How do I support the truth of this proposition in an argument with a theist?
>>866210
Call him a Mexican.
You can't prove that God doesn't exist, you can state that you lack a belief in God.
>>866219
This.
You can state why one should not believe in God's existence but you can't prove or disprove it, and neither can they.
>>866261
That depends on what you need God's existence for.
>>866261
It doesn't work that way. Atheism is the null set. It's up to the theist to convince you.
>>866342
No it's not you fucking cunt.
Point out that he has no evidence for a god, and what he would claim as evidence is usually evidence for the opposite.
>humans are magic and special
>nope, we're just apes with higher intelligence
>muh complexity grand skydaddy design arguments
>explained fully by evolution, along with all the side-effects like the appendix that the creationists couldn't even hope to solve
>the universe is perfect for breeding life
>99.999999...% of the universe kills life instantly
And so on.
>>866349
Nice arguments here. You clearly showed us!
>>866353
Nice get out of arguments free card you're flexing there bud. A claim is still a claim, and requires evidence.
>>866361
You don't need to claim anything to not believe in God.
I was sitting in the caf of my college minding my own business when this Asian guy came up to me asked me for 5 minutes of my time. I was alone and didn't have class for another 30 minutes so I agreed to talk to him. He then proceeded to pull out "choice cards" and ask me different questions each time presenting 5 choices. The questions including the source of human knowledge, the meaning of life, my religion beliefs and other things. We ended up talking for a while and when I had to leave he asked me if I wanted to meet up again and I just gave him my phone number without thinking. Sure enough he texts me and pesters me to arrange a new meeting,
I'm meeting with him tomorrow to talk about God and why he would allow suffering on this Earth if he were truly omniscient. I'm somewhat tempted to BTFO him in a theological debate but that feels a bit mean spirited. I'll go in with an open mind and see what he has to say about his friend in the sky.
>>866361
Atheism is not a claim, though, it is the rejection of a claim that has no evidence to begin with.
>>866363
We're not talking about God, we're talking about the concept of a god. You can't prove the existence or non existence of a good, at least for now maybe.
Who knows, if one were to exist what's to say it even directly created us or is aware of us?
>>866366
>You can't prove the existence or non existence of a good, at least for now maybe.
No, you can't provide a logical observable definition of god, so it is impossible to analyze rationally.
>>866366
You can prove when concept have no sense like in case of triangles with four sides. God can denied if you could point conceptual contradictions.
>>866365
Atheism is such a broad term, but the Atheism that's prevalent in today's society is hard Atheism; the complete rejection of the concept of a god.
It's such a incomprehensible idea, and it's frustrating out limited human language is in explaining it, especially to completely fucking idiotic Neo-Atheists. You guys are ignorant slugs.
>>866375
>so it is impossible to analyze rationally
Yep.
>>866381
It is actually good argument for atheism. You shouldn't really believe in something incomprehensible. It would just complicate things without any real benefits. The least of what you can do as believer is to know in what you believe.
>>866375
> you can't provide a logical observable definition of god
How you can prove this claim?
>>866390
>You shouldn't really believe in something incomprehensible.
Who the fuck are you to say that? It may complicate your "things" but that's not a reason to completely reject it. At least acknowledge it's existence in theory. You and I don't know how the universe was created and we never will.
The least you can do as someone who has as mush evidence for your stance as I do with mine is to sit back and just say to yourself that you don't know. And it's okay not to know.
>>866404
He's not using 'atheism' properly, he probably agrees that it's best to say you don't know.
>>866394
What is the logical observable definition of god?
>>866404
> Who the fuck are you to say that?
Sane person. It is literally insane to take into consideration incomprehensible things because they aren't compatible with our mind anyway.
> You and I don't know how the universe was created and we never will.
We doesn't know if universe was created. Maybe it is an eternal existence without any beginning.
>>866411
Our lord and savior Jesus Christ.
>>866428
The character in the bible who promised to be back to conquer the multiheaded monster who rose from the sea to enslave the world with a mark on the hand or forehead in the lifetime of one of his apostles is something that sounds logical which you personally observed?
>>866436
Billions of Christians observed it for thousands of years in their hearts.
>>866440
You need to review the meaning of the words observable and existence, for as many people there were almost as many icons and completely different observations of Jesus.
>>866210
You cannot prove that something does not exist.
With that in mind, cite the epicurean trilemma, that will give most believers (it is super-effective against christians) something to chew on, hopefully long enough for you to make your escape.
Remember, anon, if all else fails, smoke bombs are always an option.
>>866463
> You cannot prove that something does not exist.
You can if its existence is logically impossible.
>>866468
Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper and magic beats logic.
also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
Never underestimate the power of human stubbornness
>>866480
You might live in some shithole where laws and medicine are based around magic instead of logic, but in the civilized world, that is now how progress is made and solutions are found.
There's a 50% chance God exists, because either he exists or he doesn't.
>>866483
Aye, aye! Raise thy blades, brothers, for we shall smite the infidels with our one true faith!
>>866498
Except modern medicine practitioners doesn't need swords, if the universe does have a mind, it is doing a good enough job of willing people who prefer magic out of existence, so that doctors can focus their time on logical research.
>>866490
There's also a 50% chance you died before you saw your reply post or will die in any other given millisecond.
>>866505
>Most people agree with me, therefore i am right, and all who disagree with us are wrong
>>866511
There is a 50% chance of your proposition being right, wich means that the chance of him being dead is now 25%.
>>866518
No, it has nothing to do with most people's beliefs and most people aren't even doctors doing high level research that is a major minority of the human population, but the beliefs that produce consistent results prove themselves over time and directly shape reality whether you want to believe it or not.
>>866525
Yes but that 50 percent chance has occurred every moment since then and if the smallest unit of moment is a Planck unit, then that chance has happened trillions of times since I proposed it, so that guy is most certainly dead by now.
>>866540
Don't forget that the longer it is false the higher the probability of it being true next time
>>866543
That is just how aging works, though, its not true of everything.
>>866540
Holy crap did you...did you just kill somebody...?
>>866560
It was in self defense and I am licensed to carry memes while their memes were unregistered.
>>866572
You have created a monster.
As for your punishment, i shall temporarily deactivate your automatic breathing.
Have fun operating your lungs, you maniac.
>>866575
Lung operating was never top on my recreational activities list anyway.
>>866210
The problem with proving the non-existence of God is about the same as the problem with proving the existence of same. I've never seen a satisfying and logical proof that didn't collapse instantly when the premises were rejected. And you can pretty much count on the guy on the other side rejecting your premises in one form or another.
And really, if someone were going to put forth a proof that would resolve the argument forever, it wouldn't be any of us here. It would have been some genius centuries ago, who would now be renowned the world over for bringing everyone into the one true religion, or for putting an end to all religion forever, depending on which side you'd prefer.
why would you mess with someone elses personal belief
get out americans
>>866637
Why wouldn't you help a crazy person who is hurting themselves?
>>866210
The evidence clearly points to gods and religions being human constructs designed to explain things we don't understand, and to lay down a common set of social laws and customs.
While you can't "prove" that something like a "god" doesn't exist, you can certainly assign a probability, and that probability is like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
Regardless, you're not going to convince a dedicated zealot one way or the other because religions are designed with circular logic to keep the faithful from actually thinking for themselves. Such sayings like "god works in mysterious ways" are designed to be catch-alls to counter logical arguments against their religious cults.
>>866210
>God does not exist
http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/post/111561484839/re-atheism
>>866687
> tumblr
What a place to learn your philosophy from!
>>866693
Philosophy isn't learned, but practiced.
>>866711
Distinction without difference. You have to learn something to practice it.
>>866687
Goes on about atheists presupposing things, then presupposes intelligent design.
Both are susceptible to the agnostic position on knowledge.
>>866722
Nope.
Only what can be learned is learned.
Philosophy is something that is practiced, not something is transmitted/learned. One doesn't learn to philosophize.
WHY DO YOU FAGGOT KEEP USING "DOESN'T" WHEN IT SHOULD BE "DON'T"???????????????????
>>866210
Science assumes the real world in the same sense we assume that the Sun goes around the Earth in our everyday lives, or mathematics assumes an ideal realm populated with numbers and structures. It is a practical attitude of a working scientist (farmer, mathematician,...) that saves time and effort on complications irrelevant to the task at hand. Upon reflection one could conjecture that this attitude does reflect operation in a mind independent world inhabited by real things. A realist might even argue that doing otherwise undermines our usual activities, scientific activities in particular, and leaves them hanging. But this reasoning is moralizing and emotional, not rational. Which bring us directly to what it means to have "faith in science": what is the goal of science?
>>866742
>Only what can be learned is learned.
Nice tautology that doesn't address the point.
>Philosophy is something that is practiced
What philosophy did you start practicing without learning it in some form?
>>866773
Plato once taught that the goal of geometry is to lift the soul from the bonds of the sensible to higher pastures of philosophy. In a similar vein a realist might say that it is uncovering the hidden reality of nature that animates science. But this stance naturally undermines itself, once science replaces the apparent reality of everyday life (or older theory) with deeper scientific reality, and transfers its realist commitments to the latter, the same doubt arises about the latter as it raises about the former. Indeed, scientists are trained not to take appearances at face value and seek ever deeper explanations. Cao and Schweber give an interesting account of how this dynamic plays out in modern physics in Conceptual Foundations and the Philosophical Aspects of Renormalization Theory:"the recent developments support a pluralism in theoretical ontology, an antifoundationalism in epistemology and an antireductionism in methodology. These implications are in sharp contrast with the neo-Platonism implicit in the traditional pursuit of quantum field theorists... which assumed that, through rational (mainly mathematical) human activities, one could arrive at an ultimate stable theory of everything." (see especially pp.73-77).
The scientific method itself is not a natural extension of realism, but something in tension with it. The hypothetico-deductive origin of mature scientific ontologies plainly means that they took shape in speculation, only empirical consequences of which were confirmed afterwards. This gives rise to the famous problem of underdetermination of scientific theories associated with Duhem and Quine. And the "no miracles" argument from empirical success to realism is acknowledged to be logically uncompelling even by realists. Looking at history it is hard to expect that fundamental theories of today can not share the fate of geocentrism and ether, whose empirical consequences are nonetheless fully integrated into the modern theories, affirming the empirical continuity of science.
Anti-realism in ontology goes hand in hand with instrumentalism in epistemology, and a different understanding of the goals of science. They are empirical adequacy, and more remotely practical success of applications, rather than a search for hidden reality. This may strike a realist as lowly and demeaning of science, but that again is appeal to emotions, and mechanics too once "corrupted the good of geometry", according to Plato, for it "uses bodies needing much vulgar manual labor". There is no being right or wrong about goals, they are not matters of fact. This is one reason why the dispute is perennial. Anti-realism and instrumentalism take the scientific method itself at face value, and view the ontologies it produces only as tools. Anti-realism takes an agnostic position on reality of theoretical entities, and the idealism/materialism dispute in particular, and questions if one can even make sense of "mind-independent" (as opposed to just not mind-determined) reality. Unlike realism it is a stable position, starting at anti-realism one is anchored there, whereas starting at realism one has to resist being led away from it. And it has as much faith in science as does realism, but on its own terms.
Here is Quine's description of his faith in science in On What There Is, that an anti-realist can sign under:"The physical conceptual scheme simplifies our account of experience because of the way myriad scattered sense events come to be associated with single so-called objects; still there is no likelihood that each sentence about physical objects can actually be translated, however deviously and complexly, into the phenomenalistic language... Viewed from within the phenomenalistic conceptual scheme, the ontologies of physical objects and mathematical objects are myths. The quality of myth, however, is relative; relative, in this case, to the epistemological point of view. This point of view is one among various, corresponding to one among our various interests and purposes". Technically, Quine self-identifies as a realist, see however How does Quine answer the metaphysician's claim that scientism is self-refuting? for the nature of his "realism".
>>866652
For the same reason why you would tell an autistic atheist virgin to take a fucking shower every once in a while.
>>866210
Burden of proof lies on him. Tell him to prove then falsify his proofs.
>>866775
>What philosophy
You don't actually know what philosophy is, right?
>>866783
So you should interfere with other people or was that a typo and you like your boyfriend just how he is and would never make him destroy his scent before you gay marriage is definitely legal everywhere and the two of you can get married before you celebrate your love and break your cherries?
>>866785
No, please define it so you can fall into your own rhetorical hole.
>>866808
How about you fall back into your own mum's cavernous fucking hole you 14 year old twat.
>>866808
Fuck off, moron.
>>866742
>Philosophy is something that is practiced
>not something is transmitted/learned
>One doesn't learn to philosophize.
You were a philosophy at the moment of birth?
>>866667
underrated post
This anon gets it.
It's futile to engage in a conversation with someone who subscribes circular logic and is consistently generating fallacy after fallacy to try and prove a point.
>>866834
>birth
these cretins must think amoebas are philosophers supreme if no learning has to take place
>>866210
Providing that God is defined in such a way that is not self contradictory, it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
We can say, however, that as far as we are aware, there is no God.
>>866931
If you can just semantically stretch the definition of god without any observable proof, then you can just semantically change the definition of existence to disqualify imaginary semantic loopholes.
>>866667
>>866834
>>866862
But if the 0.00000001% chance is true then the chances of it would be %100 percent. The probability of a god is only a conjecture by humans, just like the idea itself. You really can't argue for or against it in any rational way. A metaphysical, ethereal claim always ends up being vague and abstract. That's why it's only faith that ties these type of people to that thought. It will never end because the philosophy of nature transcends any human contemplation which make us curious to know more. Everyone has their own flawed impersonation of the world.
>>866938
What I meant is that the nature of God is not universally agreed upon.
I don't dispute the standard definition of existence and I don't imagine you do either.
It is important to clarify things you mean before arguing about them so that semantically changing definitions is no longer possible in the debate.
>>866939
>You really can't argue for or against it in any rational way
Here's the argument against:
>You have no evidence for this
Here's the argument for:
>my feelies tell me this is true
One is rational, one is decidedly irrational.
>>866946
No one can define god in this thread, though, the only thing any even tried to pass off as an observable logic definition (*without really being able to put their rationale where there rhetoric is) was:
Jesus Christ
>>866987
I never said that every one you debate with would be a rational person.
I have personally found that hard to come by.
>>867001
No but you did imply there was a rational, if not many rational, definitions of god.
Why are you telling me to clarify my semantics when you can't even present a definition of the vague thing you are advocating?
>>867009
What do you think I am advocating?
>>867018
God exists in nature.
>>867078
There is more to proving something than making its logic internally consistent, it also has to apply to the real world and you are still implying that you have a logical definition of god that is at least compatible with itself, which you don't, then saying that which you don't have can't not apply to the real world because it hasn't even been defined properly.
>>867086
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.
If God is defined in such a way that it is logically inconsistent, then we CAN prove it to not exist entirely through logic, which is why I included that caveat.
If God is defined in such a way that it IS logically consistent, then the problem, as I stated initially, is that nothing in our current body of knowledge suggests there is a God and so such assertions are entirely baseless.
>>867102
You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
There is no logically consistent definition that would put it in the same category as nature or existence, so I can't even follow your hypothetical nature of god's existence bullshit because it means nothing to this conversation or any rational conversation in any logical context.
>>867116
God: An omnipotent being responsible for the creation of the natural universe.
This is a logically consistent definition.
>>867143
No, it isn't.
Hint:
>omnipotent
>>867162
Omnipotent: Not limited by power and therefore capable of any possible action.
I think you might actually be autistic. The fedora meme is retarded, but sometimes it's true.
>>867174
>not limited by power
?
If you had at least redefined omnipotence as only limited by what is logically consistent or something like that, you'd be right.
Classical omnipotence is not logically consistent.
>>867174
Not that poster, but I think that he's referring to two things:
1. Not every religion that worships a god holds him to be omnipotent. Ex: Hellenistic practice.
2. The concept of omnipotence is subject to the omnipotence paradox, and therefore not logically consistent.
>>866210
This argument hasn't gone far in the past thousand years, your best bet is to just not give them the time of day
>>867174
How does omnipotent not conflict with the accepted definition of being in this context as a living creature?
How is the definition of the natural universe consistent with something preordained by a single being?
>>867200
read the conversation up until that point.
I originally said that it cannot be proven that God does not exist, with the caveat that this is if the definition of the god in question is logically consistent because that would make it disprovable.
I said that the position that there is no god is a logical conclusion because, as far as we are aware, there is nothing suggesting such a thing.
But this guy just can't understand that line of reasoning.
>>867212
>But this guy just can't understand that line of reasoning.
I understand it perfectly well, I wasn't even the one responding to you up until that point, I just find the classical definition of omnipotence (and thus the word) to be laughable, and responded as such.
>>867143
Why would something omnipotent have responsibilities?
>>866210
I've got no means to act like any less of a pseud on a deepnet thai-ladyboy boutique. So I've got no real pretenses here other than a masturbatory little thought experiment. BUT, here are two straw men with little straw men nailed on their hands:
Theists and atheists chafe in discussion with each other because their beliefs and non-beliefs are often are based on a single, gnostic assumption: That theirs is truth. Their debate may start in any way. Even on a subject only tangentially related to theism vs. atheism. But the discussion will inevitably slide into a framework where either side represent two definite positions at exact opposite along a single dimension. And if a participant is ever willing to argue on the terms of the other, they're made to look like an idiot.
We see the atheist to be unread and unversed in theology and metaphysics. And so when he decides that he will not man his own battlements, but ride to meet envoys at the feet of his enemy's towers, he finds himself drawn by a seasoned defense.
Should the theist point out something he sees as inconsistent with the atheist's empirical rigor, he too will be met with all the anxiety of being alone and unprepared. The situation is inconsolable, and each resolves to return to his own keep and thicken the masonry.
Who's convinced? Well the atheists like the view from taller towers. And the theists take comfort in thicker walls. But the two forts are too far from one another to see, let alone send boulders crashing down on the other.
>>866210
>How do I support the truth of this proposition in an argument with a theist?
Tell him that he's also an atheist with respect to Zeus, Ahura Mazda and Brahman, because he doesn't believe in them.
It usually does the trick.
>>867304
TLDR:
The forts are fixed positions that often need to exist for the discussion to be had. But they don't need to be manned, at all times, by you, in opposition to those fucks that like scub, as the unrelenting champion of an ideal that was never yours.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GFiDH1p.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
Tell me, if your god is perfect in every way possible, including omnipotence - can he create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?
>>866210
You can't and shouldn't. It's the equivalent of wrestling with God himself, aka there is no way to because it is an invulnerable, circular non-concept, like those with "faith" in it.
What you do instead is let people be who they are. They will get what they deserve eventually. It's unbecoming of you to try and change this or hold others in disdain for their ignorance, and whatever efforts you make to convince them otherwise will be in vain anyway.
If he has half a brain, he'll bring up the whole "you can't prove..." argument. Just explain Occam's Razor and tell him why you don't believe in a God because of it. If you're not worried about offending him or sounding like a fedora, an easy way to explain Occam's Razor in the context of theism is "Sure, a God COULD exist, but so could a giant invisible unicorn. Does that mean it's rational to believe in it?" (same argument can be used to disprove Pascal's wager: if I say you're going to Hell for not worshipping the unicorn, does that mean it's logical to assume it's real and devote your life to worshipping it?).
If they're an idiot they'll give arguments that are very easy to disprove, like how "Rush Limbaugh told me they found Noah's arc" or "If there's no God, why are humans able to do [impressive feat of science]? Coincedence?".
The hardest to disprove is one that you'll see posted here a lot, which I forget the name of but basically says that all systems exist as a chain, like humans make a pan and a factory makes the steel and a company harvested the steel and the steel rocks formed from pressure over time which formed from the rock in the Earth, and on and on until we reach the big bang. Some Greek guy basically said that all systems must stem for a common source, but that in order to not stem from any other source that one source must be special in some way. Specifically, it would be omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, etc. He then goes on to say that such a being/system end is that which we call "God". I've yet to find a truly watertight explanation against this, in fact I've often considered converting to deism just because of this one argument alone, but it seems iffy to me (especially since omnipotence comes with plenty of paradoxes, suggesting it couldn't be true), so I'll let some anons smarter than me explain it. Also if someone could post the theory itself it would be great, I know it's out there since theists post it all the time.
>>867591
Should change: when I say "Big Bang", I mean "beginning of all times". Doesn't have to be the Big Bang specifically, in fact most theists would argue that it isn't.
Epicurus. 'Nuff said.
>>867596
The problem with this is the assumption that there is a beginning. Knowing that spacetime can be curved - which it is - means that it can be curved in the shape of a closed object, like a four-dimensional circle/torus/pick your topological object. And if it is that way, there is no beginning or no end.
I always wondered something
While I do understand belief in a deity, what I cannot understand is how religious people can logically claim THEIR religion is correct
especially when several mutually exclusive religions exist
>>866411
If god could be defined, he'd hardly ne God, would he?
>>866210
You can't
The moment you say that during an argument the Burden of Proof is on you
burden of proof
phrase of burden
1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.
It will be a back and forth of why you think the other is wrong and both will be using a question begging epithet
Basically another day on /his/
>>867756
And Mr. Blatchford is quite wrong in supposing that the Christian and the Moslem deny each other’s miracles. No religion that thinks itself true bothers about the miracles of another religion. It denies the doctrines of the religion; it denies its morals; but it never thinks it worth while to deny its signs and wonders.
And why not? Because these things some men have always thought possible. Because any wandering gipsy may have Psychical powers. Because the general existence of a world of spirits and of strange mental powers is a part of the common sense of all mankind. The Pharisees did not dispute the miracles of Christ; they said they were worked by devilry. The Christians did not dispute the miracles of Mahomed. They said they were worked by devilry. The Roman world did not deny the possibility that Christ was a God. It was far too enlightened for that.
In so far as the Church did (chiefly during the corrupt and sceptical eighteenth century) urge miracles as a reason for belief, her fault is evident: but it is not what Mr. Blatchford supposes. It is not that she asked men to believe anything so incredible; it is that she asked men to be converted by anything so commonplace.
What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God – the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about Christianity.
>>866364
You might get BTFO instead
>>866210
Why do you want to do this anyway? You cannot truly have faith without first having doubts so as long as he has considered the possible nonexistence before your argument probably will have no effect.
>>866381
Complete rejection of God is a smarter move, instead of waiting to get preyed upon by manipulative religious recruiters who would dictate how to live your life according to their impossible nonsense magic. Better to be proactive than be a potential victim sucker.
>>867326
No one gives a shit about pagan gods. How would that ever work?
>>866261
Simple:
"If you lack proof for it, why base your life around it? Even worse, why base your life on a specific subset of the belief when none has proof?"
>>867326
You don't know what "atheist" means do you?
Tbh I think it's really a waste of time to try and argue about proof of whether God exists or not.
I'd rather say that it's just impossible to know either way.
>>866390
There's one kind of atheist that's known as Ignosticism. I'd argue it's a radical form of agnosticism.
It boils down to the question of God being meaningless, so when someone ask "Do God exist or not", the Ignostic will say "I don't understand what you mean". For an Ignostic, the question about God existing or not is as much nonsense as asking what colour Tuesday is. That mean that God's existence isn't true while also technically not being false either.
>>867914
Perhaps because the teachings and morals of the religion are something they agree with anyway and are not just following them because they are scared of going to hell or something.
>>867997
That sound like if you put a fedora on top of another fedora
>>868034
Barely any fucking one does that, most people are born into their religion.
Most justify their views their belief (as in they hold the belief as CAUSE for their views on the world), not the inverse.
If it is the case you are saying then just follow the morals instead of preaching the belief in the god. The morals are dissociated from a fucking pointless belief.
>b-but I need to believe to make sacrifices to Odin and dress in bear skins in order to hold my views!
>>868034
If that were the case I would find no fault whatsoever with their beliefs.
However they always seem to tack on the assertions of universal laws and various impossible or contrived beliefs. Keep the baby but lose the bathwater.
Of course you can't "prove" that gods are bullshit, but you can sure as hell determine a probability based on the available evidence, and the evidence clearly shows that the probability that gods and religions are man made fabrications is high as fuck.
Just look at the historical facts about religions, and you'll see some common themes.
-they all blame "gods" for natural phenomena they didn't understand, but we do now....shit like lightning.
-they all usually have some crazy origin story that completely differs from culture to culture.
-they all invoke stories about humans or gods defying the laws of physics as we know them
-they all usually have an "out" or some kind of built in "escape" mechanism to justify their beliefs....shit like "he works in mysterious ways" or devils, or some other dumb shit.
There's just countless examples throughout history of how, and why, religion and gods are created by men to fill a knowledge gap about the world, and to codify social norms and laws.
The problem is that some people probably have a genetic pre-disposition to be more susceptible to religion than others, and those people represent a significant percentage of the population.
You're not going to change anybodies mind, regardless of any "logic" you may try to use, because they just won't accept it as such.
>>867241
When did I claim something omnipotent would have responsibilities?
Is it really necessary to misrepresent the person you are arguing with? I thought /his/ was better than this.
>>866210
You cannot.
You're wrong.
Beg for mercy.
>>869723
The universe is man made.
Holy shit I've seen some stupid posts in my life, but this one is clearly the stupidest.
If your definition of God is something that can be "proven" or "disproven" to exist than you are dealing with a degenerate form of spirituality.
>>869963
>fails to comprehend simple written English while calling an anon stupid
>>870124
>gods and religions are man made
>God is the title for the One Who made the universe
>man made God
>man made the universe
Do try to follow a thought process to its conclusion, there's a good chap.
>>870145
That line of logic only works if you believe that God created the universe. Rather by saying that man made up the idea of God, you're effective saying that "God" could not have made the universe as he is a man-made concept and the origin of the universe has some other cause.
>>870145
>gods and religions are man made based on human ignorance
>nobody knows how the universe was made or ever will
FTFY Famalam
>>870145
>gods and religions are man made
>potato salad doesn't equal orange juice
>jet beams can't melt steel fire
>>870028
Not the the pure good real version of spirituality, right?
>>870145
This has to be 100% trolling, not even the most redneck baptist is THIS retarded.
>>866210
we should be trying to prove the fundamental truths to our consciousness. When we know for a fact that everyone else share the same mental conceptions for linguistic concepts, which are extended ideas, OR that everyone has, at the core, their own mental conception about stuff as their own unique consciousness we can either point towards there being a baseline/shared consciousness, which could then be an argument for a godlike existence but with natural properties and explanation, or that we are all in fact just pointless thoughts randomly occurring because our genome needs a brain and a nervous system to succeed. We're nowhere near the level of a valid discussion about a god or not seeing as we don't even know our own nature at all. Yes we know about the body and yes we know of psychology, but man we need to put some booster rockets on psychology and dive into the psyche.
Prove that the Emperor or Mankind is not real.
I dare you.
>>866210
>tfw don't come to /his/ for a while
>come back and there's still fedoras running rampant
>>870211
I was kind of hoping you had died.
>>870211
Wear your yarmulke with pride, anon!
>>870253
But I'm not Jewish...
>>870287
Then tip that zucchetto with pride instead!
>>870306
Maybe so they don't get exploited by the assholes that create religious hierarchies?
>>870334
But I'm not Catholicuck...
>>870340
In what way would they be exploited? You are assuming that since they are religious they are too stupid to judge the intentions of religious officials. If this is someone who has thoroughly studied their religious texts and formed their own opinions then how could they be misled?
>>870358
Then don that Kufi with pride, my faith filled friend!
>>870211
Yeah, how terrible. People disagree with you and this place isn't a Christian hugbox.
Also, Christ chan is, was, and shall always be, fucking creepy and pathetic. Creating a waifu to model your ideal woman is fucking pitiful.
>>870373
By falling victim to "us vs. them" religious shenanigans that have plagued mankind since....forever.
By falling victim to the many "catch all" excuses that justify their belief systems.
By not realizing they are accountable for their own actions and behaviors here and now, and not in some ridiculous "afterlife".
By not realizing that being a good person is its own reward, and you don't need to invent anything that "guides" or supposedly punishes you, like gods.
By not accepting the fact that we don't know how the cosmos came into existence, why, or how long it will exist, and we never will.
>>870409
now anon...that's not very nice is it??
maybe accepting Christ will bring about a change in that salty personality of yours <3 :)
>>870428
Jesus never existed.
4chan was fedora as hell before 2012, problem is SJW's stole the moral authority from the evangelicals and the counterculture became right wing
KILL HIM TO PROVE GOD WOULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN
>>870437
You fucking what m8?
>>870447
Mad as fuck.
>>869959
This, I don't even understand how this is a fucking thread anymore. Thank God atheism is dying out
>>870410
#1 atheism doesnt prevent us vs them thinking. Many atheists have a us vs them perspective to theists. Especially against muslims.
#2 is to vague to respond to
#3 in most religions that which you do on earth is judged in the afterlife. I dont see how theism prevents someone from realising the effect of their actions in the material world.
#4 the argument im making is that the theist in question enjoys his morals and isnt just doing it for reward or avoiding punishment.
#5 not even all atheists believe that. Answering the origin of the universe is not that important anyway. In many religion the only reason it is touched upon is to affirm the power of god. Some religions dont even answer that question.
God is both effable and ineffable.
God is therefore both effable and not effable.
God is P and ~P.
By the explosion principle you can prove any and all statements, in particular that God doesn't exist.
>>870466
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
>>866352
>All Theists argue from design
Please read actual philosophers instead of watching youtube debates.
>>866210
You can't and neither can he dismiss it.
>>870706
Nope.
>>870437
Now we're entering new levels of stupid.
>>870789
How is it stupid to claim he never existed.
>>870695
>God is both effable and ineffable
What's the justification for this?
>By the explosion principle you can prove any and all statements, in particular that God doesn't exist.
That's a strange way to reject the existence of God from your premises. The explosion principle would just as well allow you to prove that God does exist. Why not just form it as a reductio?
1. God exists (assumption)
...
n. God is P & ~P
C. God does not exist (RAA: we derived a contradiction from our assumption, so our assumption is false).
>>870691
>Especially against muslims.
No, that's EVERYBODY, not just atheists. And the reasons are broadcast in the news every time another Muslim group decides to take it upon themselves to saw somebodies head off, or burn them alive, or shoot up civilians just minding their business at a concert, or suicide bombing some shit, or any number of fucked crap those idiots do.
Regardless, you know who hates Muslims more than anybody else?
Other Muslims, that's who.
>>870804
>What's the justification for this?
There are people that literally define God that way.
>>870831
Okay, so it's an argument against people who haven't read their theology?
>>870835
Pretty much
>>870811
Yes, I know this. But atheist then blame the whole religion then the actions of ISIS are largely against the Quran and they only use the bits that serve them. Its not religion that is a problem per se, it is any ideology taken to the extreme that is a danger.
I think the best argument to make is that if you want to be religious you need to carefully study your theology like a scholar. That should root out religious troublemakers pretty easily.
>>869918
You said all the creations of the universe were the responsibilities of some being that is omnipotent.
>>870970
Are you wilfully misinterpreting his use of 'responsible?'
>>870987
No, are you willfully ignoring the logical conflicts of his vague esoteric definition?
>>871020
He used 'responsible' to say that, basically, God is the cause of the universe. It doesn't follow from that that God is responsible for the universe in the other sense of the word, that is to say, it doesn't follow from that that God is morally responsible for the universe.
God exists, you just don't want to submit to a being who makes you feel pain cuz you're a shortsighted tyrant that doesn't understand that you're just a smaller version of that which rules you. Society is god.
>>871030
If that were the case (ie the universe was created by a being with infinite foresight and ability, but no moral responsibility to maintain its creation), the rules of universe wouldn't be consistent and coherent life dependent on the conditions of the universe would not be possible.
>>871050
As in deism, the universe is like a clock made to tick for eternity. He created a system that governs us. He alone can alter it.
>>871050
I'm not sure I understand your argument, are you saying that if God wasn't morally responsible for the universe, it wouldn't be life permitting? If so, I don't see any obvious reason why that's true. Perhaps, for example, he'd maintain it out of kindness. There are loads of logically consistent reasons as to why he'd allow a universe to be life permitting even if he weren't morally responsible for it.
>>871062
Not completely true. He gives people the power to control it if they're ready for it.
>>870428
Accepting Christ wouldn't change the pathetic nature of such a character. Grow up.
>>871096
Not at all, perhaps he maintains it out of kindness but it's not the case that he must do so. Just like if I donate my lottery winnings to charity out of kindness, it's not my *responsibility* to do so; I could just as well keep all the money and in doing so wouldn't have acted immorally.
Anyway, that was merely an example. I'm just looking to show that your argument that 'if God wasn't morally responsible for the universe, it wouldn't be life permitting' is false. To do so, all I need to do is give an example of a case where (a) the universe is life permitting (b) God isn't morally responsible for it. The example I gave (and just expanded on) seems to satisfy those two conditions.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You just cannot derive a contradiction from 'an omnipotent being created the universe'.
>>870856
>it is any ideology
I'm sorry, mate, but religion is an ideology. One that is inherently divisive asinine and useless.
>the actions of ISIS are largely against the Quran
You're talking about a religion whose prophet was a warmongering rapist pedophile. I'll take his interpretation of Quran as "true" over your liberal whitewashed shit that supposedly doesn't influence anyone any day of the week.
>>871144
>The example I gave (and just expanded on) seems to satisfy those two conditions.
No, it obliges your omnipotent to be kind and orderly or be powerless because you used semantics to change a moral responsibility into a necessary kindness and as soon as that kindness is no longer necessary in your example, the universe is not life permitting.
>>871146
You can't entirely blame the plebian for being unable to seperate spirituality from dogma. The tyrants and sociopaths make it quite hard to see through to how things are.
>>871146
I was referring to religion as an ideology. Fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the worlds 1.7 billion muslim dont support groups like ISIS. if they did things would be obviously much worse.
>>871144
>You just cannot derive a contradiction from 'an omnipotent being created the universe'.
I also pointed out how omnipotence and being (as in living creature) are mutually exclusive.
Not to mention the fact that the term natural universe is inconsistent with something made by a single being or having anything external since the term universe specifically encompasses everything that exists.
Isn't it just so retarded that people are even discussing the existence of a God, something with no proof whatsoever of existing to such great lengths?
Couldn't you do the same for Unicorns, Spider-Man or Cthulhu, all of which have a significantly greater chance of existing or having existed in the past?
If you can argue the existence of God, why can't you argue the existence of literally ANYTHING?
It's fucking stupid, humans are supposed to be logical and religion just keeps impeding it. I hope it's eradicated or outlawed some day.
>>871223
Spiderman and Cthulhu are copyrighted works of fiction, plenty of horselike animals have two or even three horns, why couldn't there be a four legged horse like animal with only one horn out there somewhere?
>>871229
>Spiderman and Cthulhu are copyrighted works of fiction
And the bible isn't because...
How do we know Stan Lee didn't witness the real Spider-Man or H.P. Lovecraft didn't witness Cthulhu who told him to make stories about it?
This literally isn't any less reasonable that arguing the existence of God.
>>871223
unicorns sounds like a trully master race horse that could hace existed for a brief period of time
cthulu and spiderman are.as the other anon said. we are talking about a concept beyond religion. not GOD(tm) but God
>>871179
>overwhelming majority
Roughly 80%. And even those that don't support them share their views on most social issues, they're just not willing to cut off heads over it.
>>871243
Doesn't matter what GOD you're arguing because they all have the same amount of proof of existing = FUCKING ZERO.
I don't give a single shit about faith like I don't give a single shit about a mad man proclaiming the world is going to end soon.
>>871260
>Doesn't matter what GOD you're arguing because they all have the same amount of proof of existing = FUCKING ZERO.
Is that you, J.L. Mackie?
>>871240
It was made before most documented history and laws, specifically copyright laws.
Stan Lee is on record describing what inspired him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9byf6fAac0
Lovecraft also wrote about what inspired him to come up with his stories and they both published and marketed their works as fiction.
>>871281
They made those stories up because they knew everyone would think they're insane if they told the truth.
>>871287
They made those stories up about maybe being insane just to sell more fiction.
>>871281
You're missing the point of my argument.
Just because you posted that information doesn't make what I said any less credible, what if they're lying?
I can make up literally any justification I want without proof because it's the same amount of validity when it comes to arguing about a God.
It just shows how frivolous it is to be arguing about to begin with.
>>871299
You don't really have a point, your point is pointlessness and advocating everything as deceit which refutes itself.
>>866210
ask that he define god, then test that
if he goes with something autistic purposely untestable like mysterious ways just ask if that really makes sense to him.
If God does not exist then if love does not exist.
Checkmate anti-theists
>>871422
Chemical reactions exist and everything good you associate with love can be characterized by euphoric brain chemistry.
>>871370
No, it's advocating more broadly something without evidence, like religious claims. Put up or shut up.
>>871431
>euphoric
This has become a trigger for me.
>>871407
>if he goes with something autistic
Implying literally everything isn't partially autistic
http://www.sciencealert.com/we-all-carry-the-genes-for-autism-study-finds
>>871432
I did put up, you just outright dismissed evidence as a valid source of information as soon as I presented evidence and said I didn't understand your point since people can lie.
>>871441
Yes, just like how religious people dismiss everything as valid sources of information and fall back on their fictitious books - in this case comic books. Which are absolutely true.
>>871457
Why wouldn't they dismiss what you have to say when you already admitted you are just lying because you don't understand how to make a point?
>>871223
Yes unicorns spiderman and ctulhu exists much the same as God...
> why can't you argue the existence of literally ANYTHING?
You CAN, it's called "the universe"...
>Babbys first spiritual thought
>>871476
>lying
I'm not lying. I saw a vision, Spiderman is real.
>>871477
God = Universe
wew lad, you sound like a physicist.
>>871487
Except you were born decades after the copyright for spiderman was originally filed and the visual representation you remember is called a film adaptation.
>>871500
Except I saw the vision without seeing the movies and before I even knew about it. This thread just opened my eyes to the truth of what I saw.
By the way, I have a friend who saw the exact same thing.
>>871488
God is very much like the universe. We talk about it and refer to it all the time, yet we don't know its true nature.
>>871508
Supernatural or natural though?
>>871515
That's actually interesting... I'm not sure. pic related.
>>871506
Your parents had it on in the background before you could form memories well and nostalgia plus poor education in general is clouding your memory because spiderman has been culturally relevant since before you were born, it just comes and goes in phases like other fad such as how you people swear than your brain's genitals don't match your body's genitals.
>>871528
Nice baseless assumptions, mate. I live in a mud hut and just got the internet last week.
>>871508
The universe's only true nature is that its just a synonym for everything measurable.
>>871535
Nah, it includes everything, even that which is not measurable.
>>871534
You real parents abandoned you when started being a little bitch 16 weeks old and sent you to a third world shithole so you would get AIDS and they would give you internet the week you got HIV, so you could learn all about it right before you start to suffer.
>>866210
By defining god first anon
>>871535
>>871539
Also, you can never experience "the true" world. For example, take a small rock that you hold in your hand. You can only experience it through your senses (sight, sensation, smell etc.) and you must define it using your intellect. But your senses and your intellect are also a part of the universe. And those senses could be better, you could be smarter and see better or feel more precise etc. So there's always a degree of uncertainty. Or you could think of it like this; you can onyl ever look in one direction, you can never look behind you and in front at the same time, and you can never be in two places at once.
>>871539
I can't find any reputable source that defines the universe as everything including that which doesn't exist.
>>871567
So our problem is language then, you're worried about the definition of the word "universe" and also "exists". I see that as a main source of much of these debates, particularly the word "exists". I like to take unicorns for an example. People would say that they don't exist, but you still know what a unicorn is, somehow. How can you know it, if it is not? Of course it exists, as an idea or a concept, much like a horse exists as an idea or a concept. The idea of a "horse" does not roam the earth, only individual horses do. The idea is in your head, much as the idea of the unicorn.
As for the "universe", just consider a term that encompasses everything physical, that you see and touch, such as stones and rocks, as well as all the ideas (which do also exist as part of the universe, because they are stored in peoples heads).
>>871544
16 years old is way later than people start forming memories, contradicting ourselves now are we?
#spidertruth
>>871574
In a nutshell, people have troubles separating things that exist in the physical realm, and things that exist in the spiritual realm, but that's to be expected in our society today.
>>871562
However, there isn't a "true you" to have experience, there is a subset of the universe given an illusion of experience.
You can take a picture or a 3d model of the rock for simulation and turn a moment into a long term experience, you can use instruments and tools to measure and analyze indirectly.
Senses aren't moral instruments you can't compare them directly and decide good vs evil.
Uncertainty is considered in the context of measurement, statistical random chance, and the scientific application that coined the verbiage universe.
You can use a mirror to look behind you while also looking forward and you can use set up conference calls to be in two places at once.
>>871574
That is called imagination not existence.
>>871589
But your imagination exists Anon...
>>871576
I just want to point out that you need to read what you replied to again more carefully just so will feel like an idiot.
>>871592
No, my imagination is a sensory illusion of my brain.
>>871593
Read what? Your illuminati edited post?
>>871598
No, read your aids medication better, so you take the correct dosage, so your vision isn't so blurry.
>>871587
I agree with you on all points, i think.
What do you mean by "Senses aren't moral instruments" though? Also what would be the point of turning the rock into a 3D model? You would still not be able to experience the 3D model "perfectly", as the experience would still be filtered through your senses. So my point is that you can never consciously know anything entirely, you can never see both sides of the rock at the same time for example (this is what i meant with saying you can't see both behind you and in front of you at the same time, i think you missed my point with the mirror analogy, i could replace "see" with "focus your sight upon" and it might make more sense.)
>>871597
Those "sensory illusions" in your brain, do very much exist! I think you need to loosen up your fedora a bit, Anon.
>>871601
Nice try, illuminati.
I'm immune to aids. In fact I'm immune to all diseases because I drink cow piss.
>>871603
This, illusions are simultaneously real, at the very least in the sense that they effect your behaviour.
>>871603
No, they are distortions of things that exist, they are as much reality as your reflection is you.
>>871608
I told your parents to tell you that because it will be funny watching you have a disease while you swear you don't have it because you drank all the cow piss we pooped in.
>>871646
Yes, yes, and I'm fucking your mom whenever you're not looking.
And you, when you're paralyzed in your sleep.
>>871652
No, we tricked you, that was your cousin and little brother, you sick fuck, its easy to control all the information of someone who has only had internet for a week.
>>871672
I don't need internet when i can lucid dream. Enjoy your sleep tonight. I know I will.
>>871678
Boy can you, you been in a coma for the past three years and I work for the healthcare company that monitors your lucidity, you are in a deep deep slumber and the only way you can wake up in the real world is kill yourself in this dream world.
>>866210
By tipping your fedora after every point you make
>>871682
>healthcare company
I work for the spidergod. Me > you. Lalala.
![a1962890450_10[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/I2h03Qi.jpg "a1962890450_10[1].jpg")
>>871688
Please wake up, your family loves you, they kept all the spiderman posters up in your room and everything, they haven't changed a thing in three years.
This might be your last chance, they want to pull the plug soon and see if it will shock you back into consciousness, but we don't know if you will make it. PLEASE WAKE UP.
>>871687
kek
