>Debating atheist.
>Religion isn't true because science.
>What makes science true?
>Because it's muh logical.
>Implying logic isn't subjective.
They can't even argue.
I'll bite.
>logic isn't subjective
Pretty vague statement from what I can tell in the context I think you're trying to use it in.
Are you saying things fall up for some people?
Are you saying there are times where a match can't be blown out?
Are you saying there someone has aged in reverse before?
Also, Logic isn't factual in case you're trying to imply those two terms are related.
For the sake of science and logic being used together and if you want to throw "fact" and known things there, when we say we know things we are never certain. We take them as though they are reasonably sound claims.
If black holes are proven to not be true sometimes in the future, I'll accept it and realize we were assuming.
>>79273022
cuck
>>79273529
>this is how godfags debate
Top kek, funny how religion is a bigger meme than 'cuck'
>>79272504
Presuppositionalism is simply pseudophilosophy that deserve to be shat at and mocked
>>79272504
kill yourself child molester
>>79272504
>implaying deduction is subjective
>>79272504
Flying spaghetti monster. Illogical? Lad logic is subjective.
>>79272504
so, you are basically claiming that science is a religion too?
there is nothing to argue about then, go believe in your bearded all mighty while i believe in evolution.
what a weak bait, try harder
>>79272504
Science is fact
Logic is just a means to an end.
=/=
false equivalency is
not an argument
>>79272504
It may or may not be subjective, but it is certainly not complete (since there is at least one self-contradictory fact -- existence exists).
In other words, the transcendetal is real. Human logic does not define the limits of reality but only of human conception and the mathematical structure of our perceptual world (the physical universe).
>>79275421
buttmad cuck
>>79275406
>Science is fact
Prove it
>>79272504
Only a God would be capable of logic.
Since logic requires omniscience to be considered valid.
lol
>its this thread again
Also, I'm still waiting for somebody to design an experiment that could prove or disprove God, let alone carry it out.
If God doesn't come when you call for him, that doesn't prove there is no God, it proves that if there is a God, you aren't him.
So what's your experiment?
How would you even BEGIN to test?
What conditions?
Science is based on observation. Religion is based on imagination.
thread reminds me of
https://youtu.be/DqejESIO7sc
>>79278663
>science rests on falsifiability
Science is based on perpetually refuting itself by design
You will never get a stable "fact" through science
>>79272504
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Also, I'm utterly SHOCKED that people think Science has somehow "defeated" religion.
I thought the whole point of Science is that it's constantly changing, constantly approaching the truth, that no case is ever closed, that no debate is ever settled.
I think it's funny that we still have to refer to the "Theory of Gravity," but yeah, the whole God thing is totally settled.
It's the old, "do you know everything?" question again.
>Do you know Everything?
No.
>Do you know half of everything?
I doubt it.
>What about 1%? Do you think you know 1% of everything? Let's say you do...
Yes?
>Well maybe God exists in the other 99% of everything that you don't know.
Well you can't prove a negative!
>Not only that, it's damned hard to prove a positive, too.
>>79278832
>Science is based on
The physical world my man. Religion has no basis.
>>79278663
What are new inventions based on?
It can't be observation, that leads to reproduction, not innovation.
Hmm, maybe imagination isn't as unreal as you think.
Maybe other things are real that you think relatively unreal, and vice-versa. Physicists sure think so.
>>79279185
God does not exist is that sort of extraordinary claim just as much as God does exist
>>79279292
>the physical world is all that exists
>>79278576
Impossible. God is supernatural while science only deals with the natural world. So its futile to try to use science to disprove or prove the existence of god. Its a philosophical debate.
this
is a
>current year
>not worshiping KEK
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU
pepe thread
>>79279185
What about that which is dismissed despite evidence?
What about the fact that there would be new evidence coming in every new second in time?
Don't you think you've made up your mind awfully early?
Are you even aware that there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence?
And finally, what about this evidence? Have you seen it already?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o
>>79279643
>>79279614
>>79279592
>>79279559
>>79279398
>>79279185
>>79278832
https://youtu.be/lhC7i_YmzKk
PRAISE HIM
PRAISE KEK
>>79279351
Inventions are either based on existing technologies and understandings, or on new observations discovered through creativity.
>>79279505
There's no evidence for anything other than it existing.
>>79279292
>The physical world my man.
Prove that materialism is real.
>>79272504
You're more correct than you think, but the exchange you outlined was still retarded.
>>79279720
>What is the Argument from Ignorance?
>>79279713
Sorry m9 I'm a Christian
and then there was kek
and kek saw the kek and that it was kek
>>79279804
The collective experience of reality is proof enough unless you think you're the only consciousness in existence.
>>79279891
Not at all what I claimed. I said there is NO evidence that worlds other than this one exist.
>>79279515
How can atheists, who claim to have NO GOD OTHER than Science, not understand what you have so perfectly explained?
Do they truly worship that which they know not of? The same accusation they levy against the religious?
And they truly deny that atheism is a religion?????
That takes the faith of at least several dozen mustard seeds.
>>79280078
>The collective experience of reality is proof enough unless you think you're the only consciousness in existence.
You just refuted your own "proof". Prove that any consciousness than my own is real.
>>79279720
>new observations discovered through creativity.
What's that? What's creativity based on?
If you're familiar with Socrates, you should know that I can always ask more questions than you have answers.
>>79280078
>Absence of evidence =! Evidence of absence
You may have just been too stupid to notice it (always a valid possibility)
>>79280078
Matter at the subatomic level is proven insubstantial. What 'materialism'?
>>79280179
>Prove that any consciousness than my own is real.
Stop defying your own will to fly! If you're the only consciousness, then what stops you from being God?
Quick, make me a universe!
Or maybe first you should prove that you are conscious in the first place, before we tackle flying through the air.
>>79279398
Doubting the existence of God is reactionary to the claim that God exists in the first place, friend- the burden of proof is on you
Otherwise, by that logic, Thor and Vishnu are just as real as God
>>79280429
That's not proof. Are you saying that you can't prove that any other consciousness other than my own is real? If not, then I guess there's no proof for materialism either (and consequently not for anything related to science). Damn, must suck to be an atheist and rely so heavily on dogma.
>>79273022
First comment best comment
>>79280433
>Doubting the existence of God is reactionary to the claim that God exists in the first place, friend- the burden of proof is on you
Burden of proof does not in any sense make the Argument from Ignorance valid
>Otherwise, by that logic, Thor and Vishnu are just as real as God
Yes they are. The question is which one ought to put his faith in
>>79280433
>Doubting the existence of God is reactionary to the claim that God exists in the first place, friend-the burden of proof is on you
It's on everyone, don't you think?
Maybe God works through individuals, and in individuals, and on individuals. In His own time, not at one time. Each of us on our own, not everyone at once.
Remember, man makes bricks. God makes rocks. Man makes boards, God makes trees. Man makes a place flat, while God raises mountains and makes valleys.
Maybe you should take the burden of proof on yourself, and not wait for some fool to do it for you.
>>79280100
Atheists who treat atheism as a religion are retarded people who doesnt understand the concept of what they claim to believe in, and they bash religion as if they have a moral reason to do so.
We cant prove God exists and we cant really disprove it either so in the end all an atheist "should" do is to claim that it would be foolish to do or not do certain things that's been credited to a deity that we cant prove is real.
>>79280599
>Are you saying that you can't prove that any other consciousness other than my own is real
No, I'm saying I disproved that you're the only consciousness because if you were the ONLY consciousness, why would you defy your own will?
Why can't you say, I don't know, breathe underwater or something?
Or is this reality actually quite objectively real and also independent of your consciousness.
i.e. reality isn't stuck in here with you, you're stuck in here with it.
>>79280100
"Science" is a process, not a religion. It's reddit as fuck but the flying spaghetti monster uses the same reasoning as "we can't disprove or comprehend it so it must be real".
>>79280179
That's as impossible as proving or disproving God's existence.
>>79280185
>>79280247
>>79280266
Let me simplify. We can observe the physical world with our sensory organs and we can observe others making such observations (by interacting with them or using medical technology). So, we can be reasonably sure we aren't the only ones observing it.
Religion on the other hand is based purely on ideas and "experiences". There is no way to rationally accept it unless you have such an experience, and there's no way to observe one in another person either.
>>79275406
>science is fact
>Except global warming amd evolution, we just really think those things are real - just look at these made up drawings and charts.
>>79280888
Maybe agnostics are atheists and atheists are anti-theists.
>>79281108
>That's as impossible as proving or disproving God's existence.
Good, then there's no proof that materialism is actually real.
>>79281057
>
No, I'm saying I disproved that you're the only consciousness because if you were the ONLY consciousness, why would you defy your own will?
Except that's not really disproving anything. Try again.
>>79273022
fpbp
/thread
>>79281108
>Let me simplify. We can observe the physical world with our sensory organs and we can observe others making such observations (by interacting with them or using medical technology). So, we can be reasonably sure we aren't the only ones observing it.
Doesn't make those observations any less or more real (cf. ad populum)
>Religion on the other hand is based purely on ideas and "experiences". There is no way to rationally accept it unless you have such an experience, and there's no way to observe one in another person either.
There is no way to scientifically accept it
There is a rational case for (the Christian) religion and I am happy to make it
>>79273022
>falling for the truth meme
Logic is built on axioms, which aren't necessarily true.
logic is subjective the same way morals are.
you can say "MUH THATS YOUR OPINION", but the same logic that builds space stations and nuclear powerplants disproves religion. While religious logic creats niggers.
You're only left to go full "muh logic need to prove itself to be proven, muh leap of faith" but that retarded and wont lead you to shit and its nigger lv.
>>79280721
The problem is that the Argument from Ignorance is your problem to deal with. Nobody is claiming God doesn't exist, you are claiming he does, hence the burden of proof.
Argument from Ignorance doesn't come into it. Nobody is denying the existence of God on the grounds of a lack of (((evidence))), people just don't believe there is a God. That statement does not imply that there is no God, merely that person B does not believe in him.
>Yes they are. The question is which one ought to put his faith in
Do you believe in the existence of all Gods and deities?
>>79272504
>Implying logic isn't subjective.
>>79272504
I'm god.
you can't prove that I'm not, I'm all powerful
Just look at these dubs
>>79281108
>Religion on the other hand is based purely on ideas and "experiences". There is no way to rationally accept it unless you have such an experience, and there's no way to observe one in another person either.
By two or three witnesses let a thing be established, eh?
What about mass-hallucinations.
If two people hallucinate the same thing, is it real?
What about fifty people?
What about a whole CITY?
What about TWO cities?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg
>>79281241
>there's no proof that materialism is actually real
No, but I personally experience reality, so I can accept it. I've never had a spiritual experience so I have nothing to base faith on.
>>79281345
The crux of it for me is that because you can't apply logic to them, religions are as credible as me or any other anon claiming to be God. There is no reason to follow them except tradition.
And I haven't read any philosophy so gimme a break with the fallacies.
>>79281831
This poster has divine Godly dubs, but our limited human perception cannot understand them.
He is powerful enough to make 31 into repeating digits, and we must believe him.
PRAISE ANON!
>>79281681
>Nobody is claiming God doesn't exist, you are claiming he does
Prove which claim came first.
Chicken? or Egg?
>>79281681
>Weak Atheism
Shitty copout m9. A dog lacks a belief in God, doesn't tell you absolutely anything about whether God exists or not
You are just cowedly refusing to make a stance on the matter
>Do you believe in the existence of all Gods and deities?
Ought I?
>>79281882
>By two or three witnesses let a thing be established, eh?
I'm talking about literally the entire human population. Are you telling me you aren't real?
And yes if a bunch of people observe something it warrants investigating. Who says what you linked was a hallucination?
>>79281938
>I've never had a spiritual experience
Did you try following the detailed instructions step-by-step?
>>79281208
Well the fedora tier people sure fit the Anti-theists camp more.
>>79282033
>A dog lacks a belief in God
citation needed
>>79281938
>No
Great, so science is based on a fundamentally unprovable concept. Explain to once more, how science is factual? It's literally equivalent to religion in terms of dogma and belief.
>people here talking of logic and pretending they use logic
>none of them could even produce a simple proof in first order logic
top kek, keep on arguing. you will never reach true agreement since you are not even using valid logical systems in your arguments
>>79281938
>There is no reason to follow them except tradition.
The Christian tradition brings with it things inherent in and only in the Christian religion (a Christian peace, a Christian content (synonym for happiness), a Christian unity and a homogeneous cultural identity in congruence with more of our ancestors' history)
It's a lot more rational than keeping ourselves ideologically divided (or united in classical, social, and/ or cultural liberalism)
>>79282066
>Who says what you linked was a hallucination?
I didn't.
But you didn't see it, so you might.
It would seem to me that you pick and choose when to take things on blind faith and when to be more scrutinizing.
Like everybody.
Irreligion only idealology
>>79282419
>What is informal logic?
>>79282260
Right so is Jesus sitting next to you then? Can you hear God or Allah giving you divine instructions? I imagine not.
You can however see the room you're sitting in. That's already a difference.
>>79282033
>You are just cowedly refusing to make a stance on the matter
Exactly! Why would I make a claim to something I cannot possibly prove? All I can affirm is this- I simply do not believe in the existence of the spiritual, or a God.
What you're doing is baiting the trap of "You cannot claim God doesn't exist because you freely admit that you cannot physically prove he does not exist" and then getting frustrated when I don't bite. The problem for you is that this still doesn't support your claim that a God does exist.
>>79279648
kent hovind is to hardcore for a atheist i had a alot of problems with dino man even when young christian
>It's a new worlders unironically talk about religion episode
Why did religious progress stagnate in America?
>>79282219
Ok then, how about a fly?
>>79282554
It's something you literally made up in your mammal brain. While a decent tool in shitposting and hunting rabbits, it is not logically sound and valid.
>>79282430
I try not to take anything on blind faith except when it's pointless or impractical not to. (Like accepting that I exist and, for example, will die if I don't tend to my physical form.)
How much of the Bible have you read anon?
Someone prove that logic is real pro tip you can't lel rekt
>>79282585
Schizophrenic people can see things that you consider to be hallunications. Guess these hallunications exist then, since they are visible to the human eye.
>>79272504
Most modern "atheists" would get blown the fuck out by Plato. Most atheists are nothing more than modern day Sophists, fools that pretend to have knowledge when they're nothing more than masters of false opinion.
>>79281938
Since no one can time travel, the only way for an ancient religion to prove itself true would be via predictions that are too big to plan, coming true to an exact and accurate point.
Logically, if the predictions are all true, bar none, then the religion might be true. But they would have to be extremely specific. And there's always an argument that until it comes true, it is false. Therefore, all religions are false, until proven true and shouldn't be held on faith alone - which destroys many religions in itself.
>>79282614
>Exactly! Why would I make a claim to something I cannot possibly prove?
Because otherwise you have no place in having this conversation (if you're only interested in things you believe you could know)
>The problem for you is that this still doesn't support your claim that a God does exist.
It's not a problem for me. I'm not looking to prove to you that God exists
I'm trying to get you to have faith in Him
>>79283042
I get that this is a b8 thread, but you're holding up Plato as the golden standard here? That nigga is the reason why we still have sophistry in the world. Thank God he produced Aristotle otherwise we'd be dealing with a world of ideal forms rather than empiricism.
>>79282761
>formal logic is not something made up in the human mammal brain as well
>>79283008
What you decribe is literally what relevation is though..
>GOD SPEAKS TO ME, FOR REALSIES.. I'M TOTALLY NOT MENTALLY INSANE, PLEASE HEAR MY WORD AND WORSHIP THE VOICES IN MY HEAD
>>79283269
>Talking about 'making things up' in a debate about religion
lmao
>>79283269
Formal logic is true even if there would be no life.
>>79283364
He started it >:P
>>79279505
>the physical world is all we can observe
fix'd
>>79283432
Prove it
>>79283008
I can't prove reality if I'm a part of it anon. This discussion is impossible.
My point is that there isn't even somewhere to start when it comes to religion. Like I said earlier, I could claim to be God and it would be as credible.
>>79283086
Exactly what I'm trying to say. Religions are baseless claims, not observed phenomena.
>>79272504
Logic isn't subjective. This board worries me sometimes.
/pol/ is an atheist board. Believers in fairies, sky gods and kike miracles should fuck off to >>>/x/
>>79282882
Feel free to draw a shape that is both a cube and not a cube.
>>79283432
Prove it
>>79283557
See this >>79283560
>>79283584
Yea it is.
It's you the individual who determines what is and isn't logical.
>>79283594
>Believers in fairies, sky gods and kike miracles should fuck off
Lmao, why are American atheists always so vile and asshurt? Is it because you're raised as Christians in a Christian country or something?
I'm not religious and I don't really believe in anything as far as spirituality and deities go, but I don't have the urge to go around insulting people's beliefs with terms like 'sky wizard' and 'fairytales' like many Americans seem compelled to.. Why is that? Can't you just not believe and leave it at that?
>>79283601
Cause and effect remain true even if there are no humans (or anyone) to observe it.
>>79283694
>It's you the individual who determines what is and isn't logical.
No. Logic remains logical if there is nobody to label it so..
>>79283831
Schrödinger would like a word.
>>79283831
Proof?
>>79283601
>>79283560
Axioms that define true and false are the same used to define formal logic.
The claim "formal logic is not true" is not valid because outside of formal logic "not true/false" is not defined.
>>79284004
But the claim "formal logic is true" is JUST as invalid ya mug
>>79283946
Schrödinger had nice philosophical ideas... His cat however, would be either dead or alive after stuffing it in that box, not both. Probably dead, since IIRC he poisoned the box or something.
>>79283947
Basic logic and common sense don't require proof ;DDDD
Besides, debating religious people is pointless anyway..
>Lets have a rational debate about that which by it's very nature is not rational ;D
>>79284004
So formal logic is true because formal logic says so that's like me saying God is real because the bible says so lol rekt
>>79283138
>I'm not looking to prove to you that God exists, I'm trying to get you to have faith in him
I'd love to have faith in God, truly I would
The only problem is that God has no better a claim to my faith than Thor, Vishnu, Allah, or Ba'al
Currently KEK seems more real to me than God. If God's reaching out to me, he seems to be doing it through the signs of repeating digits and Meme Magic, which isn't working out as planned for him.
It's all about premisses.
The premise in atheism is that God is not real and reality can only be know trough emperical epistemology.
From that point you build evolution, secular ethics,etc
>>79284216
Pretty much yeah. Logic is not omnipotent, and there is realm outside of logic.
But everything that is true or false is defined by logic. Think of it as a tool.
>>79284408
cuck
>>79284159
Belief in Christ is rational for a collective's (my collective's) stability
>Basic logic and common sense don't require proof ;DDDD
And neither does God
>>>Lets have a rational debate about that which by it's very nature is not rational ;D
Because most new gaytheists think they can rationally dismiss God
>>79283694
And how do you do that? By pulling it out of your ass?
>>79283770
If you encourage idiots, they only get stupider. It's the problem with all forms of political correctness. Feel free to keep posting itt until you figure that out.
>>79284292
That's because you need to stop thinking purely as an individual and start thinking collectively and nationally
Do you even remember our history..
>>79284550
By defining your logical rules and axioms; and then applying them
>>79284550
2+2=4 is not logical, it's just fact because math was created with pretermined rules.
Everything else however is completely subjective.
Example:
It's logical that the sun will rise in the morning.
That's an opinion because it could not, maybe it blows up, maybe the earth spins on the axis, etc...
>>79283694
That' not what logic is. You sound like an SJW, "Facts are racist". kys.
>>79284701
Yes, but it doesn't help me believe in God unfortunately
>>79282427
>>79284701
Desu I recognise the benefit of modern Christianity, I'm just arguing the core belief. (Which is a bit essential actually.)
>>79284917
POO
>>79273022
Electric Universe and Primer fields, two models and theories that denounce black holes, Neutron stars, Gravitational lensing, dark matter, dark energy.
>>79284663
You are no longer politically incorrect bucko. We are
>all these edgy redditor atheists on /pol/, a christian board
>>79284917
pretty shitty, like your street+s
>be pagan
>accept science
>cozy afterlife and science
Living the dream.
>>79284823
Yes it is.
There's no governing body that determines what is and isn't logical.
And if there was, would you trust them?
>>79284884
It's absurd arguing for [scientific] evidence for a thing that can't be [scientifically] proven
You're just what the Soviets called useful (kind-hearted) idiots
>>79285011
>/pol/, a christian board
/pol/ was never a christian board. It's just a handful of 3rd worlders and rednecks shitposting over and over again.
>>79284840
What would?
>inb4 scientific evidence
>>79278269
fucking hell m8
/thread
>>79285289
>/pol/ was never a christian board. It's just a handful of 3rd worlders and rednecks shitposting over and over again.
>>79285289
cuck
>>79285196
Prove that it can't be scientifically proven
>>79285289
kill yourself
>>79284989
i thought electric universe got debuken 100000000000000000000000000000 times , but yeah people would still believe it
>>79285433
I can't
Science is just by definition is naturalist-physicalist (only the physical world exists) and God in science is perceived as entirely non-physical, so it could never detect Him
>>79285136
logic is like math, you don't need a governing body
>>79283641
the scientific method works only for the material world beccause that is what we can measure. if there is an immaterial world, we can not perceive or measure it. that doesn't mean that the immaterial world doesn't exist, only that scientists don't give a damn about it and that is why most scientists who are religious separate these two completely. because it's the most sensible thing to do.
>>79285410
stop shit posting please you have polluted the entire thread, spastic.
>>79272504
The false dichotomy between science and religion is one of the greatest enlightenment era tricks
>>79285656
Why don't you need a governing body
>>79285410
>>79285412
>>79285456
Thanks for proving my point, christfags. Keep being you.
>>79285656
>They are scientists
AND
>at same time religious
>they separate them completely
Only when they actually do studies and apply the scientific method you absolute moron
There is a way to perceive science without you drawing too many unprovable general conclusions (cf. Scientific Instrumentalism vs Scientific Realism)
Read a book ffs
>>79285196
>arguing for [scientific] evidence for a thing that can't be [scientifically] proven
Anon I'm saying the original claim has little to give it credibility, so it's not really even something that should be seriously considered. (Like a cult leader claiming to be the second coming.)
>You're just what the Soviets called useful (kind-hearted) idiots
Not very nice desu.
>>79285969
We will, because this is a christian board after all
>>79285742
>shittalks my posts
Thanks for reading them
>>79286156
muh safe space
>>79286103
>Anon I'm saying the original claim has little to give it credibility, so it's not really even something that should be seriously considered. (Like a cult leader claiming to be the second coming.)
It has little to give it gnostic credibility
Everyone knows it's a faith-based/ agnostic assertion (even the New Gaytheists who doublethink it's some sort of scientific claim)
>>79286192
>implying i didn't just take a quick look at the half of your posts containing reddit frog and shitty bait images
you're blatant desu
Why do christards act like all atheists subscribe to science as their reason for the lack of existence of God.
Is it so outrageous to you that atheist simply means one who does not believe in God?There is absolutely 0 addendum to that. Absolutely nothing else atheists as a whole have in common.
It's always Americans who treat atheism as if it was a religion. Both the American christians and atheists that is.
>>79286515
>implying you're not curious to see if you've misjudged them rapidly because of your ideological closed-mindedness
>>79286394
But that's like having faith in a bowl of cereal man. You can't just come up with an idea and have faith that it's true.
>>79286588
>We're all just Weak Atheists I swear :'^(
Vezi >>79282033
God raped Jesus mother and molested him as a child. Thats why Jesus became such a cuck and loved BDSM. He died during a really disgusting BDSM session when he wanted to get off by being nailed to a cross. Why do you worship such a sicko?!
>>79272504
>Implying logic isn't subjective.
It's not, it's objective. But that isn't even the main thing.
Science is the way to go, because everything can be challenged and retested objectively.
There are things that can't be proven or disproven through science, and that's where religion comes in. Or metaphysics, or philosophy if you will.
Both religion and science have its place in today's world, and neither can replace the other.
>>79286745
>THE DIVINE APPLE OF GENESIS EXISTS AT THE CORE OF THE UNIVERSE,INVISIBLE AND INTANGIBLE
>I don't believe that
>HAHAH THEN PROVE ME WRONG
>no
>HAHAHAHA I WIN YET AGAIN I'VE DEMONSTRATED THE SUPERIORITY OF MY BELIEF OVER YOUR WEAK AND FRAIL DISBELIEF
Oh pipe down theists,it doesn't fucking matter.
>>79286661
>But that's like having faith in a bowl of cereal man.
False equivalence (+Appeal to Ridicule)
>You can't just come up with an idea
You don't come up with the idea of God. It's millennia of years old
>and just have faith that it's true.
Ever heard of Kierkegaard?
>>79272504
>Implying logic isn't subjective.
oh boy
>>79286934
>Declansat
When will atheists stop being so burhurt and purposefully misunderstanding of Christianity
>>79285582
Debunked because they aren't peer reviewed by """"""""Official Science groups"""""""""
>>79285306
Probably a bad enough stroke should do it
>>79287005
Yes I will use false equivalence and ridicule because the only reason the belief in a deity has more weight is because lots of people do it. And lots of people doing it over millennia doesn't make it true, didn't you mention ad populum earlier?
>>79287166
Have you no respect for these nations' historical religion doe..
>>79287289
There are some areas where I don't give a flying fuck about how many fallacies there are
It doesn't really matter anyway
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
>>79281573
>axioms, which aren't necessarily true.
you don't really understand what an axiom is, do you
Alright, heres my thought on religion/atheism thing.
As a former hardcore atheist, i used to debate religious people all the time, i won.
And now im a guy whos deep in the rabbit hole, and i believe in god and greater powers. And ive talked to atheists about this, theyre the most annoying people ive ever met in my entire time, im sorry for everyone who i debated with. Atheists are fucking spergs. And i do believe in science, and science is good, we humans need science. But we should not talk shit about religions in general. And Science vs Religion is not a thing, because theyre 2 different things. Science nowdays are used as a weapon by (((Innocent people))) to destroy us. Theyre making false science and statics such as "circumcision is healthy and good for you penis" and using statistics such as "Men get 90% more paid than woman". "There are no races, just look, we are the same, but with different skin colors"
It disgusts me, i can only trust "old" science now.
And religion is philosophy where you talk about greater problems and solutions with facts and some science.
Sorry for my english /pol/
>>79287800
he completely right doe
>>79272504
And they say Canadians are shitposters.
Ban all Americans.
>>79287931
>former New Atheist, now Christian
Same here mate
>>79288023
yeah no
>>79288233
Im not christian, im not even baptized, and ive never been to a church except for funerals. But i do believe in god and im thinking about becoming a christian, but i dont wanna donate money to the swedish cuck church.
>>79272504
>why dont people believe what I want to believe
>they cant even argue
Probably he just decided you werent worth his time
>logic is subjective
Ok mr Goldenstein
>>79288556
You don't need to go to Church to be Christian my friend. Just get baptised into the most Christ tradition-keeping faith you can find, and live out your faith
>>79288550
y not?
>>79272504
Kind of unrelated but I don't want to make my own thread just for this, so sorry in advance. I've been pretty much agnostic/atheist my entire life, however the last 5/6 years I have grown increasingly sympathetic towards Christianity and the effect it's had upon society.
Recently I've had some extremely traumatic events happen in my life, and I'm somewhat struggling to cope with it. While I'm not sure if I believe in a God or not, I am thinking of turning to Christianity.
3 questions:
- Am I doing this for the wrong reasons?
- Is it frowned upon entering a church (most likely Anglican) without a firm belief in God? Or are they open to guiding you towards being a believer?
- Has anyone else turned to religion to help recover from a traumatic event? Did it Work?
>>79288752
Alright, thanks. I should start reading more about christianity.
>>79288843
Make sure to avoid the most recent social liberal perversions of the faith. May God help you
>>79288803
>Has anyone else turned to religion to help recover from a traumatic event?
It was either Christ or killing myself
>Did it Work?
More than anything I've tried since I became a New Atheist. And I've tried pretty much everything I could
>>79288843
This is all you need to know
>>79289075
Been avoiding all propaganda brother :)
I can feel the anger in some peoples minds because i refuse to listen to jewish propaganda.
Science isn't "fact," nor its opposite: science just is.
What's shown through science can be ascertained to be factual or not -- for the time being.
>>79289395
(((Globalist))) propaganda has been pouring into our minds since the end of the last World War. It's stuck in most of our minds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi6cLciO2b8
>>79288803
>- Am I doing this for the wrong reasons?
There are no wrong reasons to try to get help. Especially when upon traumatic times.
>- Is it frowned upon entering a church (most likely Anglican) without a firm belief in God? Or are they open to guiding you towards being a believer?
Did you burst into flames as soon as you entered a church? If not, then you're fine. There are other people like you in there too. Beating up people when they're down is not what the church does.
>- Has anyone else turned to religion to help recover from a traumatic event? Did it Work?
Not for me. But the sense of community and belonging does help a lot of people. Some faggot once said something like "the knowledge that you can get help, is often enough to help."
muh big bang
>>79289301
That's encouraging, what denomination do you belong to?
>>79288752
look it up
>>79289929
Orthodox Christianity. I'm a east Euro migrant, currently a student here
>>79289983
where do I find it doe?
>>79274725
>godfag
>>79289314
lol
>>79289848
Big bang is just a theory based on some scientific facts, just like some religious theories, are based on imagination, philosophy, facts.
Thats why i love to combine those things. Atheists who say big bang happened and the 'dude in the sky' isnt real are brainwashed.
>>79289648
Yeah, so sad. Also, nice music
>>79290380
The Brits have astounding beauty in music. A shame they've been more thoroughly globalised than our nations on the east of the continent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfayNuB3H_8
>>79282013
>Prove which claim came first.
>Chicken? or Egg?
They evolved alongside each other during millions of years of natural selection
>>79290630
>he believes in macroevolution
>>79290135
you will find it atop the roof of the summit of the peak of the mountain of the ridge of the building of the temple of the church of ashurbanipal
>>79273529
>>79278003
>>79283694
You have wrecked your original premise so badly you really should consider deleting life.
>>79291857
>Appeal to Ridicule
And they say New Atheists value logic
>>79281573
Axioms are by definition true- thus they are necessarily true.
However, you can pick and choose your axioms. Which makes logical truths true or false relative to a particular set of axioms.
Usually, we think of logical axioms as being consistent and complete. This isn't always the goal- as some logicians and mathematicians like to remove or change axioms to see what truths follow- the non-contradictory axiom is a fun one to remove and allows for "fuzzy sets" and "fuzzy logic".
In any case, logic isn't "subjective", it's relative. It isn't as though you can combine random axioms to get a consistent and complete logic- which is what non mathematicians and non- logicians mean when they use the term "logic"..
>>79278576
By testing its supposed characteristics. Let's say you want to see if an all-knowing something can exist: can that something know how it feels to know something?
See, easy peasy. No god.
>>79292637
>Axioms are by definition true
>thus they are necessarily true.
Necessary for what? They're not necessarily facts. They could as well be false
>It isn't as though you can combine random axioms to get a consistent and complete logic- which is what non mathematicians and non- logicians mean when they use the term "logic"..
Not random, but they are completely arbitrary by their nature
All you have to do is make sure they're compatible with each other
>>79279210
No, not totally settled but simply abandoned, because not only there has never been any shred of evidence for its existence but a god with the required characteristics of one cannot logically exist.
So while we aren't 100% sure that it doesn't exist we are 100% sure that it can't exist.
>>79292870
>Let's say you want to see if an all-knowing something can exist: can that something know how it feels to know something?
Explain
>>79290380
It is funny because it is true
Fucking Paul ruined everything
It's as if atheists think that all Christians aren't scientists. I know many Christians who also believe in evolution and long earth theory. Eat your heart out atheists.
There's too many religions for your one to be true, you only happen to believe in that specific one because of were you was born
>>79293125
You do know God is defined as not having to respect our logic right?
It's like 2-D people disproving our existence with their logic
>>79293351
>you only happen to believe in that specific one because of were you was born
This argument would work if there was any religion to begin with left in the West
Westerners have their own dogmatic ideologies, even if they've lost their religion
There's many things you take purely for granted just because of where you've been born
>>79273529
SAVAGE. REKT. EKS DEE
>>79293559
It also applies to when you were born
>>79293125
personal god like Old Testament no
Tillich God yes
Perhaps we do need to move beyond theisms
>>79293351
>>79293559
>There's many things you take purely for granted just because of where you've been born
For example the idea that all religions are false. Regardless of how many there are or whether you've investigated any of their claims
This is called a dogma
>>79293641
And you are not immune to it. There are millennial dogmas even more insidious than previous' generations. See >>79293795
>>79293192
For it to know how it feels to know something is necessary to know how it feels to not know somethin. So even if it knows or not that feeling it means that there is something that it doesn't know, which means that he's not all knowing, so no god at all.
hey atheists check out these sik dubs that prove god is real
>>79272504
Logic is not subjective by definition of what "objective" and "subjective" mean.
Your move.
>>79272504
>Allah and Muhammad (PBUM) 1
>science 0
>>79294036
Ok. I get what you meant:
>Let's say you want to see if an all-knowing something can exist: can that something know how it feels to know something [more]*?
Acum de ce ar trebui Dumnezeu sa urmeze firul logicii umane?
>all powerful, loving god
>invisible & mysterious
>eternal torture for non-believers
yep sure makes sense
>>79293376
But it must respect our logic, otherwise it would be incompatible with this universe and unable to interact with it in any way.
BTW, i can prove that i exist to 2-D people, and while interacting with them i can follow and obey their logic, so you see, your argument is exactly the opposite of what you're expecting of it.
>>79293711
Nah, all gods are exactly the same, they only differ in unimportant details.
>>79294280
deoarece asta nu este logica umana, este logica universala, va fi la fel oriunde in univers.
Can we just get /religion board in here so all the fucking people who want to fight about this can go on their own little place and have a showdown for decades. Yes, militant atheist and militant christians alike. Militant islamist blow themselves up, so there is no need for invite.
We need to build a fucking wall here, gentlemen.
>>79294311
>What is being All-Just?
Non-religious/ non-spiritual atheists are by necessity evil (according to our religion) and amoral (objectively)
>>79272504
Science's claim to truth is repeatable experiments giving consistent results and verifiable hypothesis.
>>79294492
>But it must respect our logic, otherwise it would be incompatible with this universe and unable to interact with it in any way.
Implying the Universe respects our logic
>BTW, i can prove that i exist to 2-D people, and while interacting with them i can follow and obey their logic, so you see, your argument is exactly the opposite of what you're expecting of it.
They wouldn't be able to understand a 3-D creature because of their perception
>deoarece asta nu este logica umana, este logica universala, va fi la fel oriunde in univers.
dovada?
>>79283138
>I'm trying to get you to have faith in Him
So what makes your present god worthy of your faith apart the fact it's the one your parents have indoctrinated you with? What makes it more special than countless millions of other gods?
>>79294492
Btw, verifica asta cand simti nevoia de o pace bisericeasca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9E6aql1U84
>>79295046
It's this continent's most historically definitive religion
>>79293010
>they're not necessarily facts
You have no idea what you're talking about. Axioms are never facts. And facts are never necessarily true.
Necessarily true means true in all possible worlds. Contingent truths- like facts are never necessarily true because it is possible that something else could have happened. Reflexive truths- or truths that are by definition true are necessarily true- they're true in all possible worlds because they are mere assertions not observations. (while assessing a set of axioms requires an "observation" or mathematical proof, axioms themselves aren't observations. For instance, if A is a member of set b then ~A is not a member of set b - isn't an observation- it's an assumption and required for consistency in logics.
>arbitrary by nature
Uh, no, by definition they have requirements if they are to meet completeness and consistency. That rules out rules that are by definition inconsistent or limited in scope. Thus they cannot at the same time be arbitrary and contain constraints. Theoretically, there may be many sets of axioms that achieve consistency and completeness- that isn't the same as the rules being arbitrary. For instance, you can have many axioms doing the same job as one simple axiom. Or you can load into your axioms truths that are the product of a simpler set of axioms (you can get demorgans from mp for instance). But that isn't arbitrary either- again, the redundant axioms are constrained by adhering to consistency and completeness.
>>79272504
Regardless of the stupidity of this argument, please don't tell me you think it's original?
>>79295046
And doctrines are not necessarily false, nor are you ever immune to them just because you have given up on religion
>>79294866
Yes, it does, unless you have any evidence to the contrary
You don't know that, we are capable of rationalizing 8 dimension universes and what happens in them.
2+2=4
>>79295166
Nu, mersi, nu sufar de retardare mintala, daca vreau pace sufleteasca ascult niste Bach sau Dream Theater.
>>79295334
Times change, 2000 years ago that map would have looked nothing of the kind and in 200 yeas it will look completely different - cults are born and die just like everything else.
>>79272504
My butthole is vast and surpasses the knowledge of simple human organisms
- All Hail My Butthole!!!
Refute that. Protip: you cannot.
>>79272504
Unless you disprove causality in every specific case i will stick to logic.
>>79295338
>You have no idea what you're talking about. Axioms are never facts. And facts are never necessarily true.
Facts are necessarily demonstrated and demonstrable truth, by definition
>Necessarily true means true in all possible worlds.
Those are logical tautologies
I was talking about demonstrable truths (facts)
>Contingent truths- like facts are never necessarily true because it is possible that something else could have happened. Reflexive truths- or truths that are by definition true are necessarily true- they're true in all possible worlds because they are mere assertions not observations.
Observations may be absolute (/necessary) fact in my opinion. "Reflexive truths" are purely tautologies
>Uh, no, by definition they have requirements if they are to meet completeness and consistency.
They don't really require completeness and consistency. It's not in their definition
You require it (or would like it)
They are merely "the building blocs/ the starting point" of reason. Doesn't mean that the end results *has to* be consistent
>>79275259
Science and Atheism are religions, just not in the sense that an atheist or a scientist would see it as.
Atheism is more like a cult and worse than godfags.
>>79295553
>Yes, it does, unless you have any evidence to the contrary
This is called an Argument from Ignorance
>You don't know that,
By definition, they couldn't directly observe us
>we are capable of rationalizing 8 dimension universes and what happens in them.
Purely theoretical abstractions
>Nu, mersi, nu sufar de retardare mintala
Suferi de o repulsie irationala fata de religie. Ti s-a indoctrinat in cap prin left-wing-ul social liberal (vezi Atheism Nou)
>Times change, 2000 years ago that map would have looked nothing of the kind and in 200 yeas it will look completely different - cults are born and die just like everything else.
This time they shouldn't change such that Christianity is completely eradicated
It's the best thing that could give us some sane cultural collective principles again, instead of keeping divided
>>79296154
>Argument from Ignorance
>>79272504
lol i got over this shit when i was 12, you think i actually give a fuck
>>79296241
>facts are necessarily demonstrated and demonstrable truth, by definition.
Uh no. Not even close. Besides it's irrelevant. Facts aren't necessarily true. And you haven't shown otherwise- which means I'm right.
>those are logical tautologies
Yep, pretty much. That's what a necessary truth is. That's why facts, which are contingent, aren't necessary truths- ever.
>They don't really require
Uh, yeah they do, mate. It's a provision or limitation to what can be counted as an axiom in a given set in order to be consistent and complete. Is that too hard to understand for that tiny bong brain?
> you require it
Nope, this is irrelevant to the point made.
>they are merely...
Nonsense. If you agree that there is at least one rule that cannot fit into a set of axioms to form a complete and consistent set of axioms- then rules cannot be arbitrary. Here, I'll show you a rule if you really lack imagination - If A is true then ~A is true also. There ya go. The rules for axioms cannot be arbitrary because there is at least one rule which cannot be a part of a set of consistent and complete axioms.
>>79296724
Says someone pushing a magical omnipotent wizard nobody's ever seen or recorded in any reliable way or form.
>>79273529
/thread
>>79284785
>It's logical that the sun will rise in the morning.That's an opinion because it could not, maybe it blows up, maybe the earth spins on the axis, etc...
But that's not an logical idea at all, that's the point. The correct idea is:
It's logical for the average person to expect the sun to rise in the morning.
>>79285653
But it should be able to detect its action on the universe and surprise surprise, no evidence of something even remotely hinting at that yet. And there aren't too many places left to look into to find it.
>>79288233
>New Atheist
Here was your problem, you went on a fad instead on your own logic and education.
>>79296606
>This is called an Argument from Ignorance
No , this is called having no evidence to support your claims despite all the efforts in finding one.
>By definition, they couldn't directly observe us
Actually yes, they could, just like we can detect what's happening in multi dimensional universes .
>Purely theoretical abstractions
Tell that tot the guys working at CERN, they need a good laugh.
>Suferi de o repulsie irationala fata de religie
Nah, doar dispretuiesc prostia si pe prostii gata sa o inghita nemestecata.
>This time they shouldn't change
Said every religiotard every time it has witnessed its cult dying before its eyes.
>>79278663
So, the idea that a giant explosion caused particles 2 "decide" 2 make planets, then lighting striking the ocean caused bacteria 2 come from nothing (with no supernatural forces involved) is not imagination? Are u sure religion is ONLY based on imagination?
>>79296996
>And you haven't shown otherwise- which means I'm right.
>that's an Argument from Ignorance
But you are right, if you mean that facts are purely observations, they aren't necessarily true
My personal belief is that they can be necessary truth, and that they aren't purely external empirical observations
>Yep, pretty much. That's what a necessary truth is. That's why facts, which are contingent, aren't necessary truths- ever.
See my above reply
>Uh, yeah they do, mate. It's a provision or limitation to what can be counted as an axiom in a given set in order to be consistent and complete. Is that too hard to understand for that tiny bong brain?
>provision to be consistent and complete
Maybe in mathematics, but not in logic. There is nothing that requires this. At all
>Nonsense. If you agree that there is at least one rule that cannot fit into a set of axioms to form a complete and consistent set of axioms- then rules cannot be arbitrary.
> then rules cannot be arbitrary.
Within that system. But as you've already admitted, logical systems are relativistic
>Here, I'll show you a rule if you really lack imagination - If A is true then ~A is true also. There ya go. The rules for axioms cannot be arbitrary because there is at least one rule which cannot be a part of a set of consistent and complete axioms.
Within that system
>>79280100
lololol. I loved that. Soooo true
>>79297001
>Appeal to Ridicule
>Thinking I'm trying to scientifically prove God
>>79272504
>Religion isn't true because science.
Religion is true because there is a need for it and that is not knowing what happens after death. so there is a lot of spiritual and emotional turmoil that comes from that and it needs to be addressed thouroughly and through the means of faith and prayer especially
so fuck atheism.
>>79297470
>But it should be able to detect its action on the universe and surprise surprise, no evidence of something even remotely hinting at that yet. And there aren't too many places left to look into to find it.
Not really. Directly observing God is impossible if He is non-physical
>Here was your problem, you went on a fad instead on your own logic and education.
"My own" logic doesn't count for much epistemologically. Only if we presume there is only one logic
And being educated doesn't necessarily mean not being religious
Stop being a stuck-up whore m8
>No , this is called having no evidence to support your claims despite all the efforts in finding one.
Which doesn't make your claim (the opposite) any more true
>Actually yes, they could
They couldn't make sense of our form (in 3-D)
>, just like we can detect what's happening in multi dimensional universes .
You yourself didn't detect shit pulica. Stop LARP-ing that you're a scientist
>Tell that tot the guys working at CERN, they need a good laugh.
Tell me when the guys at CERN directly observe beings from other dimensions (hypothetical 2-D, or other ∞-D people)
>Nah, doar dispretuiesc prostia si pe prostii gata sa o inghita nemestecata.
Te comporti ca un ratat smiorcait daca continui cu atitutinea asta de fedora
>Said every religiotard every time it has witnessed its cult dying before its eyes.
It's not a cult, it's our continental religion. Or what remains or it
>>79278269
>>79294311
>My sense of morality is superior to an omnipotent, all-knowing god
