statement with a double negative and placed a question mark at the end.

            Magical flying hebrews aren't real and you damn well know it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Very well, let me rephrase it for you.
            Do you lack the belief that God does not exist? Yes or No?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know for a fact that magical flying Hebrews aren't real, israelite.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            just out of curiosity, what "fact" might that be?
            or are you just ascribing the definition of a fact, for whatever personal opinion you hold at any given time?
            Not here to really defend the magic flying strawman, but I am curious about your process

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            OH yeah of course I forgot. All they have are their opinions. With a very few exceptions like math and stuff.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maths and definitions.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You probably think this is super profound don't you moron?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't just "think" it is, it is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ya, profoundly moronic

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >t.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It helps noone to be reductive, I believe that that we are here implies to some degree that there are forces larger than us.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            least moronic theist

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    evil is absence

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How can you lack a belief in something when your whole category revolves around it?
    It doesn't. moron. If someone has dogmatic beliefs then they are not an atheist even if they claim to be. Lots of people claim to be something but aren't really that thing, like 99% of Christians.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you are not a Christcuck you are a Satanist
    >believe in a book written by sand israelite noggers with low IQ more than 2000+ years ago and think that's the absolute truth
    >having daddy issues is meta.
    >Discards babies because it doesn't go with the narrative.
    Not buying it from any of you fake Christians.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >2000+ years ago
      This has to be the gayest "argument" atheists parrot. Sorry the Bible wasn't written in current year, but that doesn't make it false.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Correct. But it is false if it contains factually incorrect statements.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Honestly, giving atheists the time of day is an act of charity you don't deserve. People like you don't matter. Bye.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Since you contribute nothing, nothing will be lost by your exit.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cause I could as well say that I just lack the belief that God does not exist.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Go kiss troony ass like YOUR leader Christniggger homosexual, LMAO.

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/11/pope-invited-trans-women-over-for-a-pasta-meatballs-dinner/

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Best thing, about being a based autistic atheist incel on /misc/ is I don't even need to argue against your disgusting ChristBlack person religion, your shitty woke, pedo and commie leaders are the BEST argument for me, LMAO, I don't even need to say any convincing arguments, just look up Christian websites to see what the Pope has done recently and post it here, LMAO, you ChristBlack person filth, will never stop making me laugh at your putrid stupidity.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Agnostic: Waiting for proof God exists
    Atheist: Doesn't practice a religion

    Clue's in the names: A-theist = No theology.

    Atheism is a saner position than "God talks to me / spoke in human language to my ancestors".

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheists are making claim, that sheer concept of an entity you are physically (intellectually) unable to comprehend cannot share the same material universe with them
      seems like agnostics are holding saner position than atheists here

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Agnosticism is just hipster atheism. No one calling themselves "agnostic" legitimately considers the possibility that talking snakes or flying monkeys are real.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is that or theists that are too ashamed to admit they have magical beliefs

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          my point was about which one was "saner"
          one concludes with 100% assurance a stance on something they are literally not capable on having a learned opinion - the other says "idk"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Admiting that some things can't be is oftenly more sane than allowing any fraudster the benefit of doubt.
            Otherwise we would give the benefit of doubt to tarotists, mediums and so on despite lots of beliefs being contradictory, absurd and a know scam

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno, if me believing or doing (or not believing and not doing) something had very significant consequences for me (such as spending an eternity in hell), I certainly would not be comfortable with just "ikd". Seriously, just imagine the nightmare of legitimately believing that all those religious claims *might* be true - e.g. you need to accept Jesus as your savior or be damned if Christianity is true, but if you do that, you will go to hell as a polytheist if Islam is true. What do you do? But when you think about it, it's even *worse*, because you have to consider all the claims of all the religions which haven't even been invented yet. Like, maybe there's a God who wants you to eat at McDonald's three times a day. Or you will spend the rest your days boiling in fried oil. Can you 100 % prove that it's not true? You can't.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know how the concept of monotheistic God (I disregard polytheism as cosmologically paradoxical power fantasies) can be utilised at the same time as any definition of a free will, if you were at any given time capable of "proving" Him
            what is required is belief, and the business of faith is belief
            you cannot 100% "prove" that your woman doesn't cheat on you, or 100% "prove" that the food you are eating is not poisoned - and yet you still engage with them
            I wouldn't worry about 100% requirements
            seems like modern schizo autism

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > if you were at any given time capable of "proving" Him
            what is required is belief, and the business of faith is belief
            This is actually kinda funny because if you read the sacred religious texts, deities usually have no issues with providing evidence of their existence. The idea that one should believe without evidence, or that they should figure out which deity is the correct one through some kind of logical reasoning, is a purely modern phenomenon. A sort of cope, if you will.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >deities usually have no issues with providing evidence of their existence
            lel
            if one christian monk with an axe can undeity them such evidence, I'm going to keep sceptical on the matter
            >belief without logical reasoning is modern invention
            yea, I'm wasting my time here

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure, but what’s the point of all this other than pilpul nonsense? I’m not even an atheist but this whole thread is moronic. There is obviously a difference between the agnostic who doesn’t claim to know or make any argument one way or the other, and a person who is strongly opposed to the idea of a monotheistic deity.
        >but technically you can’t be a 100% atheist unless you’re completely certain that God isn’t real
        Fine, call them 90% atheists then if you need to. But what exactly is being accomplished here?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Sure, but what’s the point of all this other than pilpul nonsense?
          it's a pendulum thing
          christians were easy beating boys 100 years because they were in charge, and things still sucked
          atheists are the beating boys now for the same reason

          irritated, bored, or just stretching muscles
          which answer would you prefer?

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are a lot of atheists talking that I have broken down as well.
    I can't recall, I just need to hear it from them.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ooohh, where is the Spi Funetes fanboy "muh based trad Catholic" NOW, LMAO, follow your leader Hispanic boy. I bet you would LOVE to have a nice romantic dinner with a tran """woman""", LMAO, fricking ChristBlack person parasites.

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i_Vq2BBs9D0

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    1
    the belife in a god itself is an invention of one that believes in it, or in this instance a faith
    2 atheism is a faith in the context that they don't have evidence of a god either, they default to a materialistic view of the cosmos but by extension believe there is no god
    3
    agnostics believe that it doesn't matter or that either or is possible

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >faith and belief aren't the same thing
      lol

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        faith is a belief without evidence
        belief is something you can usually prove with evidence
        they do have definitions

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          you are absolutely moronic
          they are the same thing. you are just a zealot

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism is rejecting the idea of god as a nonsense
    Why do religious people pretend that atheism is so crazy when they're atheists of every god but one?

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    About the teapot.

    Basically the russell's teapot states that since you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof doesn't lie on the one making a negative assertion.
    That is clearly false as you can prove a negative. Take X detector. It can detect anything in existence or happenstance.
    >God detector.
    That is again, an oxymoron as that would violate the very definition of God.
    By now the atheist is probably thinking "Can I make up an undetectable thing by definition?".
    No. That too would violate the very definition of God being all powerful or all knowing.
    Now I don't mind proving the existence of God anytime but let's not forget the burden of proof on the atheist.
    In fact since they had the gall to make up logic like that, a faulty one albeit, you can as well assert that God doesn't have to be proven because he can't be disproven.
    And there is nothing they can do about it, LOL.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you can prove a negative
      >that would violate the very definition of God
      >Now I don't mind proving the existence of God anytime
      >the burden of proof on the atheist.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Athiesm is not a negative claim and therefore doesn't require proof.
      Atheism is not claiming anything, it only rejects the positive claim (that God exists).
      Athiesm isn't "I think God doesn't exist", it's "I haven't been convinced that God exists". They are very different.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most people think atheism is gnostic atheism or antitheism.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        What are people that think Gods don't exist? I think Saint Nickolas is ridiculous but every winter we have to hear fairytales about the flying reindeer and baby Jesus in the manger.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Dunno. I guess strong atheists or antitheists?
          The word atheism literally just means lack of belief. When you start to make your own claims (that God doesn't exist) then you're not really an atheist per the original meaning of the word, because you do believe something.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's just the logical conclusion.
            To entertain the existance of fictional characters of supernatural characteristics is just bollocks.
            Would you give the same lenience to someone who claims the fae exist?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Would you give the same lenience to someone who claims the fae exist?
            Yes. The neutral state is a lack of belief in things that you have not been convinced of. If somebody says to me that faeries exist then I would say "I do not share that belief".
            Once you start to make your own assertions (faeries do not exist) then you require proof.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would just tell him that's crazy. The real problem is organized fae believers with an agenda.
            That though comes from the lack of strong opposition

            this is literally what we all do all day, every day
            >the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters
            >difference between mafia's protection racket and the government tax policy
            >recognized and unrecognized countries around the world
            >fate or destiny
            >chicken or egg
            examples elegantly pass from mundane everyday matters into metaphysical and philosophical
            it all comes down to difference of opinion in the end

            Most of those concepts are just deeply flawed and used by people that don't know the history behind.
            Regarding the political ones.
            To think, in philosophy or politics is to think against someone.
            Everything can be reduced to friend or foe

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is literally what we all do all day, every day
            >the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters
            >difference between mafia's protection racket and the government tax policy
            >recognized and unrecognized countries around the world
            >fate or destiny
            >chicken or egg
            examples elegantly pass from mundane everyday matters into metaphysical and philosophical
            it all comes down to difference of opinion in the end

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I propose new terminology:
            >the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters
            You mean freedom terrorists.

            >difference between mafia's protection racket and the government tax policy
            You mean government rackets.

            >recognized and unrecognized countries around the world
            You mean recognized uncountries.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The word atheism literally just means lack of belief.
            The word "feminism" literally just means "belief in equality between men and women". You have a problem with feminists? No, sweaty, it's the Strong Feminists causing all the problems. :^)

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dont believe a book that was written 1500 years ago has the answer to my modern world problems so im not ganna put my faith and devote my life to some israeli sandBlack person scripture

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    what if i am holding a glass. if I say that I don't believe the glass exists, does it cease from being there? or if i held up an imaginary one and said, I believe the glass exist, does it coelese from the ether and appear in your hand?

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove it (a negative).
    I don't have the materials.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Please no, not the talking snakes.
    AIEEEEEEE!

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Strictly speaking, one can neither believe nor not believe in god (itself) - he can only believe or not believe in a certain image/perception of "god".

    So ultimately, an atheist is basically someone who has come to realize that his own image/perception of god is unrealistic.

    It usually happens when children who grew up with the typical western imag of god as an old man with a beard sitting on clouds in white clothes (as seen in Hollywood movies etc.) come to realize that this is does not seem realistic.

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sure you guys have seen a lot of these atheists larping as God to prove a point.
    That they can't disprove he is God. Basically trying to connotate how stupid it is to believe in disprovable claims like God.
    But the thing is, isn't it ironic that the reason you shouldn't believe God is because you can't know some random stranger is not God?
    Poetic, isn't it?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What kind of drugs are you on? Someone that never heard of god is also an atheist, an implicit atheist, he lacks belief in God because he doesn't even know what that is. It doesn't necessarily imply the contrary.

      Also your point isn't very good either because it depends on which god we are talking about and what's the definition of god. If it's the bible god there's more than enough stupidity ok that book that we know it's not true. If it's a generic creator of the universe, that's unknown, and we might never even know. It's like creating a program, how to the inhabitants know that the programmer did it? They don't, right?

      You seem to be trying to criticize a very specific kind of atheist, when there's implicit and explicit, and then positive and negative atheists. You don't actually have only one kind.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's this pathetic drunk that is always on here.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you want someone to believe you you have to convince them. That's hard to do when you're trying to tell rational people you were abducted by aliens, a man can get pregnant, Jesus walked on water and raised the dead. Anything that doesn't make sense really. And you are shocked when they don't believe you? You even seethe about it? What the actual frick is wrong with you that you can not understand this? Or are you just pushing moronic shit for political power?

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are you some kind of moron? You are right? I could tell you there's many kinds of atheists, but then you would say some dumb and I won't bother.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The laws of logic, WHERE ARE THEY?!

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Once you study physics and actually try to learn why the universe exists and answer these questions for real you will see how moronic the holy books are. I don't know the answers but what I do know is thats all the religions are wrong and gay. Very very gay.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      atheists tends to posit THE SCIENCE in these arguments but whenever it is questioned, they always revert back to "we don't know, it is a progress". Why bring it up to begin with if you were going to eventually backtrack on it and ultimately say nothing?
      Science doesn't help you in anyway here, it's just infinitely begging the question.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Science doesn't help you in anyway here,
        Science certainly doesn't help the religious folks after completely ruining basically every single religious claim about the nature of the universe.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        We don't need to study science to smell bullshit. It's a natural ability that you subhuman people lack.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You took the words right out of my mouth. I depend on philosophical absolutes to make my points.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy is no better than religion. There is no good reason to follow Aristotle and Plato. This is the propaganda of Western societies.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no good reason to follow <insert_thing_here>
            I disagree. I think there's a very good reason, that being that most people that inhabit this planet are functional morons. It may sound a little harsh, but the reality is that civilization develops in a way where is necessary to establish some common customs for it work properly, in orderly fashion, and both religion and philosophy enable that to some extent. Religion is not simply "believing in sky daddy" and to repeat that argument shows either an inability to develop real intellectual thought or malicious intent.
            Nietzche's ubermensch doesn't work. You can't expect people to come up with their own set of morals and for that to work out in the broader civilization.
            Authority will have to impose their will onto the people whether they like it or not. Decent, high-quality religion will try to displace this authority to the divine, and in that case it becomes immutable. You may not agree with the structure it presents, and no one is forcing you to abide to them, but there are of course consequences for choosing either side.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because science and philosophy are the only tools humans have developed that allow us to answer questions correctly. Religion has it's uses, like social cohesion and military training, but religion fails at answering questions about existence. These things are merely tools. As a ruler, religion is the tool I use to get you to allow me to pump my semen into you and devote yourself to my offspring, or to convince you to suicide yourself on the battlefield. You're a brainlet cuck if you actually believe the horse shit in Scripture.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm know next to nothing about history but that is one ignorant thing to say.
          You clearly haven't heard of Yuri Bezmenov.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          ?si=SRb8IRoBQOHFfoj5&t=223

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    So you believe in every made up fictional character? Or your disbelief in them proves their existence?

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheists would say "but that just makes our position so special" and say most people are stupid and they're the ones who didn't fall for scams and they need to evangelize
    the ironic thing is that christians believe the same thing

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm atheist, it's a categorisation. Get butthurt over definitions, it's not going to suddenly make me pretend there's evidence of god.
    It has no bearing on my life, I don't remember you people exist in my day to day. That's the bit you people struggle with, the concept that that massive amount of energy you're spending is wasted.

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick off with your stupid Judaic myth.

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's one atheist that likes putting things up in his butthole and that's gay

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The intellectual honest answer for someone who doesn’t know God exists is “I don’t know”, hence agnostic.
    Stupid atheist morons. Also God exists.
    >inb4 atheists with fingers in ears screaming for proof they’re not interested in.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christian proof is "Because I said it's so. Prayer makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside."

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Again, agnostic pertains to a lack of knowledge while atheism and theism pertain to belief, they are not mutually exclusive concepts. Both theists and atheists can be (and almost always are) agnostic.

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >invent new character and pretend it's real
    "um I don't think your character is real"
    >so you're an acharacterist then?
    "I guess so?"
    >HA! you can't be an acharacterist since that word implies you believe in the contrary of the thing you lack believe in.
    "look bro I just don't think your character is real"
    >noooo I just played with semantics so you have to believe it's real

  31. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The difference between "I don't believe that X exists" and "I believe that X doesn't exist" is that the former is a default position that requires no further justification, while the latter takes a stance that can be questioned.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Beliefs don't require justifications. Anybody can believe whatever they want.
      >that the former is a default position that requires no further justification
      Yes, there is no justification or reason why something doesn't exist, but if it is an assertion, it still needs to be proven.
      But let's grant you that for the sake of the argument, nobody is asking you for any justification or proof. It's just a question to the former stance.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Beliefs don't require justifications. Anybody can believe whatever they want.
        That's correct. But if you want others to believe what you believe, it's on you to convince them, not on them to justify their lack of belief.

        >if it is an assertion, it still needs to be proven.
        If they assert that your belief is wrong, it's on them to prove it. If they assert that they find your beliefs utterly uncompelling, and therefore won't share them, they don't need to prove anything.

  32. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are thousands of religions in recorded human history. Anybody that subscribes to one religion, is a non-believer of all the others.
    Atheists just add 1 to that list

    The simplest solution, that is consistent with all the facts, is that there are no gods

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The simplest solution, that is consistent with all the facts, is that there are no gods
      Proof?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Prove all the Gods you don't believe in don't exist, then we can use that logic to disprove yours.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Prove all the Gods you don't believe in don't exist
          >Gods
          Disregarding the oxymoron, again, there is no justification or reason why something doesn't exist.
          But do I claim that they don't exist? I could say that I don't know but I believe that they don't exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I could say that I don't know but I believe that they don't exist.
            That's atheism. That's all it is, champ. You can cherry pick some annoying fedora tipping college brats from reddit for rebuttal if you like, but I promise the silent majority of atheists are literally just people who don't believe any God the same way you probably don't believe in Loki.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's atheism. That's all it is, champ.
            No, that's not atheism. Atheism is more like this:

            Prove all the Gods you don't believe in don't exist, then we can use that logic to disprove yours.

            There are thousands of religions in recorded human history. Anybody that subscribes to one religion, is a non-believer of all the others.
            Atheists just add 1 to that list

            The simplest solution, that is consistent with all the facts, is that there are no gods

            That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If you're asserting something (i.e. my God exists), you should be the one bringing proof.
            If you can't prove that your god exists then we can reject it without proof. If no religion can prove that its god exists, then it's safe to say there are no gods.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So literally what I just described? It's wild the lack of self awareness from people such as you who paint atheists as edgelords who go around looking to stir shit when this thread and every argument in it was started by a theist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's wild the lack of self awareness
            It really is, innit, binbird?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That so? Would you mind the question though?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >makes assertion
          >asked to prove it
          >immediately tries to reverse the burden of proof

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If you're asserting something (i.e. my God exists), you should be the one bringing proof.
        If you can't prove that your god exists then we can reject it without proof. If no religion can prove that its god exists, then it's safe to say there are no gods.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
          That doesn't prove his assertion. Try again.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But YOU (religious people) were the ones who asserted that "God" exists in the first place. That's the original assertion.
            Just like OP

            >invent new character and pretend it's real
            "um I don't think your character is real"
            >so you're an acharacterist then?
            "I guess so?"
            >HA! you can't be an acharacterist since that word implies you believe in the contrary of the thing you lack believe in.
            "look bro I just don't think your character is real"
            >noooo I just played with semantics so you have to believe it's real

            you're playing with semantics to avoid having to prove your original assertion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's the original assertion.
            No, here's the original assertion:
            >The simplest solution, that is consistent with all the facts, is that there are no gods
            Try again.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The entire concept of "God" was invented by religious folks. Religion claiming that God exists is the original assertion, not our reaction to it ("there are no gods"). Why should we have to prove that the thing YOU invented doesn't exist?

            The original assertion is already proven but it's irrelevant to the question.

            Where's the proof then?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there are no gods
            Proof?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            We don't have to bring any proof since it's not the original assertion but the dismissal of it. Until you can prove that your god exists, we can safely reject it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We don't have to bring any proof since it's not the original assertion
            These people are moronic. And then they wonder why no one wants to associate with the "atheist" label, even if they don't believe in any god.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You: god exists
            Me: proof??
            You: Your moronic

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's gypsie, that's all. Be aware or he'll try to get his mother to read the cards

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            KEK throw some chicken bones around the living room while her kids steal the israeliteelry

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Until you can prove that your god exists
            >Until
            That presupposes that God hasn't been proven.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Where's the proof then?

            Oh well let's get to proving the existence of God.

            Choice Maker:

            The impossibility of following atheism to its logical conclusion.

            Either the universe came from nothing or it is eternal, always existed in some form.
            The former is immediately discarded as an impossibility.

            If the beginning of the universe happened just because it could, or because it had to, it would have happened before it did, a second earlier for instance.
            As it had an infinity of before where all potential of random chance or function had been maxed out.
            Because there is no such thing as not enough time for the event to happen yet with an infinite past.
            But it's impossible for something to happen before it did, or without a before it did.

            >What if the universe is in an cyclical eternal loop without a beginning?
            It's impossible to get anywhere without a starting point, a beginning.
            Progress without a beginning is impossible. Progress, which is the phenomenon of an event or situation leading to another.

            >What about God's beginning? Special pleading.
            >God can't have an infinite past cause he too would have had to create the universe before he did.
            Not only does that presupposes he is undergoing a progression of some kind (is he aging?) but also that he solely had to operate by random chance or function.
            We don't know the workings of God. Possible that its by choice which is under binding by a being who is eternal, aka God.

            So a universe where all events are determined as they are a byproduct of random chance or function with an infinite past leads to the aforementioned paradox of the order of events in it.

            These two impossibilities can be avoided if the universe had a finite past which is only possible with God.
            So there is God, a possibility where the contrary, no God, is impossible.
            By the law of excluded middle, the universe is created by God.

            >Why is X impossible? Prove it.
            Because it is proven by the non-existence of a possibility for X.
            Same way a possibility to undo the past does not exist, so it's impossible to undo the past.

            >You're saying that it's impossible because it's not possible.
            Saying "it's not possible" already presupposes the existence of said possibility.
            That is to say, besides the self-refuting possibilities of the beginning of the universe being by random chance or function, the only other possibility which exist is by God.

            >No evidence/proof. Demonstrate.
            The beginning of the universe is the evidence/proof of God, demonstrated by the universe beginning to exist.

            >What if the universe "began to exist" by means of quantum mechanics?
            That would just be the universe changing form from one to another, so it's just begging the question.
            Because it still has an infinite past which is solely governed by random chance or function.

            >The universe couldn't have existed before it did, since there was no time.
            Irrelevant as the argument doesn't state that the universe had to exist before it existed but that the beginning of the universe should happen before it did if it had an infinite past without God.

            >What if there was no "before" the beginning of the universe since there was no time?
            There is no such things as a time before time or an event without a before it happened, nonsensical.
            Time is a feature of the universe and the universe is a feature of time. One can't exist without the other.

            >What if the universe is uncaused?
            Again, without God, the beginning of the universe (which is absolute) could still only be by the self-refuting possibilities which is either random chance or function.

            >I don't know whether God exists or not.
            That assumes the existence of the possibility that God does not exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The original assertion is already proven but it's irrelevant to the question.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
          Evidence?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
          you just asserted that this sentence holds any merit or sway on the matter
          but failed to prove it
          I'm therefore dismissing it as a legitimate point in this conversation

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There isn't any, of god that is.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think that guy rq a long time ago. But allow me to speculate on what his response would be ...

          >Proof?

  33. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you lack the belief in something, it absolutely implies you believe the contrary.
    No, it doesn't.

  34. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh well let's get to proving the existence of God.

    Choice Maker:

    The impossibility of following atheism to its logical conclusion.

    Either the universe came from nothing or it is eternal, always existed in some form.
    The former is immediately discarded as an impossibility.

    If the beginning of the universe happened just because it could, or because it had to, it would have happened before it did, a second earlier for instance.
    As it had an infinity of before where all potential of random chance or function had been maxed out.
    Because there is no such thing as not enough time for the event to happen yet with an infinite past.
    But it's impossible for something to happen before it did, or without a before it did.

    >What if the universe is in an cyclical eternal loop without a beginning?
    It's impossible to get anywhere without a starting point, a beginning.
    Progress without a beginning is impossible. Progress, which is the phenomenon of an event or situation leading to another.

    >What about God's beginning? Special pleading.
    >God can't have an infinite past cause he too would have had to create the universe before he did.
    Not only does that presupposes he is undergoing a progression of some kind (is he aging?) but also that he solely had to operate by random chance or function.
    We don't know the workings of God. Possible that its by choice which is under binding by a being who is eternal, aka God.

    So a universe where all events are determined as they are a byproduct of random chance or function with an infinite past leads to the aforementioned paradox of the order of events in it.

    These two impossibilities can be avoided if the universe had a finite past which is only possible with God.
    So there is God, a possibility where the contrary, no God, is impossible.
    By the law of excluded middle, the universe is created by God.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why is X impossible? Prove it.
      Because it is proven by the non-existence of a possibility for X.
      Same way a possibility to undo the past does not exist, so it's impossible to undo the past.

      >You're saying that it's impossible because it's not possible.
      Saying "it's not possible" already presupposes the existence of said possibility.
      That is to say, besides the self-refuting possibilities of the beginning of the universe being by random chance or function, the only other possibility which exist is by God.

      >No evidence/proof. Demonstrate.
      The beginning of the universe is the evidence/proof of God, demonstrated by the universe beginning to exist.

      >What if the universe "began to exist" by means of quantum mechanics?
      That would just be the universe changing form from one to another, so it's just begging the question.
      Because it still has an infinite past which is solely governed by random chance or function.

      >The universe couldn't have existed before it did, since there was no time.
      Irrelevant as the argument doesn't state that the universe had to exist before it existed but that the beginning of the universe should happen before it did if it had an infinite past without God.

      >What if there was no "before" the beginning of the universe since there was no time?
      There is no such things as a time before time or an event without a before it happened, nonsensical.
      Time is a feature of the universe and the universe is a feature of time. One can't exist without the other.

      >What if the universe is uncaused?
      Again, without God, the beginning of the universe (which is absolute) could still only be by the self-refuting possibilities which is either random chance or function.

      >I don't know whether God exists or not.
      That assumes the existence of the possibility that God does not exist.

      Final solution to the Abrahamist question: if God is real, how come israelites?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is the book for you.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >abrahamist book is the book for you
          No, thanks.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Either the universe came from nothing or it is eternal ...

      Garbage in, garbage out. No need to read any further

  35. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is X impossible? Prove it.
    Because it is proven by the non-existence of a possibility for X.
    Same way a possibility to undo the past does not exist, so it's impossible to undo the past.

    >You're saying that it's impossible because it's not possible.
    Saying "it's not possible" already presupposes the existence of said possibility.
    That is to say, besides the self-refuting possibilities of the beginning of the universe being by random chance or function, the only other possibility which exist is by God.

    >No evidence/proof. Demonstrate.
    The beginning of the universe is the evidence/proof of God, demonstrated by the universe beginning to exist.

    >What if the universe "began to exist" by means of quantum mechanics?
    That would just be the universe changing form from one to another, so it's just begging the question.
    Because it still has an infinite past which is solely governed by random chance or function.

    >The universe couldn't have existed before it did, since there was no time.
    Irrelevant as the argument doesn't state that the universe had to exist before it existed but that the beginning of the universe should happen before it did if it had an infinite past without God.

    >What if there was no "before" the beginning of the universe since there was no time?
    There is no such things as a time before time or an event without a before it happened, nonsensical.
    Time is a feature of the universe and the universe is a feature of time. One can't exist without the other.

    >What if the universe is uncaused?
    Again, without God, the beginning of the universe (which is absolute) could still only be by the self-refuting possibilities which is either random chance or function.

    >I don't know whether God exists or not.
    That assumes the existence of the possibility that God does not exist.

  36. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Now I have proven the existence of God but that doesn't mean the proof has to be given first for atheists to try to refute it.
    Even without the proof of God, the burden of proof is still on the atheist to prove that God does not exist.

  37. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder: it's 202x. The only acceptable deity is the State.

  38. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are just setting up a strawman fallacy to self indulge in your personal devotion to your god. You may as well of made a thread with the title "I love God the most and nobody can change that"
    Leave atheist out of it, you are the one being irrational

  39. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >either you're an atheist or an abrahamic israelite worshipper
    >there's no other option
    The power of /misc/'s discourse

  40. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm anti-Semitic.
    >"Um, sweaty, how can you hate israelites when your whole category revolves around them? hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Get owned chud!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't follow in any way. Doo doo head.

  41. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine that someone gives you a lotery ticket. The lotery results will still be announced buy this guy tells you he knows or have evidence this is winning ticket. You can either:
    1. believe his claims based on his testimony or evidence
    2. don't believe him
    Being not convinced that his ticket is the winning ticket is not the same as beliving that the winnining ticket dosen't exist.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Shit analogy. Here's a better analogy for this whole debate:
      >moron #1 uses his crayons to draw a "lottery ticket" and tells moron #2 it's a winning ticket
      >moron #2 googles "smart atheist quotes", says "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", and then asserts lotteries don't exist

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was not trying to make analogy about the discussion surrounding the existence of god. I was just trying to exemplify why lack of believe does not equals believing the contrary.
        #2 googles "smart atheist quotes", says "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", and then asserts lotteries don't exist
        Yeah, some folk do that I suppose

  42. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    One thing I have always found to be off-putting in these arguments is atheists bring up their conviction and satisfaction and what not as if it matters.
    Your opinions don't mean squat princess.
    Is your belief that God does not exist true or not? That's the question.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Is your belief that God does not exist true or not?
      Atheists don't make the claim "God does not exist"

      >Theist : I believe God exists
      >Atheist : I do not share that belief
      That's all atheism is, there is no claim that requires proof. Only the theist requires proof because only the theist is making a claim.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It absolutely does.
        Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that your conviction or satisfaction doesn't sway the argument in anyway. It's a matter of fact.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It absolutely does.
          It does not. It's just a lack of belief. It makes no claims of it's own, it's a completely neutral state.

          A claim of "God does not exist" would require proof.
          But this is not what atheism claims. Atheism is just you have made a claim (that God exists) and I have not been convinced by your claim.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no evidence to support the claim that any god exists. Therefore there is no reason to believe that any god exists.

      Substitute god for Superman, and maybe you'll get closer to enlightenment

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no evidence to support the claim that any god exists. Therefore there is no reason to believe that any god exists.
        Proof?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          This will be interesting: proof of what?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove that "there is no reason to believe X" follows from "there is no evidence to support X".
            Hard mode:
            Same exercise but "no scientific evidence" instead of "no evidence", which is what I assume you really mean.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Assume a supernatural god exists and interacts with the natural world
            That interaction would be detectable
            We have made no such detections
            Therefore the assumption is false

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We have made no such detections
            >Therefore the assumption is false
            Come on, are you actually stupid? That's not valid logic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Feel free to actually counter the argument, instead of resorting to ad hom attacks. I'll wait

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Feel free to actually counter the argument
            A nonsequitur is such a basic notion that if you point someone to their nonsequitur and still they can't see it, they can't reason and you can't help them. I can give a million examples of how something can be "detectable" and yet remain undetected, but if you need my help for that, you're just out of your depth and you need to frick off.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So that'll be a "no" then. Too bad, you could have given me a few more chuckles

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            (You) in the year 1400:
            >Assume radioactive particles exist and interact with the natural world
            >That interaction would be detectable
            >We have made no such detections
            >Therefore the assumption is false
            Seriously, you're a dumb animal and you should stop posting.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As long as he isn't threatening me with eternal damnation if I don't believe him, do what he tells me to do, and give him money then whatever. He can have whatever theories he wants about particles.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're missing the part where people on that level of intelligence get to vote and frick up your life.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's). Also, "Bart's Fart & Shart" doesn't make any sense because the store wasn't called "Feed & Sheed" under Sneed's ownership so stop posting it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is just basic logic, but sure
            God (as in capital G monotheistic God, not any of those power fantasises in the capeshit hollywood), as a creator of the universe, would necessarily by definition and basic b***h logic, originate from outside of the outcome of his toil (material universe)
            there is not now, nor there will ever be a valid measuring tool, capable of encompassing a target such as capital G God, therefore measurements (and also "proofs") are unachievable per the very definition/setting we are operating on

            this is true both in the case of God existing
            as well as in the case universe without God
            so
            your "if he exists, we can catch him in a bottle" premise is faulty and should not be taken into consideration by people above the age of 14

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >would necessarily by definition and basic b***h logic, originate from outside of the outcome of his toil (material universe)

            This origin does not necessitate him being undetectable from within the universe, even if it did you could put literally anything in the same place and argue for its existence. It's not a useful framework of discussion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            define proof then and re-read my post
            it's not about being undetectable
            it's about morons arguing on the internet and about proving something they could not even theoretically create medium of measuring in the first place
            both atheists and OP too itt are moronic

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >DEFINE PROOF XDDDDD
            >bUT HOW will you measure this thing I have defined to be unmeasurable xD lmao lmao roflcopters

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Define "define".

            proof in the scientific method sense would be something that can be reliably reproduced by 3rd parties using the same method
            this LITERALLY does not apply to things originating from outside of the universe
            same with alternative universes if you wish for something secular

            >lmao, define define
            I'm making an actual argument
            this simply does not apply to the God question, please show me that it can, I'm very much open to be corrected, but make grounded from-to chain of logic in doing so
            just lmaoooing on the internet helps with nothing

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >proof in the scientific method sense would be something that can be reliably reproduced by 3rd parties using the same method
            >this LITERALLY does not apply to things originating from outside of the universe
            Says who? Maybe if you figure out how to ask nicely, you'll find an empirically reproducible method to make God reach into the universe and demonstrate his presence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            say I
            either present altering definition of a proof or concede that proofs actually do not exist themselves in the first place

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't your God... like... do stuff? Didn't he do stuff in the past? Why can't he do more stuff?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            your opinion of what constitutes "stuff done by God" holds no sway over others, thats why I asked for your definition of a proof
            are you done goofing of now, or is that the only things you have when pressed on a question?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean he used to do stuff that could be unambiguously interpreted as supernatural, if we are talking about the same God. Making people walk on water, raising people from the dead, splitting the sea in two, etc. If you can get him to do such parlor tricks for me I will be convinced.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care if you are convinced or not
            proof that would convince you and only you is not a proof people are talking itt
            that would be an impression
            are you going to talk more about thanos now or can I have that definition?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just about anyone would be convinced by something fulfilling those criteria, and they are consistent with God's past antics. Am I being unfair somehow?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            maybe in 1century ad
            now they would speculate on where the trick lies
            which is why I'm asking you for the 4th time for your definition of a proof
            but I'm guessing you are just prolonging this useless chain until the thread runs out

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >now they would speculate on where the trick lies
            I'm not such a militant, stubborn atheist. I'm a reasonable man. If God splits the sea again I'll believe and so would most people.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's very cool
            still not an answer on what constitutes a proof though

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I told you what constitutes a proof: a demonstration of a supernatural occurrence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            "I told you what constitutes a proof: a demonstration of a supernatural occurrence."

            I can't believe I missed this gem

            >Demonstrate the cause for demonstrability.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Says the entire scientific community. Please, send more chuckles my way

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this simply does not apply to the God question

            It doesn't apply to literally anything that I define as being "outside the universe" if we accept this premise of argument. I could say "actually, beyond the boundary of the universe there's just a giant slime girl and you get digested if you somehow wound up out there", and it'd be just as likely by your philosophy.
            That's not useful, it's on the same level as doing math and then putting asterisks next to all your answers because you could technically be insane since there's no way for you to use your mind to prove your own mind is sound. We have to make certain assumptions when we communicate.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We have to make certain assumptions when we communicate
            sure, and that assumption was made and accepted as contending theory long time ago
            God theoretically figures as an option in the cause of causality question
            giant slime girl does not
            hence there is at least theoretical reason why he would be located there, and chocolate banana not
            now before you would present slime girl or choko-banana as deities themselves -> that would turn them into God, because as defined in common understanding of terms, slime girl describes a being, banana a fruit, and God as a logos, meaning origin of origins, logic behind logic etc
            it is not believers assertion that there is a logic behind logic, or that causality requires a cause itself, this term is not "stolen" from anywhere
            this was simply the first proposed answer, and is yet still uncontested on these grounds

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that would turn them into God,

            Now you are playing semantic games. You believe in God (capital G) of the Bible, a very specific Christian deity. You are now using "God" as a standin for "anything outside the universe that would have hypothetically created it", which doesn't even have to be sentient.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no I'm not
            I'm presenting capital G God as a monotheistic God
            meaning that at the beginning or at the "outside of time" there could only be one being
            that logically follows as a theoretical answer for the origin of origins
            slime girls does not

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >meaning that at the beginning or at the "outside of time" there could only be one being

            There could be infinite or zero beings “outside of time” you already asserted we cannot know what’s out there because we can’t use things in the universe to measure things outside the universe because reasons. You’re arguing things you don’t believe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            nah
            I'm arguing by elimination of paradoxes
            as in early christian definitions of God - no positive definitions, but negative ones "that which he is not (like finite or created)"
            meaning I can say that causal cause of causation requires something uncased and real - and that this points to God
            and that in case of 2 or more such deities outside of time, they would either have to have the same amount of power over causation - which would make them the same thing (as in they agree on every causal decision) or that one have more power over another, which makes the latter just a limb of the former and it still end in there being only one
            I cannot prove anything and I disagree with the OP in that God can be proven
            I'm simply engaging in dismissing alternative positions negatively, by arguing them into reductio ad absurdum

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >meaning I can say that causal cause of causation requires something uncased and real - and that this points to God

            What you are calling “God” is just an uncaused cause with zero attributes beyond causing. Even if you accepted this premise it can be quite literally anything because it’s “outside the universe” and bound to nothing

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            well it would still need logic/logos/or firmness behind it
            for that causation to be grounded and not changed
            it would also need a reason or agenda for why it acts when it does, why it causes only what it does and why it doesn't when it doesn't

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn’t need any of that. You are forcing rules of the universe onto it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            causation doesn't require logic or consistency behind it? why?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it’s outside the universe? You already defined “outside the universe” as having no rules

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            logic just like causation does not originate from within the universe
            if you wish for more things like that - mathematics do not originate from within the universe as well
            along with causation, all of them share the same source
            this is what monotheism is arguing God is
            or perhaps do you think that logic is an outcome of some processes within the universe? please elaborate, sounds fun

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >logic just like causation does not originate from within the universe
            Proof? We can’t observe beyond the universe remember ;^)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            then you shouldn't ask for proof
            I'm making an argument by contradiction
            what exactly are you making?
            remember, you @me in this chain
            do you even remember what your point was at the beginning of this?

            I told you what constitutes a proof: a demonstration of a supernatural occurrence.

            and I told you already, I'm arguing against existence of proofs reliable enough to do the task, by definition
            you cannot prove logic for example without using logic to do so
            that doesn't means that logic doesn't exist "because it cannot be proven"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            My point is you haven’t given this thing you are calling “God” (very insistent on capital btw) any properties beyond being an uncaused cause. The attempts to give it properties don’t hold up and can’t be supported because you put it beyond physical laws.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            "I told you what constitutes a proof: a demonstration of a supernatural occurrence."

            I can't believe I missed this gem

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            and I told you that I'm not arguing marvel superheroes here, but a monotheistic conception of what God is
            such a conception holds him to be the source of things (those properties very much included) and the solution to the perceived paradoxes of material universe (such as incapability of causation to justify itself in the first place)
            what do you what of me?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > all things must have a cause, thr uncaused cause we call god.
            This is silly and contradictory.
            The best justification for atheism and/or agnosticism depending on how pedantic you want to be about it is the irrational definitions of god theists actually give. It'd be so much easier to just give a Langan CTMU definition of god which basically defines it as the process the universe entails itself instead, but theists always gotta collapse back to their irrationality because for them it's not about the truth, its about the community and traditions. And some of us just don't value those things, sorry.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm a theist, and I care more about the Deity than everything you mention.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. But you don't matter to me at all. So why should I care how much you care about your fictional character as compared to say a fan of thor or whatever?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I'm the type of person that love to stand above people. Basically. I'm your competitor, and you live in the same world as Me.

            You can'r ignore Me, even if you try.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I can. Bye.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Coward. This place is a battlefiend. Stand and Fight!

            ?si=6u1_0RcM4W5YaLDN

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I want you to justify the jump from uncaused cause to a monotheistic omnipotent deity

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The uncaused causer has to be a being because only beings are capable of making choices.
            >Why can't the universe?
            Cause it's a non-being.
            As for why monotheism? It's the default position until more than one has been proven to be necessary.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Causes=/= Choices

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As for why monotheism? It's the default position until more than one has been proven to be necessary.

            Get real. There are plenty of non-religious families raising non-religious children

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm confused
            I did time and time again answer this exact question, from you specifically
            I showcased as the uncaused cause is understood as God by believers
            I proposed that creation-creator relation locates that cause outside of the material universe
            I provided how that is the case only in monotheism
            it would seem that I gave you all the connections already, but you simply keep on repeating the question

            there is no jump between the two
            they are necessarily and until a better theory present itself, the very same thing
            unless you are arguing God as a old man with a beard who throws lightning bolts (polytheist power fantasy) then it should be perfectly understandable

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You aren’t answering the question in any form beyond “well that’s what I believe”
            There is no point to using the cosmological argument if you’re going to resort to that in the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They have no more proof than your brother when he was 6 and said he had a friend that's next to him but no one could see, touch or hear

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never changed the side, there is no proving things that are outside of the universe
            that was my take for the last 30some posts
            my intent was to showcase that logic still exist, unbothered by the idea of "necessity of proof"
            because you cannot prove logic without using logic to uphold your definition
            if being incapable of proving logic without commiting some tautology disproves logic then lol - I would hope that we all would call such person a moron
            similarily - you cannot prove God from within the material universe, and our "incapability" of proving him does not - just like in the previous example - does not somehow showcase or proves that he doesn't exist

            this is all I've been doing in this thread
            and all I've been given for my efforts is you guys and your comments like "but that doesn't prove anything"
            it's like talking to a wall, honestly

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no proving things that are outside of the universe
            So you can’t ascribe any fricking attributes to things outside the universe either, that was my entire point. Not sentience, not power, literally nothing because “outside the universe” is also a total breakdown of physical laws.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            what makes it causation then?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing outside of the universe though.
            You're mixing the universe as a philosophycal concept with the universe of cosmology

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's nothing outside of the universe though
            let me guess
            you don't have to prove it right?
            then I don't have to accept this unsupported assertion

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe outside of cosmology is just everything that has ever existed.
            It is by definition

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            provide that definition

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you playing dumb? Just search for the etymology

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's nothing outside of the universe though.
            >Are you playing dumb? Just search for the etymology

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your point? besides wasting time

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Black person, you just asked me to look up etymology of
            >The universe outside of cosmology
            then asked if I am the one playing dumb or wasting time
            you deserve not one additional reply until you either start making sense or at least become funny

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You just want me to search it for you when it's something at just one search.
            Of course you won't reply further because you couldn't care less to see if that's so

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Define "define".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no need for to reject absurd ideas.
            I can claim that Napoleon made a secret pact with Cthulhu to become emperor qnd that's the reason why he did and by your logic that could have happened

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >uhhh it's just absurd, ok?
            Ok, moron. Thanks for your input.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you prove me wrong gypsie?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove you wrong on what? You're the final authority on whether or not something is "absurd" to you. "It's absurd" is a purely subjective statement. Have fun with that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's nothing subjective that qualities only observed in fictional stories are confined to fantasy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >qualities only observed in fictional stories are confined to fantasy
            Are you talking about your own intelligence?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Go pick junk and frick your cousin

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Go pick junk
            Sure thin. Tell me which junkyard you picked your arguments from because that was some hot garbage.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't even believe in what you say. That's the funniest part, you're just throwing shit to the wall to see if it sticks

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do believe you're a fricking moron. I promise.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's nothing new
            Gypsies believe that everyone who isn't one of them is dumb. You're just mad I won't pay for a reading of cards

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have any empirical evidence that you aren't a fricking moron? Present it in your next post.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've just fricked your mom when you were sleeping and she told me you hit the floor with your head when you were a baby
            Proof I didn't

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your posts make me want to hit the floor with my head. Jesus frick, you are stupid.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just do it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We have made no such detections
            >Therefore the assumption is false

            The jump you have made from having no evidence = no evidence can possibly exist is moronic.
            It's the same logic babies use during peekaboo. I can't see him, therefore he doesn't exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say the evidence couldn't exist, I said no evidence has been found. Big difference

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We have made no such detections
            >Therefore the assumption is false

            Then you can't make the jump to the assumption is false. If evidence could possibly exist then the argument can be true, you just haven't found the evidence (detections) yet.
            Something can still be true even if you can't prove it yet.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're wasting your time with this utter cretin.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If idiots believe in God then it must be a false idea. The truth is incomprehensible to morons.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say evidence couldn't exist, just that it hasn't been found. If it had been found, then the assumption would not be disproven

            >Assume a supernatural god exists and interacts with the natural world
            Ok.
            >That interaction would be detectable
            That's conjecture
            >We have made no such detections
            Who has measured it? With what measure did we attempt these measurements? How would you go about making a god detector?
            >Therefore the assumption is false
            Based on our limited capabilities no such conclusion can be reached.

            Why would it not be detectable?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't claim something is false but also at the same time claim they might find evidence in future that proves its true.
            It's a clear contradiction, are you being purposefully moronic?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I told you. You didn't believe me. Do you just enjoy dunking on mentally disabled people?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't claim it was false. I stated it as an assumption

            The same way I we could assume that there are a finite number of prime numbers, and then disprove that assumption

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't claim it was false.
            Except you literally did

            Assume a supernatural god exists and interacts with the natural world
            That interaction would be detectable
            We have made no such detections
            Therefore the assumption is false

            >Therefore the assumption is false
            You can't claim the assumption is false but also leave the door open for it to possibly be proven true in future. You'd have to be sub 80iq to think thats logically consistent.

            I told you. You didn't believe me. Do you just enjoy dunking on mentally disabled people?

            I'm sorry. You were right all along.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say it wouldn't be detectable. I said that you used conjecture to reach the conclusion that it would be.
            How do you know that we could make something that could detect God? God being undetectable could be something built into the fabric of the universe. So anything made by us within God's creation would be useless at detecting God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't claim it was false.
            Except you literally did

            [...]
            >Therefore the assumption is false
            You can't claim the assumption is false but also leave the door open for it to possibly be proven true in future. You'd have to be sub 80iq to think thats logically consistent.

            [...]
            I'm sorry. You were right all along.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

            Some big words in that article. Let me know which ones are befuddling you. Befuddling means the same as confusing

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I simply said there is no instrument used to measure the existence of God. And that you used conjecture in coming to the conclusion that God is detectable. I asked how you could know if we could make such an instrument and you've responded with a wikipedia article that you haven't read and that doesn't address the questions I presented to you. Furthermore you are now insulting my intelligence. Which is a bit rich coming from a fricking moron. o, get fricked c**t if you can't be civil.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh that's easy. We would use a God-O-Meter. You can find them in your local hardware store

            Or it could be that I said "That interaction would be detectable".

            I'll let you decide

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Assume a supernatural god exists and interacts with the natural world
            Ok.
            >That interaction would be detectable
            That's conjecture
            >We have made no such detections
            Who has measured it? With what measure did we attempt these measurements? How would you go about making a god detector?
            >Therefore the assumption is false
            Based on our limited capabilities no such conclusion can be reached.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            there's no other reason to believe X than evidence of X. 'I was brought up in that belief' is no reason, just the cause.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there's no other reason to believe X than evidence of X
            Proof?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's just an argument by pigheadedness.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          "Logical fallacies" don't exist and your monumentally moronic pic demonstrates it better than anything else I've seen.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You gays really love that fallacy don't you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >logical fallacies don’t exist

            What does this even mean? Disprove the fallacy of circular reasoning right now.
            >I believe that I have infallible knowledge of OP’s sexuality
            >I believe that OP is a homosexual because my knowledge of homosexuals is infallible
            >I believe in my infallibility because I was right that OP is a homosexual

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bad analogy.
            >He is evil.
            Why?
            >Because he hates me.
            Why?
            Because he is evil.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What does this even mean?
            What I mean is that no one is actually committing any of your braindead "fallacies". No one literally makes those false arguments you present. It's usually some kind of defeasible reasoning that you try to shoehorn into that pattern when there is no deduction or syllogism in the first place.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            People commit these moronic fallacies all the time though. There’s a reason they’re so commonly observed and written about. Many people, both normie and intelligent, fall into logical fallacies when defending an idea that they are emotional about.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >People commit these moronic fallacies all the time though.
            Show me. I've never seen it in my life.

  43. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    so when is jesus returning?

  44. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheists believe the statement "there exists no god(s)" to be truth, thus atheism is a belief.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >atheists believe the statement "there exists no god(s)" to be truth, thus atheism is a belief.
      What if I just believe the statement "I don't believe god(s) exist"? That doesn't assert anything about their actual existence or nonexistence.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        let's play with it a little
        >I don't believe that I need to pay taxes
        this technically means that I owe nobody a proof about the necessity of paying taxes
        but effectively this is just an opinion (potentially criminal one too, depending on you.. opinion)

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >but effectively this is just an opinion
          It is an opinion. Any stance is "just an opinion". In may or may not correspond to some objective reality, but in and of itself it's "just an opinion". I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh I almost forgot. God can only not exist as an opinion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the G word
            The G word is "goy".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're right. God is forced on people. Half of the people in churches don't think it's real but they say it's real because they are cucks.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            obviously I was pointing to the fact that just changing the sentence order in regard to the treatment of atheists as claimants does not make them so
            and that it just is another opinion

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just changing the sentence order in regard to the treatment of atheists as claimants does not make them so
            They are obviously "claimants" one way or another, but unless you are talking about autistic fedoras trying to "prove" something, they are merely laying claim to their right to remain unconvinced.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        then you're being a fence-dancing homosexual

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What fence? I don't stand near any of you, let alone being sandwiched somewhere inbetween.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fine. Go to hell, homosexual.
            I don't know why supposedly righteous people bother with people like you.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to be obsessed with hell and homosexuals and "rightenousness". Are you a homo? Be honest.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you're not arguing for the existence of a God (or Unicorns, or anything else), then you are necessarily arguing for the non-existence of such a thing, because we live in a world where a thing either exists or does not.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're not arguing for the existence of a God (or Unicorns, or anything else), then you are necessarily arguing for the non-existence of such a thing, because we live in a world where a thing either exists or does not.
            Wrong. The question of whether or not a thing exists is separate from the question of whether or not you have a rational justification for believing in it which is a separate question from whether or not you should believe in it.

  45. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Agnosticism refers to knowledge. If you don't have knowledge of something you are faced with a choice: Do I believe this thing based on the knowledge I have or not?
    >Yes I believe it=Theist
    >No I don't believe it=Atheist

    It's that simple.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Agnosticism refers to knowledge. If you don't have knowledge of something you are faced with a choice: Do I believe this thing based on the knowledge I have or not?
      I disagree. the question is: how likely I think the existence of this thing is? and then come the limitations of language and informality of discussion venue, both forcing and allowing you to round those degrees of certainty into something more clean-cut.

  46. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I used to wonder the same but then I always think "what if..."
    What if (some, surely not all) atheists end up being atheists because they worked out the problem of evil with a clear and definite answer "god must be evil".
    Now, it is of course demoralizing and very difficult to adopt the philosophy that you live as a prisoner of an interdimensional tyrant in hiding. So that's something hardly anyone would choose as the core of their belief system.
    >inb4 gnostics who built a whole complex religion around this
    But if they also believe in manifesting reality with your beliefs, they can simply choose not to believe in such a shitty god. Thus making it so he can not exist and impose his tyranny.
    If any atheist actually ended up being an atheist like this, I'd find that actually highly respectable.

  47. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How did this moronic word salad spawn a 200 reply thread?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's like a piece of surrealist art that you can project whatever you want on and then argue against it. lol

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's like 7 people going back and forth.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >7 people
        >being this new

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You have 54 posts on this thread. You're one of the 7.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are 55 posters ITT. I'm just the best one.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow you have a lot of time to count every poster here.

  48. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dislike the term atheist. It implies that I lack something, that I lack theism.

    Words that start with a- and an- aren't positive words. There are a million of them in the medical field and they are negative words.

    Christians control our language, they used to be like 99% of the population in America, so they made atheist a slur. It's like a Muslim calling you an infidel.

    The term for an atheist should be "normal" instead. Because everyone is an atheist when they are born. You're not born believing in fake imaginary gods. That's something that someone else has to teach to you.

  49. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    My definition of atheism has changed. Kind of like worms are asexual, but still reproduce.

    I don’t believe in a “god” because I would never worship something that created another creature only to have them worship them, that’s pathetic. Your god is a neckbeard with a waifu pillow

    Therefore there can only be one mind, if you create something lesser it is a robot, if you create something equal it is you

    So I’m an atheist because I believe “a” god, as in I am god, and so are you, but you also must admit that your human form is nothing of consequence and everyone you love is a figment of your imagination

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I am god, and so are you
      Nah. God is God.

  50. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you believe Sherlok Holmes is alive or do yu believe he's dead?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't believe he exists to begin with.

  51. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm fine with the definition of atheism being a lacl of belief in God, a passive claim, whatever. But eventually you have to choose, and make an active claim, or you're like a child. One or the other. God or no God

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But eventually you have to choose, and make an active claim, or you're like a child. One or the other. God or no God
      Uh, why? Can't I just maintain my natural indifference towards people's irrational beliefs?

  52. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's also this fallacy that atheists often use a lot.
    I call it the Xtra fallacy.

    X-tra Fallacy.

    It's the most popular atheist argument where you attempt to disprove the truth of something by just asserting that it's the said something of the gaps.
    An argument where you parody the opposition's conclusion by adding or multiplying and slabbing on some extra attributes, characteristics or elements which you haven't proven necessary.
    The irony lays behind the reason for the argument which is that "it can be used to prove anything" when it can be used to disprove the truth of anything in any discussion.

    Example:
    A: So the roman centurion must have killed the spies on the ground from the watchtower.
    B: You just proved McMillan TAC-50 existed then.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This includes loaded questions like "Which god?" which presupposes that there has to be more than necessary.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I call it the Xtra fallacy.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I deserve the right to be smug if you're supposed to be smart.

  53. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick you, homoBlack person, and your sophistry.
    Everything I see around me is proof that god isn't real or doesn't care.
    For every miracle cancer patient god saves he kills 1000 Black person children.
    Wait what? God is BASED????

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Everything I see around me is proof that god isn't real or doesn't care.
      So it seems. lol

  54. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  55. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you lack the belief in something, it absolutely implies you believe the contrary.
    No, it doesn't. It means you believe in something else, not necessarily the "contrary."

  56. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think there are some theist who still think this is a strawman.
    It isn't.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      *strawman of atheism.

  57. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheists are as stupid as israelites, christians, and muslims.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      In the beginning, the universe was a cold place. Nothing existed, and there was no motion. Indeed, there was no thing existing that could move. Without this motion the universe was a very cold place.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        From this extremely empty void came an ethereal being that feeds on space. And in it's defecation came the planets, stars, and moons.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          And on these rocks and stars were new beings born. And they ate the material of their host.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe is a self-eating machine. Where there is a source of sustenance, creatures will spring forth to feed.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          If he feeds and seeds he's Sneed

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is the truth that the Ays have told. They are a race of beings who survive on noble gases, one of which is Helium. They have a stench of sulphur.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            One of the most important things to know about the Ays is that they can manifest their bodies anywhere. You think you are sleeping alone in your bed, safe and unseen. You have no privacy. They have collected information on every human. Their surveillance is far superior to the likes of China, North Korea, or NATO.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can only control your life to the extent that they let you. There are prizes here on Earth. And no human can dare to interfere with Aye's collecting of the reward.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Today an Aye flew over your house, in the gleaming concoction of rare metals. Their alchemy is science born on the Stars of their binary solar system.

  58. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >t./b/

  59. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >t.me

  60. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Because there is no such thing as, "I don't believe you are alive and I don't believe you are dead".
    There is a third alternative.

  61. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing makes sense. Cope

  62. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The supernatural is not real because it cannot be demonstrated naturally.

  63. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The abortive logic of christBlack folk.

  64. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Note, not one atheist has answered the atheist question.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you're trying to get people to hate your religion, this is how you do it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Here's a few list of your atheist talking points I eviscerated.
        I murdered your flying sphagetti pet, debunked your supposed lack of belief and exposed your homosexual belief (it's a cult), shattered your favorite little teapot, and crashed your God larping party.

  65. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can tell that the atheists understands my points from their butthurt but I'm afraid my points aren't widely understood among the theists.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do jannies give memeflags a free pass? Why haven't you been banned yet?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oyish: Become Jannie.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The opposite would be antisemitic

  66. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism just means you don't subscribe to any religion and don't think there's a god or gods. Not sure why that's so complicated for you.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't answer the question doe.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do you believe Superman exists?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          No.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What about space aliens?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The history channel ones?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Basically, no.

  67. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I believe there could be a God, perhaps many. I simply don't think you're desert foreskin God is THE God and I don't think you can convince me

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Talking down to other people deity is how you start a WAR.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not even talking down (yet) and Christians don't scare me. Especially not internet ones

  68. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It can't be revsrse as a joke, anon. If I have absolute Power, I will execute you.

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