Reminder that being an atheist requires the same amount of faith as being a Christian.
>>719798
Do you have any evidence for that
>what is the burden of proof
>>719798
Agnosticism is the best desu
You can choose to believe or not believe, but you don't claim to know
I disagree and invite you to convince me why I should consider the opinion you've just proposed.
>>719822
It does. Is just that chose to claim that it does not cause you are hungry about people liking what you dont like.
>>719822
>Saying that you know for a fact that God doesn't exist requires proof
Which isn't atheism
A lack of belief =! belief in a lack
>>719822
The existence of god is the initial proposition that requires defense.
>>719822
Bait accepted. Gods existence is what requires proving. Nobody needs to prove nothing exists.
>>719822
>you know for a fact
No one claims this. Atheists are atheists because they see no reason to be theists
doesnt require any faith at all
literally the definition
>>719846
>stance
My stance is the neutral. I think you'll find more lively discussion on /pol/.
>>719846
Point proven.
Christ is a meme.
>>719859
this
Must we have this thread everyday?
Weak atheism>doubts the existence of god(lack of faith)
Strong atheism>believes that god doesn't exist(requires faith)
I am not sure if that is really true, but I think of it that way.
>>719879
You're just confused, that's just agnostic atheism(does not know shit) and gnostic atheism(knows for a fact).
>>719798
That's like saying that not believing in invisible and all-powerful dragons require the same amount of faith as not believing in them.
pretty stupid desu senpai
>>719879
>requires faith
Why does it require faith. Someone somewhere. Probably in a cave, characterized wind and water where there was none at some point.
Some Jews (after the Egyptian dude that tried and failed) decided they would be polytheists anymore and become monotheists, then began writing some fan fiction.
These are primers that lead into faith. You don't need faith to deny these stories.
Well if we apply that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" you can't prove the non-existence of something, hence you BELIEVE in it. It does require faith IMO, I am talking about my perspective tho, it doesn't mean you ain't right.
>>719914
absence evidence evidence absence existance believe
what
Humanities was a mistake.
>>719963
Why is religion supposed to be "humanities"?
It studies human belief
Faith isn't inherently bad, it's what you do with it.
1. Church is boring.
2. Christians have to go to church.
Atheists -600
Christians -800
>>719798
Reminder that not believing in unicorns requires the same amount of faith as believing in unicorns.
>>719914
Except that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
>>719798
Not even close to the same amount.
It arguably requires the same amount of faith to say that god conclusively does not exist as it does that some form of vaguely defined god does exist at which point you're basically arguing that "god == the universe".
To say that god probably doesn't exist and it doesn't matter either way since no one can prove that god exists takes no leaps at all.
To be a Christian requires far more leaps of faith than that since you're relying on multiple contradictory iterations of scripture - written, compiled and edited by man - to be correct in their many assertions sans proof.
>>719798
Personal gods make less sense than a simple impersonal ground of being, so I'd have to say you're wrong
Except that you are not really right here. Saying that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence is illogical, and I am not speaking out of my ass, you can check that.
>>719997
Well the assertion that it means that you "BELIEVE" in it is also wrong.
What I said is technically wrong. You could just be viewing a sample size completely devoid of evidence for a true hypothesis but let me finish:
In science you can't conclusively prove a negative claim (Unless the opposition concedes), the required work would be ludicrous.
An infinite amount of tests run on a sample infinitely large.
So without a logical reason to expect something to exist or testable attributes that something possesses, failure to locate evidence for it is generally considered as relatively good evidence against the positive claim.
>>719798
theist = belief there is/are god/gods
atheist = nuffin
anti-theist = belief there is/are no god/gods
atheism doesn't require faith or belief
the lack of belief in the existence of a god is not the same as the belief that there isn't a god
>>719798
Claiming anything requires belief. Skepticism and chill?
I agree with you, but I am technically speaking. There is no logical reason to prove the non-existence of God. But technically it is impossible to disprove his existence. I don't think believe is wrong, because as I said before - gnostic theism can't prove gods non-existence but still claim that they don't exist. In this case you are left only with faith (Faith - confidence or trust in person or thing - Wikipedia)
>>720026
What word do you use to describe a lack of belief in Norse deities, and is this the same word as you use to describe a lack of belief in the Christian God? What word do you use to describe a lack of belief in the soul? Or unicorns? Or rebirth?
As an atheist, you are proposing some kind of worldview in which there is no god. That is a claim in itself. You are saying that this type of worldview is more likely than alternative ones.
>>719991
>it doesn't matter either way since no one can prove that god exists takes no leaps at all.
You're thinking of agnosticism - the belief that knowledge of the divine is unattainable.
>>719989
Unicorns are detectable.
>>719891
Dragons are detactable.
>>719885
>agnostic atheism
>gnostic atheism
Neither of these exist, by definition. Gnosticism is an ancient set of beliefs about God, the Demurge and the material universe. It's not a suffix that you can tack on to quantify something else. Likewise, agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of the divine is unattainable. It is not possible to disbelieve in the divine while also being an agnostic.
>>720082
>As an atheist, you are proposing some kind of worldview in which there is no god.
The existence of a god is the initial claim, the non-existence of the unseen, unfelt, and unheard is default.
>>720044
> There is no logical reason to prove the non-existence of God
There IS a logical reason. It is the burden of proof. If you state that God doesn't exist then you must be one who prove this statement. Of course there is your believe where you can just don't believe in God because of supposed lack of evidences, etc.
>>720082
> What word do you use to describe a lack of belief in the soul? Or unicorns? Or rebirth?
Physicalism for example. You can invent your own words for every kind of denial. I can't see how lack of terms is matters here. If you don't believe in God then you are atheist by definition. End of the story.
>>720092
Yes there is, you are right. I didn't really meant that tho.
You're a fucking faggot OP with that picture. Let guess, you're a butthurt chink?
>>720082
> Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of the divine is unattainable
Wrong. Agnostics in general doesn't believe that you can reach truth of certain statements. There exists agnosticism that deny truth of all kinds of statements even scientific.
>>720110
> Burden of proof rests on the one making the positive claim.
> that is what atheists really believe
Look. If I say that holocaust never happened then I should back up this claim not hide behind made up logic how such kind of a claim is negative one.
>>720120
The burden of proof is still on the Holocaust believers. It's just that we have so much proof for the Holocaust that it's not even worth questioning.
First, being an atheist requires no faith. Theists claim there is a god, atheists make no such claim.
Regarding the picture, the U.S. atomic arsenal was empty after the second bomb was dropped on Japan.
Read a book every once in a while for chrissakes.
>>720120
If you've never seen anything nor read anything about the holocaust and think it's retarded, then yea, you should deny it until someone can prove to you it happen.
But this isn't really a problem considering the overwhelming evidence of the holocaust happening.
>>720082
>As an atheist, you are proposing some kind of worldview in which there is no god
nah, that's anti-theism
that's what i have learned
but these words are not agreed on by everyone
you might think atheists believe there is no god, i disagree because i have a different definition of atheism
agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism have also been mentioned in this thread to describe what i would call atheism and anti-theism
try to understand the difference between the two terms
Reminder that not believing in Santa Claus requires the same amount of faith as believing in Santa Claus.
>>719798
It doesn't take any faith to not believe in things without evidence.
>>719798
I would argue that it takes far more faith to be an atheist; to believe the universe came from a small ball of matter the size of a pin head, to believe that life came from that pin head exploding for some reason, and that we developed from an amoeba.
Far, far more faith is required to believe that rubbish, than to believe "God did it".
>>720165
Atheism is the belief there is no God.
Anti-theism is a hatred towards God.
Most atheists are ironically also anti-theists.
>>719798
>Dislikes anime
>Valid argument
>>720564
The definition of faith is the ability to believe things you have not seen. So yes, it precisely requires faith to believe in something you cannot see.
>>720580
I wonder what that implies about the invisible black man that cucks you. That's totally real, I swear.
>>720587
You are talking to me based on your faith that I exist, although you have never seen me.
Faith is not a religious term. It's a human ability.
For all you know, I'm Cleverbot.
>>720598
>For all you know, I'm Cleverbot.
Tell me about your mother.
>>720604
Boys & girls of every age, would you like to see something strange?
>>720580
Yes, and I don't believe in a deity. Not believing in something is not the same as believing in it.
>>720611
>no murder
You're a person and with only one cross reference needed.
>>720623
Do you think that by not believing in God, that God therefore does not exist?
>>720626
I wonder the same thing.
>>720628
Two different claims. I don't know think there's a deity but for now there's no way of knowing. It does however not look like it's the case in the Universe we're in.
>>720638
You say there is no way of knowing whether or not there is a deity.
Does that mean there is no way of knowing whether or not there is a deity?
>>720657
> no way of knowing whether or not there is a deity.
> no way of knowing whether or not there is a deity?
The difference between your first sentence and your second is the question mark.
>>720165
Are you aware that atheism tracks a complicated set of usage rules, and they might now map onto how you use the word? Asterisks to indicate emphasis on the key words below.
Atheism means, depending on who you ask and when:
- The belief that no deity or god *exists*
- The belief that no deity or god *can* exist
- The belief that a particular deity or god *exists*
- The belief that a particular deity or god *can* exist
Whereas antitheism means:
- The categorical opposition *against belief* in any deity or god of any kind
- Informally: The hostile opposition to anyone who believes in a god of any kind
Agnosticism means:
- The view that God's or any deities' existential status is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable
Ignosticism means:
- The question of "God's existence" is meaningless; the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. The entire discussion is inherently without meaning because there is no coherent meaning in the theological, religious, &or spiritual discourse(s).
These terms bleed into one-another and are not set in stone. Because most people don't read philosophical journals and run their arguments over with a fine-toothed comb, concepts like gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, atheist, and antitheist get smeared together. As a rule, unless an atheist explicitly identifies themselves as an antitheist or (a)gnostic-atheist, the fallback assumption is that they do not believe in any god, full-stop. Anon's misconception is that you cannot have hybrid belief systems. You can be a gnostic-atheist if your belief system does not necessarily rely upon a "deity". It would be quite reasonable for a pantheist to claim to be both gnostic and atheistic.
>>720669
Not sure how you're missing the point.
You say there's no way.....
Does that mean that there is no way? Because you say so?
You say you don't believe in God.
Does that mean there is no God, because you say so?
How is it not blatantly obvious that these posts of yours are just ill informed, personally biased opinions?
>>720678
You missed one trick there sport.
There is also baked into atheism the belief that there will NEVER BE sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a God.
That is a forward looking faith based statement based on NOTHING.
>>720680
There's no way currently. That doesn't mean we couldn't know ever.
I personally have nothing to do with whether a deity or multiple deities exist. There might be a an entire inter-universe war going on filled with many deities that we're unaware of.
I have bias for what beyond facts and understanding the truth? Are you blaming me that there's no evidence for a deity? Get out of here with your assertions that you yourself can't back up.
>>720685
I think you need to reread what he said.
see
>As a rule, unless an atheist explicitly identifies themselves as an antitheist or (a)gnostic-atheist, the fallback assumption is that they do not believe in any god, full-stop
Maybe some atheists do believe that there will never be sufficient evidence.
But unless they declare that to be their view, the assumption should be that they simply do not believe in any god.
>>720082
>Unicorns are detectable.
Not for everyone.
You need to believe and be pure of heart to detect them.
>>720723
Don't they only reveal themselves to girls (especially virgins) and virgin male heroes occasionally?
>>720678
S Y N C R E T I S M
Y
N
C
R
T
I
S
M
>>719855
>/pol/
>intelligent conversations
Anon please, my sides can't handle this.
>>720705
Because you say so?
Who are you, again? Are you God?
Do you really think your will shapes reality?
>>720721
They say that based on evidence that there is no eternal God.
Saying that requires infinite knowledge.
So I have a being with infinite knowledge telling me that there is no being with infinite knowledge.
Atheism is not only juvenile, incorrect, and useless, but self-refuting.
>>720723
You need to be pure of heart to see a narwhal? You sure?
>>719838
I don't think this is really the right point.
There are certainly circumstances in which it would be reasonable to expect someone to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, if you get charged with driving a car without a licence, the prosecutor has to prove that you didn't have a licence (which they will easily do by having a police officer say 'I asked him for his licence and he didn't have one'). The burden of proof is on the prosecution, even though you would be the one arguing that something existed.
You could argue that it's unreasonable to put the burden of proof on an atheist who makes no claims at all, but I still think it's missing the point. The question is really one about the standard of proof, rather than the burden of proof.
Religious people sometimes dismiss (positive/strong/gnostic) atheism on the basis that it's impossible to know with absolute certainty that no gods exist. But this assumes that 'absolute certainty' is an appropriate standard of proof. It can be argued that we do not know anything with absolute certainty, except perhaps our own existence (cogito ergo sum), which leads to a path of reasoning which is not only incompatible with religion, but with pretty much every belief anyone holds. Even 'today is Saturday' (or Friday in some time zones) should be rejected as having insufficient proof, because you cannot possibly know it with absolute certainty.
>>720868
In reality we obviously require different standards of proof for different types of claims, depending on the significance of the claim and its inherent (un)likelihood.
In the legal system there is a lower standard of proof for civil cases (where the consequence is generally someone paying money) and a higher standard of proof for criminal cases (where someone's liberty is potentially at stake).
The same logic applies to everyday situations. We constantly form beliefs about the world around us based on which explanation seems the most likely to us, without any regard to whether we have 'absolute proof' for those beliefs. When it's something particularly important, we might seek a higher standard of evidence. For example, if you've booked a restaurant for an important occasion you might call back the day before to confirm. This gives you further evidence for the belief that the booking was correctly recorded by the staff. But you still don't technically know for certain.
On the other hand, where a belief is inherently unlikely, or where our experience shows us that a position is often false, we will reject it with a pretty low standard. So we would require a lot of evidence to show that a magic trick was 'real magic', but it doesn't take much to convince us that it was just a trick. Similarly, if you get an email from a Nigerian prince, it doesn't take much to convince you that it's a scam, because you know that such scams are common.
>>720916
In the case of gods, we're talking about a supernatural claim which is, by definition, inconsistent with the observed nature of reality. Without meaning to be pejorative, it's basically a claim of magic. Generally speaking, such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Further, we know for a fact that many proposed gods do not exist. There are lots of different religions and different conceptions of gods, and many of them contradict one another. So we can be confident that they are often made up (whether intentionally or through an honest misunderstanding).
Based on these factors, it is perfectly reasonable to take the position that gods do not exist based on a very low standard of proof, while a higher standard would be required to show that they do exist.
And in fact even religious people take this position in the majority of cases. A Christian does not have, and does not require, absolute certainty that the Ancient Roman gods do not exist in order to form a belief that they do not.
>>720794
>my personal definition of atheism is not only juvenile, incorrect, and useless, but self-refuting
>>719798
No it requires more than Christian because you have one more god (or 3 in 1- omg that sounds like an instant coffee commercial) in which you don't believe.
>>720940
Causing the blind to see.
Causing the deaf to hear.
Casting out demons.
Walking on water.
Turning water into wine.
Healing lepers.
Healing cripples.
Calming storms.
Feeding 10,000 with a few loaves and fish.
Raising the dead.
Rising from the dead.
That sort of extraordinary evidence?
>>721144
To say there is no God requires infinite knowledge.
How much of the multiverse have you personally searched?
Have you been more than a hundred miles from home, ever?
Who except a fool would say that there is no God?
>>720705
There is, actually, an entire spiritual and invisible war going on between super-intelligent alien beings we call angels.
>>720790
No, because that's the way reality works.
I'm not a deity as we established those things probably don't exist.
No one can will shapes into reality.
>>721209
So then your pronouncement that there is no God is meaningless, represents only your ill informed opinion, and can easily be dismissed.
Got it.
>>721208
> There is, actually, an entire spiritual and invisible war going on between super-intelligent alien beings we call angels.
This war rages on in the science fiction and fantasy section of Barnes and Noble.
>>721198
Give me 2000 years and a bunch of sycophants, and I bet I can beat that.
>>721214
Just as your pronouncement that there is a deity is meaninglessness, ill-formed opinion that can be easily dismissed. Which is why I will continue to live my normal life.
>>721198
Well some of that isn't really extraordinary. Doctors routinely cause the blind to see, for example.
But fundamentally yes, doing physically impossible things would be the sort of evdience you'd need.
It should go without saying, but just having a book that says someone did impossible things is not good evidence of those things happening. And, obviously, there are many thousands of different stories about people coming back from the dead, etc., and you do not believe the vast majority of them.
>>721216
I wouldn't think they would be powerful enough to protect their own territory, no.
What protection to men have from angels?
>>721224
How far along are you so far?
>>721231
The deity's pronouncement that He is the deity is important, not mine.
Jesus said He is God, many times, and then proved it.
Whether I believe it or not, and whether I was born or not.
Go to the source. Read. Read /his/Story.
>>721245
I believe many of them.
I'm talking dead in a cave for four days, and coming back to life.
I'm talking congenital blindness from birth being given perfect sight, 2000 years ago.
Why are the gospels, the eyewitness accounts, false until proven true to you? Without inspection or thought?
>>721446
>the gospels
>the eyewitness accounts
Pick one. Eyewitness account =! account of an oral tradition that was written down several decades after the events took place
In such a scenario, you have extremely good reasons to consider these accounts unreliable
>>719798
>this is what christcucks actually believe
>>719813
Atheism is a lack of belief, not saying that a god doesn't exist. Most 'atheists' are agnostics and all agnostics are atheists.
>>721487
You know when Jesus died, and Judas died, the rest of the apostles lived for like 35-65 more years, yes?
>>721500
Not if words mean things. If words don't mean things, then all theists are deists and all deists are elephants.
>mfw a christcucks world means you can assert that anything exists and people should take you seriously because they can't disprove your nonsense
>>721446
>I'm talking congenital blindness from birth being given perfect sight, 2000 years ago.
Were any of the gospels written by people who knew the blind person from birth? Do any of the gospels contain a record of the person being given an eye test under controlled conditions to confirm that their sight was 'perfect'?
The gospels do not even purport to be eyewitness accounts of those particular facts, yet you state those facts as true. Curious, no?
But that's not really the point. If I tell you now that I was dead for four days and came back to life, you would not believe me. Even though that is a personall account of it happening. And that's just me claiming to have come back from the dead, a much smaller and less extraordinary claim than the existence of an omnipotent god.
>>721527
They were written by eyewitnesses to the miracle, yes. Or in Luke's case, put together what was recorded by eyewitnesses to the miracles.
The gospels absolutely do say they are eyewitness accounts, and they are. Matthew, Peter and John were all disciples, and Luke, well Luke was the most amazing historian of his time.
>>721527
The historian Papias mentions that the Gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the Gospel to Matthew the apostle.5
"Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) continued Papias's views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."
"Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."
"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3)
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
>>721507
Yes, but Paul was the first one to actually write some of these stories down, and henever met Jesus, and he omits several essentials from it. The Gospels is mostly his side of the story, which, by the way, was probably not actually written by the apostles they're named after
>>721538
>The gospels absolutely do say they are eyewitness accounts, and they are.
>the Bible says something is X, and it is
This is Jesus logic in a nutshell
>>721553
Paul's all about the New Covenant, since he never knew Jesus prior to the resurrection.
He met Jesus after the resurrection, and spent years with Him.
That's why Paul knows more about the New Covenant than all of the other disciples combined. But Paul couldn't give an account of the birth, life, death, and burial of Jesus, because he was too busy studying to be super pharisee under Gamaliel at the time.
As to the gospels....>>721545
>>721559
Correct. God said it, I believe it.
>>721538
>They were written by eyewitnesses to the miracle, yes
They did not witness the fact that the person was blind from birth, and they did not witness that the person's eyesight was 'perfect'. That would only be the case if the witness knew the blind person from birth and administered (or witnessed the administration of) an eye test.
They claim to have witnessed a blind person becoming able to see. They would not have known the cause of the blindness, and would not have had any detailed knowledge of how well the person was able to see afterwards. Do you see how that works?
When someone gives an account of something, it is only 'eyewitness evidence' of the things that the person actually saw. If they didn't witness the person being blind from birth, then you do not have eyewitness evidence that the person was blind from birth.
>>721545
... and?
>muh unfalsifiable thing is totally legit guys!
>>721579
John 9
They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.
Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”
...
But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight.
And they asked them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”
His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.”
>>721576
And that doesn't make it true
>>721610
God saying something makes it true.
God is Truth.
God does not lie, and God is not wrong, nor mistaken. If God tells you something, take it to the bank.
Or in your case, take it to the lake of fire, for your unbelief.
You had one sin to avoid. One.
And you're blowing it.
>>721620
All of this assumes that your beliefs are true. I could just as easily have a Muslim walk in here, and say the exact same thing to you, and you'd have no response but to repeat your dogma.
>>721594
>Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”
That's not eyewitness evidence. The author does not say that he personally witnessed the event he is describing. He is saying that someone else said that it happened.
>His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;
Here the author is giving evidence of something that someone else said to someone else. Again, it is not eyewitness evidence of the fact; he is not describing something that he had personal knowledge of.
If the parents, who knew the person was blind from birth, had written an account themselves, then it would have been eyewitness evidence of that fact. But that isn't what happened.
Are you reading a single word I'm writing? This is not a difficult concept.
>>721620
If god said that there was something he couldn't say, could he say it?
>>721630
No, it assumes that God's claims are true.
Their god is actually a trickster god, a deceiver; their god is Ba'al.
My guy, Elijah, and their 450 guys already had it out on Mt. Carmel, 2600 years ago.
My guy won. Their 450 corpses littered the river.
>>721646
>Allah is Ba'al
Ignoring that for the sake of my sanity. My point is, that someone could just as easily make the exact same claim you're making, namely "Believe what I said or you'll suffer greatly in the next world", to you, and you'd have no response but to do what you're doing now.
Repeat your dogma.
>>721636
John 9
Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And He said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing.
Arguing from absolute ignorance isn't really a good thing to do. Neither is arguing that Jesus is not God.
>>721637
No. Such things exist. They're called lies.
>>721658
>presumes to know god's power
That's 20 hail mary's for you.
>>721654
The god of Mohammad's father is Hubal. Hubal and 359 other arab gods were in the Kaaba. Hubal is the chief god of the kaaba, and the chief god of the Qureshi, aka al-lah. Hubal was never removed from the kabaa. His head was partly made from that meteor on display today.
Hubal is HaBa'al, the Ba'al of the Moabites.
The arabs have never worshiped the God of the Jews.
>>721662
I'm not a hellbound papist worshiping the Queen of Heaven, aka Semiramis of Babylon.
>>721655
>He saw a man who was blind from birth
The author does not know the person, and does not claim to know the person. He assumes that the person was born blind, and may have been told that by someone else, but he did not witness it personally. He cannot give an 'eyewitness account' of that particular fact.
I am not going to keep making this point unless you give some indication that you understand what I've said. I don't care if you disagree, but at the moment it seems like you literally don't know what I'm saying, and I don't know any way of saying it more simply. Is English not your first language?
>>721671
Then pray for intercession to these statues of saints.
>>721667
You lost.
>>721677
is found at answeringislam.com
>>721681
God knew 6000 years ago that man would be blind from birth.
You are a classic example of there being none so blind as those who will not see.
>>721681
Dude. The man was hauled in front of a court. The court demanded he answer if he was blind from birth. He said yes. They hauled his parents up, and they testified he was their son, blind from birth.
Enjoy your solipsism.
>>721692
I know, right? Dear Plaster of Paris, please put in a good word about me to God, to Whom I have no access. Thank you, and have a candle.
>>721710
And if we assume that that's true, then the accounts given by the man and his parents were 'eyewitness accounts'. They personally knew the things they were saying. The account given by someone else of these statements being made, is not an eyewitness account of the man being born blind.
Do you seriously not understand the difference between someone saying 'I saw x happen' and someone saying 'I heard someone say that x happened'?
I'm not a solipsist. I just know what the word 'eyewitness account' means. It means the person giving the account personally witnessed the fact they are stating.
I don't understand why you're bothering to defend this obvious misuse of the term 'eyewitness', when it really isn't even really necessary for your position. It just makes you seem either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
>>721733
John
personally
was
an
eyewitness
to
this
event
.
Just crawl away bleeding, like a good chap.
>>721739
He claims to have witnessed 'the event', but he doesn't claim to have personal knowledge that the man was born blind. He only claims to have heard other people say that. His claim that the person was born blind is therefore not an 'eyewitness account'.
>>721745
....as those who will not see.....
And the Holy Spirit, Who inspired John, is also a witness.
Go ahead and say He's a liar, too.
>>721745
Did the man claim to have personal knowledge of his own history?
Did the man's parents claim to have personal knowledge of their own son's history?
Did they testify as such in front of the authorities?
Do you really enjoy grasping at non-existent straws?
Whatever you do, please turn down jury duty.
>>721767
>Whatever you do, please turn down jury duty.
Legally, John could not stand in the witness box and say that the man was born blind. Because he did not have personal knowledge of that fact. He also couldn't say 'the man said he was born blind', because that would be hearsay, which is generally inadmissible in court.
That's precisely why the court in the story would have wanted the man himself, or his parents who had known him from birth, to give evidence directly. Because they want the evidence to come from someone who actually has personal knowledge of what they are saying.
The man would obviously have had personal knowledge of his own history. But the man isn't the one who wrote the gospel. If there was an eyewitness, but that eyewitness didn't write the account, then you obviously still don't have an eyewitness account.
I don't really see how I'm grasping at straws. I've already mentioned that this point isn't necessary for your position. You can say it wasn't an eyewitness account of that fact but you believe it anyway. Or you could say you don't know for certain whether he was born blind, but it would have been a miracle even if he wasn't.
There's really no reason at all why you have to pretend not to understand what 'eyewitness account' means. And yet here you are, pretending to be retarded on the Internet.
remind that if you know a single thing about epistemology you don't give two shits about any of this
>>721802
Wow. What mental gymnastics to protect your ego.
John is an eyewitness to this man testifying he was blind from birth, and miraculously healed. John is an eyewitness to this man's parents testifying that their son was born blind, and was healed.
John the eyewitness wrote the account that he eye-witnessed in the eye-witnessed gospel bearing his name.
Seriously. Just tear up any jury summons. They don't actually prosecute people for that.
>>719798
Because we all know faith is quantitative
>>719864
Did you know that that thing that god is in is actually a human brain?
>>721840
Er, it is, actually. A suicide bomber's faith in paradise is greater than anyone's faith in the FSM.
>>721847
By how much?
>>721837
>John is an eyewitness to this man testifying
Right, he's a witness to someone saying something.
Once again, there is a difference between 'I saw x' and 'I heard someone say they saw x'. One is an eyewitness account, the other is not.
pic related: it's me
What you believe=/=fact
>>721846
Mind Blown
>>721850
How much more water is in the Pacific than in Lake Erie?
>>721857
Yes, because people born blind don't look different than anyone else.
Jury summons. Shred it. Your community will thank me.
>>721846
Your god is.
God is not.
>>721895
>"In my mind"
>>721895
>>721893
>Yes, because people born blind don't look different than anyone else.
So now you're abandoning that bullshit about the man being an eyewitness, and your new position is that John was able to see for himself (somehow) that the man was blind from birth? Well that's certainly less stupid than what you were saying before.
I feel like you've made a real breakthrough here.
>>721898
Yes, that is correct. Your god is real in your mind.
God is not in your mind.
>>721909
I'm saying that you are considering nothing of the event, just your own dogged assertion that nobody ever eyewitnessed anything and passed that information along to anyone else.
1. Man is born blind.
2. Blind men look different.
3. Jesus and John see blind man.
4. Jesus heals blind man.
5. Blind man can now see.
6. Blind man hauled into Jew court.
7. Blind man says he was born blind, and can now see.
8. Blind man cannot name Jesus, doesn't know Him.
9. Blind man's parents called before authorities.
10. Parents attest it is their son.
11. Parents attest their son was born blind.
12. Parents attest they don't know how.
You: That's all hearsay. (Except of course, you don't know what hearsay is. And in this case, it would be statements against interest for both the man and the parents, as they faced hostile questioners).
Crawl away, anally devastated, or pretend you're not. Either way.
Do you really think humans are smart enough to determine if theres a god or not?
If he wanted to be known then he would be known for sure
>>721943
He is. To billions. Just not to you. He doesn't like you.
>>721928
>just your own dogged assertion that nobody ever eyewitnessed anything
I didn't say that nobody eyewitnessed anything. I said that John is not an eyewitness to the fact that the man was born blind.
John's statements about what other people said are hearsay. I do know what hearsay is; I'm a lawyer and in any case it's not a difficult concept.
If you want to take the view that John is a witness to the fact that the man had the appearance of someone who was born blind, on the basis that people blind from birth always look different from people who became blind later in life, that's fine. It's factually wrong, but it's not illogical.
But everything else you've said appears to be based on a complete unwillingness to make a distinction between what the author knew, and what the author heard other people say.
Whether or not a god exists or not is not interesting. What is interesting is how said existence is used as justification for behavior.
>God exists
>Proof?
>This thousands of years old book said some people saw it
>That's not valid proof
>REEEEEEE
>God doesn't exist
>Proof?
>Theres no proof for it, also that'd be ridiculous! Why would a sky daddy wizard care if I suck dick lol
>>721960
I have faith that by thinking about how to express my position and the subsequent expression will at some point have an effect of making this existence better than if I had not done so.
If God is perfect then why did he create imperfection?
This either means we are perfection or god is imperfection
>>719803
Both atheism and theism are forms of religion since they need belief. If you do not know something is true you either believe it is or not. Consciousness is a link in a train of thought that begins with the questioning of existence.
>>719798
Reminder that Christians trying to characterize Atheism as a religion are tacitly admitting that religions are inherently flawed.
>>722198
wrong twice
>>722229
Agnostic senpai
>>719798
Reminder that attempting to understand the nature of the eternal, the immortal, and the divine, as finite, mortal, and mundane beings is wasted effort.
>>721203
what gives you the right to define such a creature?
isn't that concept self-affirming? a tautology?
>>719798
I hate this meme
