I've been using the internet since 13, I was a Christian who went to church on sundays and helped the poor. Then I found yahoo answers, and all these atheists attacked me for being Christian, that hurt my feelings a lot and made me non-Christian. I stopped going to church and helping the poor and I that was when I became rebellious against my parents, got into trouble and my grades got bad. To this day I still am getting debunked brutally, I want to debunk them hard for ruining my life but it's usually them who win. I don't think atheism is correct but they are too intelligent for me to argue with, most of the people who are Christian are stupid, I admit it because I see them in action. I wish 4chan could raid some atheist site and shit on them but I know 4chan is mostly atheist.
>>17067636
>There will be someone who won't understand that this is bait
But you did get a laugh out of me OP
>>17067639
No, this is how my life really went from 13-19.
>>17067636
>. I wish 4chan could raid some atheist site and shit on them but I know 4chan is mostly atheist.
not even an athiest but doesent shit like this oppose the philosophy of christianity? i thought you where meant to be turn the other cheek as its the intent of your god to punish and judge people, not you. sounds like you have unresolved shame anyway. you should read some christian philosphers if you want to create a good argument. i have never met an intelligent christian anyway, so good luck.
>>17067660
I have no beliefs anymore. So I have no reason not to thrash a group I don't like.
Atheism and Christianism are both faiths, i.e without proof. The first believes there is no god while the other believes there is one particular god. You can't argue rationally on something this arbitrary.
If you've had some eye opening experience, some point where you felt like the holy was speaking to you, that's all the justification you need.
You can also argue it's better to believe in something that gives your life purpose and values rather than, literally, nothing.
If there is an argument regarding the clergy and the scriptures though, that's a different and more nuanced problem.
I'm agnostic btw
>>17067722
Atheism is "lack" of belief in a god, which means its not faith, you dumb fuck
Its like saying you dont believe in the existance of unicorns and therefore you have "faith" in that belief.
>>17067740
weird. i was going to send a reply exactly like this, except i wouldent of called him a dumb fuck.
>>17067747
sry, my NJ slipped out
>>17067740
"a" privative prefix, "theos" god. Atheism: absence of god. We can argue semantics as much as you'd like but saying there is no god is a mn absolutes statement without proof.
When you look at some things you can think the existence of a god is extremely unlikely but you can't state an absolute.
Unicorns are a bad example, just because you have never seen it doesn't mean you can totally rule or the possibility of, one day finding one.
Unlikely doesn't mean impossible.
>>17067771
You dont need "proof" to debunk the claim, thats not how it works. The one who makes the claim has to provide proof, therefore eventhough "god not existing" may be a statement, its not one which would need evidence to back it up.
Same with the unicorn example, the ones who claim one's existence (is it a being or a crime or whatnot)) have the burden of proof
>Unicorns are a bad example
Why? God or unicorn, its about something which's existence can only be read in books but not proven at any given point and therefore quite a fitting example
>>17067796
You're right, the burden of proof rests on the defendant (or something) but in the case of atheism and christianism (or any other religion) both sides are claimants. Christians claim their version of god exist (of which the is no proof) and atheists claim there is no god (of which there is no proof).
Both sides are, the way I see it, claiming an absolute truth without proof. Only those who lack knowledge, "a-gnos", don't have to bring proof because they have no belief.
>>17067771
'a' means 'without', 'absence of' or 'not'.
'theisim' means belief in a God. 'Theist' means a believer in God.
So 'a''theisim' is 'absence of' a 'belief in god'. And 'a''theist' is 'not''a believer I'm god's.
Atheism isn't an absolute position. It's just not being a theist. If you don't believe a claim that some on makes that doesn't mean you automatically must believe the opposite must be true.
Why do you need to argue with people and why aren't you holding yourself accountable for your actions? Don't debate people at all and go back to doing what you loved.
Quit being narcissistic and focus on doing good and being Christlike
>>17067835
I see she where we have a discrepancy. I'm considering three categories of people: Theist (someone who believes in god), Atheist (someone who believes there is no god) and Agnostic (someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not).
You on the other hand use two categories: Theist (someone who believes in a god) and Atheist (everybody else).
We are arguing other the wakes of a house but we don't have common ground.
As for which distinction is correct, I don't know though I would argue for yours since my first language isn't English (my distinction is the canonical one in French I think). If that's the case, how would you call someone who believes in the inexistence of god?
Etymology really is a source of clusterfuck
epic bait for literally
>There's no proof god doesnt exist
gotem
>>17067841
>dont have an exchange with people whatsoever if you dont gain anything from it
?
Wouldnt educating people be defined as "doing good"? Is "doing good" really necessary at all?
Also, doing good and being christlike kinda contradicts itself for most people aswell
Why not Allah-like? Buddhalike? Or just being a normal person who does no harm to others and helps those in need?
And why are ironically quite a few people who follow that Christ the opposite of good?
So many questions
Atheism relies on circular logic if you believe there is also order in the universe.
Religion more or less states that there is a divine that is outside the realm of the universe that dictates uniformity across cause and effect.
Basically because of the divine we have uniformity in the universe, because we have uniformity in the universe cause and effect is real.
Without having god In this process(aka something that goes outside the realm of the universe or something divine) this becomes circular logic. How do you prove that there is uniformity in the universe without god? Through cause and effect. How do you prove cause and effect withou god? By having uniformity In the universe.
It's called the problem of induction. It doesn't prove god exists but it shows that all knowledge isn't certain.
>>17067881
>how would you call someone who believes in the inexistence of god?
In that case he'd be an atheist aswell, since it fits the "lack of belief in god"
Also, i'd say there are 3 areas of these terms, Agnosticism being in the grey area inbetween Theism and Atheism, its kind of a "i dont know" area
>>17067896
>>>17067841 (You)
>>dont have an exchange with people whatsoever if you dont gain anything from it
>?
No its more like DON'T ACTIVELY BE CONFRONTATIONAL with people who aren't interested in converting
>Wouldnt educating people be defined as "doing good"? Is "doing good" really necessary at all?
Being polite of others disbelief is doing good. You can offer if they want to hear and fuck off if they don't. Doing good isn't necessary but its a core belief of Christianity, which op said he adheres to. I'm telling him, as a fellow Christian, that he would be putting his energy to better use doing other things.
>Also, doing good and being christlike kinda contradicts itself for most people aswell
How?
>Why not Allah-like? Buddhalike? Or just being a normal person who does no harm to others and helps those in need?
Because he's a Christian and believes in Christ.
>And why are ironically quite a few people who follow that Christ the opposite of good?
Proof? Or are you basing that off cranky old people rather than missionaries, donation rallies, food banks, etc...
>>17067917
>>17067881
Someone who claims that no God exist would be an anti-theisit.
Agnosticism isn't a middle ground, it's actually a different thing entirely. Theism deals with belief and gnosticism deals with knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist, doesn't know if there is a God and doesn't believe, or a agnostic theist, doesn't know if there is a God but does believe that one exists.
For all intensive purposes, there is no god
>>17067636
>Internet Atheists
>Smart
I've gone through the same thing as you, but I still kept my faith. You could too if you wanted. All most Internet atheists do is pose impossible questions and feel self-validated when theists can't answer them.
Even the impossible questions can be answered to an extent though. Just scroll through the index of Summa Theologica. Mixed in there, it has a good answer to about every atheist claim I've heard.
http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas-Summa%20Theologica.pdf
>>17067947
anti-theist* stupid autocorrect.
God is real, well I'm replying aren't I ? So listen up if you want to prove my existence all you have to do is pray for stuff, like when you ger sick, instead of going to those silly doctors that think they're Me (God, call me Huey) pray to me (Huey) and I'll make you well. Break a leg can fix 24 hours... Anyway just pray instead of doing something real.
The only problem I have with god is hell. But I'm not an atheist, I think their arguments are childish. Anyone who tries to understand everything is going to come to a wrong conclusion.
>>17067953
>intensive purposes
intents and purposes
Look, at the end of the day, if you are Christian, two beliefs you have can be rock solid and never unproven: A/ That a God exists, and B/ that Jesus was the son of this God. That's it. The doctrine and the Bible can all be torn apart but you can never disprove the existence of a God and by extension Jesus. Just take that and move on.
Live your life with your relationship with your God without needing to validate and prove it to others. Just don't start telling them what they should be doing. Ignore the atheists, they don't have the faith you do.
>>17067636
We're just clever animals. There's no punishment for masturbating when you die, there's no reward for being a good person except for the feeling you get doing whatever you want and making your own morals.
Believers = Beliebers. Both worship an unreal idiot created by humans.
>>17067771
You could literally assassinate the Pope, God's right hand man or whatever, and nobody would be smited. Hitler abolished millions of God's devoted follewers and what happened? Nothing. He isn't there and if he is, he gives no fucks.
>>17067771
You can't prove a negative jerkass, the burden of proof is the one making the positive claim that God does exist.
So yes there's no proof God doesn't exist, just an entire universe of supporting evidence.
>>17067722
Atheism is a faith the same way 'not skiing' is a hobby.
>God doesn't exist
>WOW YOU CAN'T KNOW
>a pile of cash isn't going to fall out of the sky on me today
>WOW YOU CAN'T KNOW
Yes it's a matter of faith in believing an incredibly unlikely occurrence won't happen, we have faith in some way over just about everything that is or occurs, and it's completely not worth bringing it up over something relatively more likely of not being or not happening, like the existence of a God that has never unambiguously appeared in the history of the world ever.
Hope this helps illustrate to the obstinate autists that just can let go how utterly asinine their conniption fit over atheism is (yes I get the irony there).
The next time someone mentions being an atheist, please do every person in earshot a huge favor and stifle that "AKSHYULLY".
>>17067636
Uh... you know you can still help the poor as an atheist, right? It's not an exclusively Christian thing. Actually the fact that you stopped helping the poor just because you lost your faith is pretty disgusting, showing that all these "good Christian" charity things that Christians do aren't out of the goodness of their heart but rather done to look good in front of Jesus. It's very insincere.
>>17067906
Well duh. Atheism/agnosticism (Same thing as far as I'm concerned) involves disbelief in religion itself. This has nothing to do with induction or circular logic. We don't pretend to know everything about the universe at all - we just don't think there's a very high chance at all that a very old book chock full of contradictions and irrational thought is actually true just because a lot of people want it to be true.
You seem to be suffering from a good case of cognitive dissonance if you're literally ceasing your moral behaviour because some people mocked your religion. Just keep to yourself and your own beliefs and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. I'm a Christian myself and have seen the same things you have. I know what that discouragement feels like. The main problem is the battle of the mind. Don't let their arguments and mockery shatter your confidence in your beliefs. You're letting other people decide your personal morals and ethics for you. Have confidence in your own beliefs.
Study and pursue your religion for the right reasons. I recommend reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. He's pretty much gone through something similar to you, going to atheism and back and all. I found it to be an inspiring read.
>>17067796
>You dont need "proof" to debunk the claim, thats not how it works. The one who makes the claim has to provide proof
Maybe in the extremely lazy intellectual system the west currently accepts. Traditionally it has been the duty of anyone able to do so to prove or disprove claims simply for the purpose of getting to the truth.
>therefore eventhough "god not existing" may be a statement, its not one which would need evidence to back it up.
This is just retarded. Every statement or claim requires proof.
>Why?
Because a horse in possession of a horn, something which is illogical when thought of in the context of natural selection and would be able to have some evidence in the fossil record or in live specimens is completely different from infinity itself and the source and embodiment of existence. Even ignoring the completely separate natures of the two, one can be easily confirmed or denied on the micro, observable scale on which humans live and the other cannot. These arguments always come from those who haven't studied philosophy or theology and have no desire to discuss any actual view of God held by the large monotheistic religions.
>>17069488
It seems like he's talking about Occam's Razor and/or Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. They're not replacements for proof, they're just for practical purposes.
>>17067660
>turn the other cheek
This is sorely misunderstood in the west. In context of first century Jewish culture, it was advice to find a way to resist enemies without playing to their strengths.
>>17067957
Merely have a reply to an argument doesn't mean that reply has any argumentative force to it. If you believe in something that has no physical evidence whatsoever there is nothing meaningful to be said about it, it's as valid or invalid as any other invented intangible thing.
>>17068939
This.
>>17067636
There is a lot of christianity on 4chan, especially on /adv/ and even /soc/.
That being said, this is b8
>>17069727
Yup. Def
>>17069742
~75% of people in the US are Christian and many 4chan posters are US folks so it's not surprising. Isn't it weird how when people find the one true god it's so often whatever god is most popular in their region.
So uh my dad goes to church and makes me come along (prespeterian flavored) I'm not Christian but I don't mind going along but starting to have an issue with randoms at church coming up and asking us I've we're saved and trying to get us to be members... wtf leave me alone fuck.
