Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies, mocking specifically Christians, and drowning themselves with all forms of distractions unrelated anything of community value.yet the elites they cherish fuck up the world at a large scale level while literally worshiping pagan gods and Satan. Really makes you think.
>>81328188
Nah, I just want mongos to not annoy me and to purge mudslimes and kikes.
Someone got triggered by opinions.
>>81328188
Confirmation bias from someone living in a time full of collectivists.
Atheists don't attack the religious. We counter attack when the religious try to undermine secular government and force their bullshit, hypocritical morals on everyone
>>81328678
Atheism is the easiest religion to trigger by far.
>>81329038
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>81328188
n-not all atheists?
Since you'll probably be here.
>>81330225
>God exists. He is the Father of us all and everything
Not an Axiom.
>He is the absolute. Absolute truth, absolute power, absolute knowledge, absolute love for His creation
Also not an Axiom, it would be a premise if the first thing had been an Axiom.
>Logic and science are the discovery of the Truth of God
Still not an Axiom.
>>81331010
They are to me
>>81328188
>select
>fedoras
...
.
.
>>81331637
Even in that sense it doesn't work because you're not using it as the foundation of an abstract mathematical problem, it's just your belief.
"Assume X = 4, what is X+2?" is the kind of thing you'd say in that case. "Assume God exists" and then create an abstract, theoretical argument from there. Not "God is true so God is true."
>>81328188
i'm atheist, extremely individualist and right wing, and cool with christians for the most part. islam needs to get its shit together and be more like modern christianity.
>>81332227
It's used in logic not only mathematics
And I'm using it to construct a logical model, they don't exist by themselves
>>81328188
>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies,
No they don't.
>mocking specifically Christians,
Then Christians prolly need to get out of everyone's face.
>and drowning themselves with all forms of distractions unrelated anything of community value.
No, that's retarded too.
>yet the elites they cherish
Atheists don't worship gods nor men.
>fuck up the world at a large scale level while literally worshiping pagan gods and Satan.
You think the 3 Abrahamic religions haven't been ass-ramming the world with tyranny of the mind for the past 3000 years?
btw, Satan comes from the your Bible. The Atheists don't believe in him.
>Really makes you think.
It would be great if you possibly could, but you've fallen for lies and your cognitive ability is severely damaged.
>>81332554
I'm not sure that's a logical model.
A logical model would be a business saying
Shit we need -----> Shit we need to do ----> Shit we get from doing that -----> What we do with the shit we get
>>81328188
>insults others as being collectivists
>by grouping random people together based on lack of faith
Thats pretty tumblr of you, collectivist.
There are atheists in all political groups, seeing how "atheism" isn't a political statement.
Next time you group individuals to judge them, make sure to group them by the thing you are judging.
>>81332912
It's a logical model because the other epistemological (knowledge-seeking) models that are currently used are self-refuting and as such cannot be logical
Relativism/ Naturalism/ Scientism/ Academic Scepticism
Are all self-refuting
>>81332227
The entirety of religion follows from assuming God exists, something you don't and can't know.
"Assume God exists..." should be the opening line to all holy books, tbqh.
>>81333193
Bro there is something wrong with your truck. Maybe if we give you enough (You)'s to stretch the post frame it will get fixed.
>>81329038
>Atheism is the easiest religion to trigger by far.
Religidiots provide a lot of hilarious entertainment, but they are so shamefully credulous, so insanely gullible and so profoundly retarded mentally that they are actually a threat to themselves and the rest of us.
>>81333367
>something you don't and can't know.
Something you may* not know, one way or another
>>81333202
Again pretty sure you're using that word wrong. A logical model is a created notion of the path an organization will take based purely on their base needs and the outcomes they want. We need X number of this, that, and we need to do these things to make what we want so we can do what we need with them.
Basically you're mixing terms and assuming that because someone can say "In a vacuum and without regard for the physical problems of production this is the path we should take" That it's then logic for you to start a premise for why God does exist with "God exists."
>>81333601
You cannot know personally whether God exists in the present day unless he reveals himself to you personally, and at large people can't know for sure he does unless he did so. Since he won't do that, you can't know.
>if you aren't a christcuck you're a collectivist
kekold
>>81333367
Basically, yeah. If you think about it in more mathematics terms then all Religious arguments and loops have to start with that kind of premise. There's never substantiation in the physical world, just really bad abstract arguments that usually start "God must exist" and end "So God must exist."
>>81333906
>Again pretty sure you're using that word wrong.
A logical epistemological model of reality
A model of knowledge that doesn't fundamentally self-refute
>You cannot know personally whether God exists in the present day unless he reveals himself to you personally, and at large people can't know for sure he does unless he did so. Since he won't do that, you can't know.
God may not reveal Himself to the world empirically or scientifically
>>81334632
A logic model is a thing. Don't call whatever you're trying to make that, because it's not a logic model.
It is a purely logic based model of future actions.
Yours doesn't self refute, but it's entirely circular. It has no axiomatic starting point as its initial premise is also part of the conclusion you want to reach. I may as well refute it by saying "God doesn't exist, so God doesn't exist."
>>81335107
It's logical in the sense that it purports to follow the rules of logic. Specifically that it may not self-refute
"God exists = true" for pragmatic reasons. Namely that that it would be illogical to presume otherwise
My epistemological model cannot justify God
God is needed to even have a (working) epistemological model
>>81335613
what are you guys talking about?
plantinga's reformed epistemology?
>>81335613
>Namely that that it would be illogical to presume otherwise
It's not. At best that's a non sequitur, the assumption of the existence of God has no basis to start with. You're circularly justifying him through an absence in your own knowledge. There's no basis for the assumption that knowledge requires God, you'd just prefer to think of it that way so you throw it in there.
>>81335724
Haven't heard of him. But thanks for the reference
>>81335952
>It's not.
It is, in practice. All other epistemologies are either self-refuting or equally as faith-based if they're atheistic
>At best that's a non sequitur, the assumption of the existence of God has no basis to start with.
It doesn't need to have a basis. It is my logical axiom >>81331637
God has to exist in order to things to make sense
That doesn't mean things actually do in reality make sense
>>81336550
>for* things to make sense
>>81336017
sounds in line with what i've gleaned from your conversation, but i wasn't in the earlier thread you guys were talking about so i'm missing a lot of context, here's a good summation of it:
http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/10/21/belief-in-god-as-properly-basic-an-explanation/
>>81328188
no bigotry pls
#notallatheists
>>81336678
Cheers friend
>>81336550
"Makes sense" is just more proof that you're letting your personal belief pollute your understanding. You want things to make sense, a God helps them to make sense, you want there to be a God, that's not good justification for the belief, just intellectual laziness. There's no basis for God, no evidence he does exist. If society started from zero mathematics would come back eventually, the scientific method would be rediscovered, and some form of religious practice might take hold, but no society would independently develop the same God.
It's also really easy to say that others are self refuting and yours isn't but so far you've not presented much of anything to actually argue it. You continue to state that things are flatly and not give reason or cause.
>>81337775
>"Makes sense" is just more proof that you're letting your personal belief pollute your understanding.
All beliefs are personal if nothing makes sense
Things must make sense in order for something not to be a purely personal belief
>If society started from zero mathematics would come back eventually, the scientific method would be rediscovered,
You can have no way of knowing that
>and some form of religious practice might take hold, but no society would independently develop the same God.
Neither would you be able to know this
There are very few variations of monotheism in today's world as it is
>It's also really easy to say that others are self refuting and yours isn't but so far you've not presented much of anything to actually argue it. You continue to state that things are flatly and not give reason or cause.
Which one of these >>81333202 do you want me to start with?
All Abrahamic religions are cancer. Christians are modernized Jews for the West, Muslims are modernized Jews for the East. All of them are Jews.
How come there isn't a new religion in the making?
>>81338685
>Muslims are modernized Jews for the East
What's modern about Muslims?
Daily reminder that humans are a species of tribal ape and any ideology that denies that is objectively wrong and may be inherently manipulative.
>>81338928
>I'm right until I'm proven wrong
>>81338382
Then again you're saying things and not using the terms properly.
The laws of reality can locally to Earth have a consistency that allows us to understand things well enough for there to be truth that goes beyond personal belief. Your insistence that isn't the case has no basis.
>You can have no way of knowing that
I kind of can. Given enough time people will recognize the benefits of agriculture and begin constructing larger settlements and groups. When that happens you require mathematics in its most basic forms to be able to develop. Isolated groups the world over did so.
>Neither would you know this
>There are very few variations of monotheism in today's world as it is
That's a product of the cultural dominance of monotheistic religions globally, not an indication of any natural propensity to them. You can't say that without recognizing why it happened; England, France and Spain owned most of the planet. Of course the religion they shared spread.
Regardless even a monotheistic society does not necessarily conflate with our understanding of "God" in the modern sense.
Scientism, as long as you're not going to say that because scientism accepts that our understanding at one point might be wrong means that they're always going to be wrong.
>>81339215
>"God Exists."
>>81339264
"God exists" must be right for things to make objective sense
>>81339215
Humans are a species of ape, are primates and mammals. Any denial of this reality is objectively false. If you don't understand why or how this is true, you should look at the evidence yourself. I doubt you would be able to understand it, but it might be possible if you really try.
>>81339393
>I'm right until proven wrong
I'm not even sure what you mean by "Makes sense" anymore, and the suggestion that the presence of God creates objective truth discounts that there are numerous religions with contradicting views and beliefs for existence. They can't all be right even if they say that their God says they are.
Either God doesn't exist, or his existence is so far detached from any of our understandings of him that worship or belief in him is pointless. Every cult, religion, or brand of faith generally is a human creation. Not the work of the divine.
Atheists should me murdered desu
>>81335107
UGH! The argument isnt whether god exists or not. with our current knowledge base we cant know this to be true or false.
So he is assuming true, and entertaining that possibility [this is what theistic religions are]
You say, "no I do not accept this assumptionand will be very stubborn until you agree with my equally unfounded assumptions"
70% of Athiests voted Democract in last election.
This is a fact, and no amount of
>muh Sky daddy
Can refute it.
>>81339883
And?
>>81339264
>The laws of reality
State them
>I kind of can. Given enough time people will recognize the benefits of agriculture and begin constructing larger settlements and groups. When that happens you require mathematics in its most basic forms to be able to develop. Isolated groups the world over did so.
Religion - which up until this point, in the West - has never been absent from a society's development
>That's a product of the cultural dominance of monotheistic religions globally, not an indication of any natural propensity to them.
It is an indication for the natural propensity for them. As they have developed naturally
>You can't say that without recognizing why it happened; England, France and Spain owned most of the planet. Of course the religion they shared spread.
England, France and Spain do not lie outside of Nature
>Regardless even a monotheistic society does not necessarily conflate with our understanding of "God" in the modern sense.
"Modern" does mean anything for your argument
>Scientism, as long as you're not going to say that because scientism accepts that our understanding at one point might be wrong means that they're always going to be wrong.
Scientism purports that science is the only authority in truth
>>81339788
>We don't know whether a thing is true
>So any outrageous assertion is equally as valid as assuming that it's not true
Most atheists are really just secular pseudo-protestants, they stop at a vague rejection of metaphysics as a whole and don't even bother questioning where their supposed "enlightened" moral values come from.
This is just my impression on atheists as a whole, I know atheism by itself doesn't carry these elements but the trend among popular atheism seems to be that.
>>81339444
>Any denial of this is objectively false.
Why?
>>81339989
>outrageous
subjective, emotional.
>>81328188
at least im not fat
>>81339989
Outrageous to you is common-sensical to me
Your shock means nothing
>>81339684
>Atheists should be murdered
This is why religion, superstition and other irrational thinking is the only real threat to the world.
Save the World. Reject ALL the Bronze Age Middle East goat fucker fairy tales.
>>81340240
Because it's reality. You can't base an argument on denial of the water cycle and expect to be right either.
>>81339989
yes, but you are missing the point. We arent trying to prove or diprove God. Such a task has been proven to be fruitless time and time again. Re read my post.
>>81339961
And OPs threads premise is correct.
Whether we like it or not, most human beings are emotionally driven creatures, rationalizing beliefs then actually examining them.
The "God VS No God" argument will go on forever with no certain* conclusion.... But what ever modern phenomenon is altering people's perspective, it's not a sustainable positive force and is aligned with Secularism.
>>81339883
>70% of Atheists voted Democrat in last election.
Just because someone rejected the idea of Mitt "Rmoney" or Sarah Palin being president doesn't mean they aren't brilliant for thinking so.
>>81328188
>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies
>implying it's something bad
Collectivism is literally a cancer
>>81328188
Atheists who claim moral superiority because they don't believe in God and then lecture and insult those who do are complete cancer.
>>81339671
>I'm not even sure what you mean by "Makes sense" anymore,
It means to have logical sense. Specifically to not self-refute
>and the suggestion that the presence of God creates objective truth discounts that there are numerous religions with contradicting views and beliefs for existence.
>They can't all be right even if they say that their God says they are.
You need the Classical Theistic definition of the Abrahamic God for things to make sense
Or in general an Absolute and interventionist source of power and authority
>Either God doesn't exist, or his existence is so far detached from any of our understandings of him that worship or belief in him is pointless.
Define pointless. We could not know if we could know Him or not
>Every cult, religion, or brand of faith generally is a human creation. Not the work of the divine.
That is your belief
>>81339978
>State them
No, because that's a very long and arduous thing to do and you're definitely not a person who's worth doing it for. The best I'd do is say that we know the rate at which things fall to earth mathematically, and that's something that is objective. No matter the race religion or whatever of who drops an object, the force that acts on that object will be the same as long as they are in the same place as another person. Their belief has no effect on the world.
>It is an indication for the natural propensity for them. As they have developed naturally
Propensity to monotheism. Plenty of cultures developed polytheism and other forms of spirituality that are far disconnected from monotheistic ideals.
>England, France and Spain do not lie outside of Nature
Are you saying that their religious belief caused them to do it then? That a monotheistic culture will inherently and always beat polytheism, rather than understanding that a technological swing to global travel and military weapons that couldn't be beaten regardless of numbers let one continent have a massive advantage?
>Scientism purports that science is the only authority in truth
The applicability of the scientific method to everything isn't the same as accepting an absolute authority. Science is just testing things until you find out how they work. There's no authority involved, it's just test, observe, record, retest.
>>81340639
>democratic party policy's is superior to any neo-con leader
Lol, No.
>>81340208
>Most atheists are really just secular pseudo-protestants,
Retarded statements like this are why people look down on religionists as having no cerebral function.
Not religious zealot myself, but Atheists has to realize how hypocritical they are by saying they are above religion, while in truth they, too, are religious.
The deities they follow most of tge time go by the names of "scientific man", "humane man" and so on. Those are figures of not fully fleshed outreligion, so the morals are left ambigious to us, hence why we distrust Atheist not knowing what they are up to.
Also, they fail to realize many religions can go alongside science and only reform themselves over time, like political beliefs.
>>81340443
>Because it's reality. For example: the water cycle
Why is this reality?
>>81341006
>That is your belief
Your understanding of the Abrahamic God was taught to you, by a human, who was likely referencing a document written by a human and then translated, reprinted, edited, canonized by other humans over thousands of years.
It's my belief that your book and the other books of faith have not survived those thousands of years unchanged, let alone if they were even transcribed correctly in the first place.
Unless you, personally, have a connection to God that provided you with the objective list of what parts of Scripture are correct you have no way to verify any of it, and even then that only works for you.
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590
Dumbest people:
1.Aboriginals
2.African Blacks
Power g4p
3.Pure Native Americans
4.Mulattoes
Power gap
5.South American
6.North Africans
7.Middle-eastern
8.Indian
9.South Asians
Power gap
10.East Asians
11.Eur0peans
http://www.strawpoll.me/10761590
>>81341072
not an argument
I'm not even religious so that's even a strawman on top of that.
>>81341011
>The best I'd do is say that we know the rate at which things fall to earth mathematically,
>and that's something that is objective.
How is that objective?
>No matter the race religion or whatever of who drops an object, the force that acts on that object will be the same as long as they are in the same place as another person.
No matter how many people come to believe something, it does not make it true
>Propensity to monotheism. Plenty of cultures developed polytheism and other forms of spirituality that are far disconnected from monotheistic ideals.
Both are natural
>Are you saying that their religious belief caused them to do it then? That a monotheistic culture will inherently and always beat polytheism, rather than understanding that a technological swing to global travel and military weapons that couldn't be beaten regardless of numbers let one continent have a massive advantage?
Their differing religion has been inherently connected to their culture and natural development
>The applicability of the scientific method to everything isn't the same as accepting an absolute authority. Science is just testing things until you find out how they work. There's no authority involved, it's just test, observe, record, retest.
Could something other than science discover truth?
The coup is over, you guys are idiots
>>81341340
>It's my belief that your book and the other books of faith have not survived those thousands of years unchanged, let alone if they were even transcribed correctly in the first place.
Your belief has been inoculated just as much as mine has. From sources external to yourself
>Your understanding of the Abrahamic God was taught to you, by a human, who was likely referencing a document written by a human and then translated, reprinted, edited, canonized by other humans over thousands of years.
So has science been taught to you. And it has gone through a lot more editations than my religious and dogmatic beliefs
>Unless you, personally, have a connection to God that provided you with the objective list of what parts of Scripture are correct you have no way to verify any of it, and even then that only works for you.
I may do. I may not. The Christian Scripture says that I should pray to God in order more properly understand His message
>>81341936
>How is that objective?
I knew you were that guy, and I'm not responding to any of these sorts of things. Especially when you responded to people who ask you questions with "Google it".
>No matter how many people come to believe something, it does not make it true
Not a response to the point that I was making. How you think it is I don't even begin to understand. In fact the entirety of my point was that their belief was irrelevant to the workings of the world.
>Both are natural
Good claim, no basis though. That we did early on doesn't mean it's natural to do so, cultures can and have developed without religion, but religion is a convenient way to explain things we don't understand so it's very popular among societies that don't understand a lot of things.
>Could something other than science discover truth?
Science doesn't discover anything. A scientist using it does. It's a methodology, and yes, someone using some other methodology could discover the truth. Science is just considered the best way to do so with what we have.
>>81342581
>Your belief has been inoculated just as much as mine has. From sources external to yourself
Substantiated by happenings in the modern day and historical evidence. Even now religious beliefs change, adapt, people cherry pick what they like. Something they wouldn't be able to do if they actually accepted the bible as the authoritative, immutable word of God. The way you're dancing around the point is pretty conclusive by itself.
Is it or is it not true that the Bible is the objective, accurate and immutable word of God, or has it been translated for political purposes, edited, and been outright ignored for convenience?
>So has science been taught to you. And it has gone through a lot more editations than my religious and dogmatic beliefs
Which is why it's not the objective truth, only a methodology for testing what is the truth. Our tools get better, we find out more. More importantly I can test a lot of those things if I really wanted to, I can see how long it takes a ball to drop out my window if I wanted to know whether the scientific consensus of 9.8 m/s/s is actually the correct acceleration of gravity on Earth.
You, in contrast, are solely operating on the faith that the people who wrote the book actually wrote the truth, even though many of them wrote it hundreds of years after the fact. You are then operating on faith that nobody in the history of those texts has made any alteration or change.
>>81341103
>Atheists has to realize how hypocritical they are by saying they are above religion, while in truth they, too, are religious.
Religion is manufactured. There is no "above " or "below" it. It is fabrication and mythology. It's created by an whim and dismissed as easily.
Religious people and other mentally stunted individuals embarrass themselves when they set out to mislabel non-belief as some tangential form of belief.
idk what the fuck you are talking about. I'm an athiest and want freedum and liberty for all. christians are cucks adopting africans and sheeit.
>>81342650
So you or someone you look up to can decide what is natural and what is not? Single out some phenomena and say it's not natural, external to nature... that's idiotic. Every single thing that has happened up until now, is occuring, and will happen in the future is natural, part of nature. Saying otherwise is even more so going in a direction where human is some special creature placed upon this world.
>>81342650
>Not a response to the point that I was making. How you think it is I don't even begin to understand. In fact the entirety of my point was that their belief was irrelevant to the workings of the world.
It is completely to your point, and what you conclusions you may draw from it. You were trying to point that, no matter the religion, other people would claim the same thing
I reminded you to be careful not to think that the number of people claiming something would mean anything about the truthfulness of claims
>Good claim, no basis though. That we did early on doesn't mean it's natural to do so, cultures can and have developed without religion,
Name one
>but religion is a convenient way to explain things we don't understand so it's very popular among societies that don't understand a lot of things.
Science cannot understand the world more than any religion would
>someone using some other methodology could discover the truth.
Do you think there exists such a methodology?
who /secular spiritualist/ here?
>>81343346
My statement can perfectly agree with your first paragraph. But you are a hypocrit not to realize that by simply labeling someone as stupid you fall into a belief of some made up by someone qualities that determine what is stupid and what is smart. Those are mere abstractions of your mind, just like God is. Not real. Only thing that verifies them is your subjective belief in them.
>>81343745
>It is completely to your point, and what you conclusions you may draw from it. You were trying to point that, no matter the religion, other people would claim the same thing
>I reminded you to be careful not to think that the number of people claiming something would mean anything about the truthfulness of claims
I didn't say they would claim anything. I said the ball would drop at the same rate no matter what they believed.
A person can believe in YHWH and drop the ball. He might think God pulled the ball to the ground, he might even lie and say the ball floated for a while before dropping, doesn't change that the ball dropped and accelerated at 9.8/m/s/s. You can swap out any belief, race, whatever. As long as they drop the ball, it goes down at that rate.
>Science cannot understand the world more than any religion would
Piraha.
>Do you think there exists such a methodology?
Someone might by coincidence observe an event and make a correct conclusion about its happening out of hand without the scientific method, but it's hard to imagine a consistent methodology someone would apply that doesn't involve testing, observing, and hypothesizing about the results.
>>81344599
Piraha was a response to "Name one".
>>81344599
>DUDE EMPIRICISM LMAO
>>81328188
>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies
Like?
Christcucks literally kiss the feet of negroids and raise their children
Fuck christcucks
>>81328188
>mocking specifically christianity
and Islam. Or atleast I do.
I'm a die hard atheist and I hate other "atheists" who seems to have no problem ragging on Christian ity, but are too afraid to criticize islam.
>>81343316
>Substantiated by happenings in the modern day and historical evidence.
>modern day
Doesn't matter
>historical evidence.
Scientific understanding is not linear
>Christians wouldn't cherry pick if they actually accepted the bible as the authoritative, immutable word of God.
I completely agree with you
>Is it or is it not true that the Bible is the objective, accurate and immutable word of God, or has it been translated for political purposes, edited, and been outright ignored for convenience?
No matter how many times it has been translated, the Word of God has remained clear in my faith. (Orthodox Christian)
>Which is why it's not the objective truth,
>only a methodology for testing what is the truth.
How do you know the scientific method discovers objective truth?
>Our tools get better
>we find out more.
Scientific understanding is not cumulative or linear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Natural_sciences
>More importantly I can test a lot of those things if I really wanted to, I can see how long it takes a ball to drop out my window if I wanted to know whether the scientific consensus of 9.8 m/s/s is actually the correct acceleration of gravity on Earth.
Would you testing something make that something objectively true?
Or does it only make it believably/ convincingly true?
>You are then operating on faith that nobody in the history of those texts has made any alteration or change.
I am operating on the faith that those changes would have been Apostolic
>1 Post by this ID
*yawn*
>>81328188
What's wrong with honoring pagan gods and killing YHWH?
>>81345013
>Doesn't matter
So does actually. If it's changing now it's likely to have been changing in the past, and the records we have show that Christiainity hasn't exactly been consistent.
Unless that whole "Indulgences" thing was just a phase God totally went through and had nothing to do with corrupt church officials making money.
>How do you know the scientific method discovers objective truth?
Half the time it sounds like you're arguing against some fictional Dogma of science that claims to be immutable rather than a methodology for testing things. I don't know if it discovers objective truth, but it's the best methodology a human has for doing so.
>Would you testing something make that something objectively true?
>Or does it only make it believably/ convincingly true?
It's true enough to my senses, which while admittedly flawed are the only thing I have to interpret the world anyway. There's not much point in discussing anything ever if we aren't able to accept that there are some things about the world that are probably actually happening.
But no, you're right, it's not "objectively" true since I had to see it with eyeballs that interpret light slightly slower than it actually happened, so I shall now discard all logical observation of gravity and instead believe in Steve, the invisible partially intangible giant octopus who pulls objects down to Earth while he tries to escape the Earth's core.
If you're Orthadox Christian then at some point over several hundred years (Well after the death of Jesus by the way) a bunch of people got together and decided what that actually meant. They, not God, decided what was worth sticking into their religion.
>>81344599
>I didn't say they would claim anything. I said the ball would drop at the same rate no matter what they believed.
That is a claim. Any statement affirmed to be true - or false - is a claim
A claim can also been seen as fact. But it remains a claim whether or not it is seen as substantiated
>A person can believe in YHWH and drop the ball. He might think God pulled the ball to the ground, he might even lie and say the ball floated for a while before dropping, doesn't change that the ball dropped and accelerated at 9.8/m/s/s. You can swap out any belief, race, whatever. As long as they drop the ball, it goes down at that rate.
It doesn't matter who believes in what, nor which people, nor how many people do.
That cannot substantiate a claim
>Piraha.
I'll look into it. It says on the wikipage: Animism (a spiritual belief)
>Someone might by coincidence observe an event and make a correct conclusion about its happening out of hand without the scientific method, but it's hard to imagine a consistent methodology someone would apply that doesn't involve testing, observing, and hypothesizing about the results.
Bearing in mind all the evidence that you think you have now, would you say Science is the only way to arrive at objective truth?
>>81344477
>But you are a hypocrite not to realize that by simply labeling someone as stupid you fall into a belief of some made up by someone qualities that determine what is stupid and what is smart.
Well, smart people don't kill others to please their gods. Atheists don't believe in any gods, therefore, in order to justify killing anyone, they would need a good reason. A good reason.
I understand the difference between faith/belief/fantasy and logic/reason/knowledge.
Religious people are always trying to blur the lines between fact and fiction as a means of conflating their beliefs as equal to rational thought. It doesn't work like that.
Smart people know this. Idiots don't. That's why we laugh at you.
>>81328188
or maybe atheists just dont believe in god.
>>81346306
>"You were trying to point that, no matter the religion, other people would claim the same thing"
>It doesn't matter who believes in what, nor which people, nor how many people do.
>That cannot substantiate a claim
I don't understand how you keep misreading this.
What I said was that their religion has no bearing on how fast the ball drops. I am making a claim, but whether or not the people dropping the ball would make a claim about how fast it was is immaterial to the point I was making.
Their belief does not cause gravity to be stronger or weaker. It acts on them and the objects they interact with at the same rate in the same way as an atheist, or someone of another faith. Their faith has no impact on the world, only perhaps their interpretation of it. The ball dropped to Earth at an objective speed. The people who observe it may have subjective experiences based on their senses, beliefs, interpretations, but whatever they believe or think the ball still dropped at an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s.
>Bearing in mind all the evidence that you think you have now, would you say Science is the only way to arrive at objective truth?
No? I've consistently and specifically said it's just the best way to.
God could show up and reveal the objective truth if he exists. I don't think he will, but he could.
Someone somewhere out there can obtain an objective truth without experimenting hypothesizing or anything.
The thing is that Science is a consistent methodology that you can apply to almost anything. "How does this work?" "Dunno, but we can observe it, test it, and think a bit about how it works based on those tests."
You're the one that seems to continually project these sorts of assertions into the conversation.
atheists are just staunch empiricists. So drab and boring.
>>81346073
>If it's changing now it's likely to have been changing in the past
It does not follow
>and the records we have show that Christiainity hasn't exactly been consistent.
Scientific understanding has not been consistent either. And yet you would not claim that makes it untrue
>Unless that whole "Indulgences" thing was just a phase God totally went through and had nothing to do with corrupt church officials making money.
God does not make people sin
>I don't know if it discovers objective truth, but it's the best methodology a human has for doing so.
What makes you think it's the best?
>It's true enough to my senses, which while admittedly flawed are the only thing I have to interpret the world anyway.
>the only thing
There is logic. And there can be God as well
>There's not much point in discussing anything ever if we aren't able to accept that there are some things about the world that are probably actually happening.
Probable phenomena are not a necessary facet of Nature
>But no, you're right, it's not "objectively" true since I had to see it with eyeballs that interpret light slightly slower than it actually happened, so I shall now discard all logical observation of gravity and instead believe in Steve, the invisible partially intangible giant octopus who pulls objects down to Earth while he tries to escape the Earth's core.
You may as well not have the tools to observe what would actually be there, regardless of how accurate your senses are
>If you're Orthodox Christian then at some point over several hundred years (Well after the death of Jesus by the way) a bunch of people got together and decided what that actually meant. They, not God, decided what was worth sticking into their religion.
My Church is directly connected to the early Apostles (an Apostolic Church). It hasn't been created only after it has become the official religion of the Roman Empire
>>81347429
>Scientific understanding has not been consistent either. And yet you would not claim that makes it untrue
Because science is differentiated from Abrrahamic religions in that it does not claim to be acting on the immutable word of God. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, not no evidence.
>God does not make people sin
Irrelevant to the fact that for a very long stretch of time the dogma of Christianity at large, a huge swath of the populace of that religion, believed entirely that the Church could hand out tickets to heaven for money.
Either they were right and God decided to allow that for a while, or religion is subject to the corruption and politics of man and you shouldn't rely on the texts of those people to form the basis for your own belief without any other substantiation.
>My Church is directly connected to the early Apostles (an Apostolic Church). It hasn't been created only after it has become the official religion of the Roman Empire
The point remains at some point a group of human beings sat in a room with a lot of documents to pick and choose what they would or would not be accepting as Canon.
The pope has adopted or expunged entire biblical books from the canon.
The bible and Church are not reliable sources of information.
>>81347222
>What I said was that their religion has no bearing on how fast the ball drops.
How fast the ball drops is a claim
>Gravity acts on them and the objects they interact with at the same rate in the same way as an atheist, or someone of another faith.
It doesn't matter. That does not make the claims any more true or false
>The ball dropped to Earth at an objective speed.
This is a claim as well
>The people who observe it may have subjective experiences based on their senses, beliefs, interpretations,
You can never escape being the subject of an experience. Howeve you try to put it
>but whatever they believe or think the ball still dropped at an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s.
Also a claim
>it's just the best way to find objective truth
How would you know this?
>God could show up and reveal the objective truth if he exists. I don't think he will, but he could.
God may not be proving Himself empirically. But logically
>Someone somewhere out there can obtain an objective truth without experimenting hypothesizing or anything.
I fully respect this opinion of yours
>The thing is that Science is a consistent methodology
Scientific understanding has neither been consistent. Nor linear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Natural_sciences
>>81346803
Rational by which critria? Not killing someone isn't a sacred law or some made up "human right". It is the same subjective rationality that brings about an idea that some religion should kill the unpious. You affiliate yourself with this or that thought, both of which has come from someones rationale. There is no fact, all is fiction. We choose fiction we like the most, be that by its application to real world, as we see in science, or in the sphere of our social behaviour.
Maybe you can now see what I meant by saying it's hard to trust an atheist. It's because we are not sure of what fiction he believes in.
>>81348368
>How fast the ball drops is a claim
The ball drops. Regardless of whether or not I'm there to make a claim about how fast it's going to drop, it's going to drop.
You can argue about whether a tree that falls in the forest will make a sound, but nobody is ever going to say the tree didn't fall just because nobody heard it happen.
I'm not responding to you saying "it's a claim" over and over as if that's an argument, because, again, at that point I may as well just start posting "God doesn't exist" to every one of your posts.
>I fully respect this opinion of yours
Please don't act like you've made any kind of point with bullshit like that.
>>81348015
>>Scientific understanding has not been consistent either. And yet you would not claim that makes it untrue
>Because science is differentiated from Abrrahamic religions in that it does not claim to be acting on the immutable word of God.
This difference does not make science true and Abrahamic religions false
>Extreme claims require extreme evidence, not no evidence.
"God does not exist" is an extreme claim to pretend is true
>Irrelevant to the fact that for a very long stretch of time the dogma of Christianity at large, a huge swath of the populace of that religion, believed entirely that the Church could hand out tickets to heaven for money.
Sin is pervasive and insidious
>Either they were right and God decided to allow that for a while, or religion is subject to the corruption and politics of man and you shouldn't rely on the texts of those people to form the basis for your own belief without any other substantiation.
My (Orthodox) Church didn't get that dogmatically corrupted in the first place :^)
I know first-hand mainstream Catholicism has been corrupted (Vatican II)
>The point remains at some point a group of human beings sat in a room with a lot of documents to pick and choose what they would or would not be accepting as Canon.
And I believe the Patriarchs were and have been guided by God in their selection
>>81348762
>>I fully respect this opinion of yours
>Please don't act like you've made any kind of point with bullshit like that.
I was complimenting you, my autistic friend
>>81348762
>The ball drops. Regardless of whether or not I'm there to make a claim about how fast it's going to drop, it's going to drop.
According to your fallible, technologically-limited senses
>You can argue about whether a tree that falls in the forest will make a sound, but nobody is ever going to say the tree didn't fall just because nobody heard it happen.
It doesn't matter who says what
>>81349157
>This difference does not make science true and Abrahamic religions false
Does, actually.
Science being wrong doesn't mean much of anything because its foundation isn't being right about everything, only trying to figure out what is right.
Abrahamic religions are founded on a claim to absolute, objective truth. Bible is immutable, literal word of God, and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure a lot of the shit in there didn't happen as written, nor have all of its moral lessons been the correct ones.
Bible says slavery is fine, Bible says kill kids who are disrespectful to their parents. Whether or not you believe those things are true and what you're supposed to do, the truth is most people in the world today don't, so if they're not going to live by those parts of an objective immutable truth why should I respect any of it?
>My (Orthodox) Church didn't get that dogmatically corrupted in the first place :^)
Right, it was only all those other bad bad people in their bad bad churches that did bad things. Your church was pure and love and good all along, if only everyone had listened.
>>81349292
You baited around asking question after question until I said something that you could pull out of the context of a hypothetical ridiculously unlikely scenario and claim that was what my opinion was.
>OP implies worship in Pagan gods is bad
>>81328188
You can't prove God in a seinceticic way!!! Either you believe in God or not. Is that simple.
>>81350033
>Science being wrong doesn't mean much of anything because its foundation isn't being right about everything, only trying to figure out what is right.
"Only trying" can't cut it mate. If it's just a shot in the dark, it's no different than a random religion
>correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure a lot of the shit in there didn't happen as written, nor have all of its moral lessons been the correct ones.
Its morals can't be wrong. Some things may not have happened exactly as described though
The morals are the most important thing so some things need to have happened for those morals to be authoritative
>Bible says slavery is fine, Bible says kill kids who are disrespectful to their parents. Whether or not you believe those things are true and what you're supposed to do, the truth is most people in the world today don't, so if they're not going to live by those parts of an objective immutable truth why should I respect any of it?
Christianity has never supported Moses' commandments for Gentiles - Acts 15:9-10
>Right, it was only all those other bad bad people in their bad bad churches that did bad things. Your church was pure and love and good all along, if only everyone had listened.
Being bitchy does not refute refute my arguments anon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
>>81350852
Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:9-10, John 15:6.
Asserting that your church is and has been incorruptible doesn't make it true. Just makes you look like you're insinuating that you're a magical exception, just like every other church goer would.
>>81350852
>Christianity has never supported Moses' commandments for Gentiles - Acts 15:9-10
Matthew 5:17-20
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
"herefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
BRB, stoning my nephew because he talked shit.
>>81351413
Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:9-10 - Jesus was giving logical arguments to the Pharisaic Jews in order to demonstrate their hypocrisy to them
John 15:6 - Yeah Hell is real as fuck
>>81351734
>Matthew 5:17-20
He meant He was going to fulfil all the prophesies and the purpose of all Mosaic commandments (to bridge our way towards God)
>>81351734
>>81352246
>Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
This was up until he had fulfilled the Old Testament (His Resurrection)
>>81351980
He doesn't rebuke them for the law though, just points out that they're hypocrites for not following it entirely, instead only following what's convenient according to the law of man.
>>81352246
He's speaking directly about commands, law, and the word of former prophets.
There's also no shortage of people who won't agree with you about this in any number of Christian denominations. The point again comes down to; Why should I respect any of it when some disregard half of it? The commandments themselves were passed down to Moses in the old testament, are they out the window too?
>>81352507
So all that good shit bout no killing stealing ogling wives or property is out too? Neat.
>>81352974
>He's speaking directly about commands, law, and the word of former prophets.
>Why should I respect any of it when some disregard half of it?
Yes, "until it is all fulfilled"
He fulfilled them by becoming the bridge towards God that the Mosaic commandments were supposed act as
>The commandments themselves were passed down to Moses in the old testament, are they out the window too?
Yes because Jesus IS the New Testament. He serves the purpose that following the Mosaic commandments were meant to
A lot more efficiently I might add
>>81353207
The commandments that Jesus Himself gives and clarifies (from the Old Testament) are the only authoritative ones left
Everything else He had rendered redundant
>>81352974
>He doesn't rebuke them for the law though, just points out that they're hypocrites for not following it entirely, instead only following what's convenient according to the law of man.
He was merely abrogating their authority
He became the commandments and now serves as our way of purifying ourselves towards God
>>81353808
One of those commandments was to honor the law of God. Seems a bit redundant if he was going to nullify it all later anyway, and his words weren't that he would keep the law until he undid them later, he says "Until everything is accomplished", and specifically mentions "UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH DISAPPEAR". Not the fulfillment of his whatever. He's pretty explicitly detached from what you're saying.
Also still not hearing from you that Jesus said killing was off the table.
>>81328188
how's preaching "community values" not also a collectivist ideology?
>>81354836
>UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH DISAPPEAR"
>Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Until everything is accomplished
The World is not going to end until the purpose of the Law is fulfilled: His Resurrection
>Also still not hearing from you that Jesus said killing was off the table.
Only murder is off the table
>>81328678
To be honest, he could have ended up with a much worse name than Thebe, considering that his father was an African poet.
>>81355383
So then we're still in Old Testament murder your children if they talk shit town until he comes back, cause he pretty explicitly says one thing but not the thing you're saying he said.
If he wanted to say "Until my purpose is fulfilled", "Until the covenant is kept", even "Until the resurrection" he could have. Instead he says until Heaven and Earth Disappear, which if we're being generous is probably the biblical rapture rather than the literal destruction of heaven.
All this comes back to the point that it's all very vaguely written, translated by people, edited by people, interpreted by people. If it is the objective word of God then he did a shitty job explaining it so that it would never get transcribed incorrectly, because even today people who claim to believe it can't all get it straight between one another.
>>81355090
fucking autists need to die
>>81355975
>All this comes back to the point that it's all very vaguely written, translated by people, edited by people, interpreted by people
See the response to this I made here >>81342581
You're shooting yourself in the foot if you go by this
If you are to understand the Bible logically and consistent, then His fulfilment of the Law is His Resurrection, not the Second Coming
>>81329273
You took the bait
>>81348554
>Rational by which criteria?
I called it! Blur the lines! You didn't even try to resist, did you?
>Not killing someone isn't a sacred law or some made up "human right".
It actually is a kind of human altruism. Live and let live. Do unto others - which predates most Middle East religions by thousands of years.
>You affiliate yourself with this or that thought, both of which has come from someones rationale
This is where you demonstrate flawed cognition.
Our species survived because knowledge is more powerful than faith. Because fact is greater than fiction. Because reason is superior to belief.
If you eliminate all knowledge and all belief today and start over, every thing we know today we would eventually relearn.
However, all our religions, myths, superstitions, legends, fantasies and fables would all be completely different.
>>81356585
So Jesus H. Christ, son of God and man who was actually literally having his every word heard by Apostles who would go on to found an entire religion around his beliefs, said unto them "Until Heaven and Earth disappear" because he wanted to fuck with them?
He specifically chose those exact words in a sentence that they had no purpose in being in if not to clarify the timetable a bit, but for some reason you're enough of an authority to disregard his actual words and interpret the true meaning of it?
Why did Jesus use those words, and who are you to disregard the actual thing he said for the sake of what is frankly just the most convenient interpretation for you? Is the basis of this actually what he said, or what you want him to have said because you don't want to have to stone children?
>>81328188
*tips fedora*
>>81356790
>Because reason is superior to belief.
Do not equate reason with science or observation
>>81357000
>So Jesus H. Christ, son of God and man who was actually literally having his every word heard by Apostles who would go on to found an entire religion around his beliefs, said unto them "Until Heaven and Earth disappear" because he wanted to fuck with them?
Kind of
>>81328188
I'm an atheist libertarian conservative.
>atheist can't be conservative
>atheists can't be right-wing
>>81357494
I think I would have gotten along with Jesus then, he sounds like the kind of hilarious asshole that loves to play pranks like being vague and contradicting himself when he's speaking words that create the cornerstone of a religion that will go on for millennia.
Or that you're willing to read what he said whichever way is most convenient to you, just like most religious people. Next time have some convictions and say you'll grab that stone and smash my face in good, like a Christian should.
That's about all the time I an dedicate to this for today so toodles.
>>81348554
>not sure of what fiction he believes in.
>makes the assumption he believes fiction
I spent years studying Buddhism and attachment or not, we all share a kind of concrete reality, not some whacked out Mad Hatter mental abstraction where words can mean anything we want them to mean.
When you turn on a light switch, that light will either turn on or it won't. It does not matter how much faith you have, how much you believe, how often you pray nor how pious you think you are.
The light turns on. If it doesn't, the bulb is burned out, the electricity is off, the switch is broken, the wires are disconnected or there is some other rational explanation.
>>81332894
this
>>81357000
Sorry I was joking
He said it to give His disciples hope that nothing will stop the Old Testament from being fulfilled by Him
>>81357863
Hey ease up. God has every right to fuck with us if He wants to
Don't be a faggot and humble yourself
>>81356690
It's not bait.
Religion is just a form of ideology and modern atheism clearly comes packaged with associated ideological assumptions.
I say that the distinction between religion and ideology is an arbitrary one, and an illusion created by the assumptions of Western secularism. It's like the difference between a dictator and a king. In reality there is no practical difference beyond the air of tradition that exists around one and the air of modernity that exists around the other.
Communism is a religion.
Multiculturalism is a religion.
Atheism is a religion.
The bitterness which the adherence of these cults cling to their beliefs in spite of all logical evidence is evidence of this to anyone with an honest mind.
>>81358588
Atheism is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power (god, gods, supernatural shit), your're arguing semantics in the most absurd way like left-wingers and pinkos do.
>X isn't real communism
>X isn't real socialism
you're doing the same thing
>>81356790
You are worthlessly parroting your initial point without understanding mine at this point.
What argument is your "ha ha, see? Blur the lines!"?
So that it predates most eastern religion it makes it more valid? Humans have a predisposition not to kill other humans, but that doesn't make this predisposition a law that if you dare to disobey it you are somehow worse. There is nothing sacred except what you yourself make.
And you clearly didn't get me. Any fact is just our interpretation of phenomena surrounding us(interpretation of ourselves). People can believe in God, follow him, or they can choose to believe in anothet diety, the "scientific man". Whether they will choose this or that is up to them. Of course scientific man today is more appealing diety, and various abstractions that came from human subjectivity are more applicable to daily comforts. That doesn't change that both of them are solely fruits of our mind that to follow we must believe in them. A great scientist today is as religious example as good saint in the past. You might as well call science your God and scientists saints.
>>81328188
>Next militant christian from the US or the same ?
Real atheist have religion in the ass and dont debating about it therefore, they do not like forcing christian shit.
Atheist have same life as you only without imaginary friends.
Do you believe in Zeus ? No, Atheist no too
Do you believe in Thor ? No, Atheist no too
Do you believe in Poseidon ? No, Atheist no too
Do you believe in Jesus ? Yes, Atheist no
Do you believe in God ? Yes, Atheist no
>>81359803
Someone watches too much nonstampcollector..
>>81357909
It doesn't make it less fiction.
Religion goes very far in explaining why some things occur sometimes. Now science overtaken it by its ardor and made up more fulfilling explanation for us, explanations that cone from their minds for us to believe are true.
>>81359561
>Any fact is just our interpretation of phenomena surrounding us(interpretation of ourselves).
Please allow me to disabuse you of some of your interpretations.
Climb up on your roof. Now jump off. Can you possibly convince me that it is only your interpretation of gravity that causes you to begin hurtling towards the earth? Can you posit some alternate interpretation that allows you to float suspended in mid-air?
Is there some sort of faith or belief you can hold that transmutes gravity into "mere abstractions of your mind"
I won't say it's right or wrong to jump off the roof, but the practical effect is that you vacate your seat at the morality-decisionmaking table by choosing unwisely.
I'm listening....
Anyone have the "/pol/ is a Christian board" picture?
The one with a golden cross?
>>81359560
>implying religion requires a belief in the supernatural
Supernatural is another loaded term that requires a pre-existing adherence to the ideology of "naturalism".
This a purely Western philosophical construct and has nothing to do with what the various religions of the world actually believe. You ASSUME that all religions separate the natural world from the "supernatural" as you do.
The only person making the "X isn't real Y" argument here is you, when you claim your belief system is somehow immune to being logically classified as a religion by an outside observer.
>>81360691
>I won't say it's right or wrong to jump off the roof, but the practical effect is that you vacate your seat at the morality-decisionmaking table by choosing unwisely.
Not at all my logically ignorant friend
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal-to-Consequences
>>81328678
not just any opinions but illegal opinions
>>81360691
Interpretation doesn't effect the phenomena
If you would carefully read through the posts and use more of your reasoning, maybe you would stop worthlessly replying.
>>81360736
>>81357189
>Do not equate reason with science or observation
You desperately want make-up faith to be as valid as facts, logic and evidence, but it never will be.
Science will always be astronomy.
Religion will always be astrology.
Your firehose of baffling bullshit was a good attempt to blur the lines, but it's all just a logical fallacy called "rationalization".
>>81328188
Spoilers: House becomes a Christian at the end
>>81328188
>all Abrahamic religions tell you to recruit and indoctrinate as many others as possible
>they're not Collectivist though
My neurons are really firing at this moment.
>>81361737
God bless you
>>81332894
>Jim Jefferies
What an absolute piece of shit anti-gun faggot, opinion discarded.
>>81328188
>Christian theology
>not collectivist
>>81360918
>implying religion requires a belief in the supernatural
Yes it does, can you name me a recognized religion that doesn't involve anything related to supernatural? Stop being a fuckwit.
>>81328188
>christfag gives 10% of his income to a church
>talks about "chrstians" and what "christians do" and what "christians think"
>talks about collectivism
Sick Jew cult you have there.
>>81361775
>You desperately want make-up faith to be as valid as facts, logic and evidence, but it never will be.
Empirical facts are not logic. Faith is needed in order to start the use of logic >>81331637
>Science will always be astronomy.
It's redundant. Astronomy is a science
>Religion will always be astrology.
Cherry picking
>but it's all just a logical fallacy called "rationalization".
Describe how and where it applies to what I said
>>81362315
Stalinism, Maoism and Juche have religious structures with cults of personality
>>81361737
>>81361775
From the individual perspective of a lunatic what good are facts, logic and evidence?
No amount of his logic or presentation of the facts as they appear to him will convince you that there actually are spiders crawling under his skin.
Now here is where we draw the line between subjective and objective reality, and you might say his subjective perception of reality does not align with objective reality therefore it is obviously false. This requires the assumption though that YOUR perception of reality is the objective one and his the subjective one. A false premise that you take on faith as the perception you have access to is your own.
What happens when you're the lunatic?
When the "objective" reality you take on faith to be correct is called into question?
What if I mind my own business and you do yours? My mother prays for half an hour every morning and does some superstitious things like feeding birds or lighting a lamp, but why should I care? Similarly why should anyone care that Idon't do these things? My grandfather gets very upset when I refuse to be a dothead.
>>81361981
oh look another autist
>>81361142
>Not at all my logically ignorant friend
>https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal-to-Consequences
Wow, thanks for the laugh!
Right, let's take a look at your fallacy and see if it fits what I'm saying:
"[Gravity] is true because if people did not accept [gravity] as being true then there would be negative consequences."
Hmmmk, you're now claiming you can (1) choose NOT to accept gravity as true, and (2) not suffer any consequence as a result?
I really think you need to make this road trip to the roof and perform a quick experiment. Just do it because it's a chance to prove I'm wrong. You have national healthcare, right?
>>81363024
Not bad
I genuinely do believe religion is essential for a healthy, functioning society. The majority of people need a sense of community belonging, the satisfaction of serving a greater purpose, and a set of principles they can adhere to without need for thought or self determination. If these aren't met through religion, they are instead met through things like feminism, social justice, the modern atheist movement, the worship of government, or fantastical sexual orientations and genders.
Every religion is wrong. There are no gods or higher powers. I think, at some level, all people understand that. But the belief in a religion such as Christianity is extremely important, as the alternatives are more dangerous in practice.
>>81363438
You're a moron
The fallacy means: there possibly being negative consequences from gravity (me dying) can't make gravity true
Gravity may be true for many other reasons, but not because of this
>>81362315
I literally just explained to you that the very concept of the "supernatural" you are appealing to is arguably a religious belief in itself, arising from the rivalry of church and state in medieval Europe.
YOU separate the world into natural and supernatural. YOU start your argument from the perspective that this is the obvious and correct interpretation of the world.
There is no reason to assume everyone else that has ever existed in this world does the same.
>>81340373
Yeah because the world really went uphill since the west was secular.
(That is from 1980 so don't give me your muh science argument)
>>81364050
>since the 1980s
Since the West went *atheist* is probably more accurate
>>81363051
>Now here is where we draw the line between subjective and objective reality, and you might say his subjective perception of reality does not align with objective reality therefore it is obviously false. This requires the assumption though that YOUR perception of reality is the objective one and his the subjective one. A false premise that you take on faith as the perception you have access to is your own.
Welp, it's true that we might see things slightly differently from our different perspectives, but the example I'm using - gravity - has a way of re-aligning our perception bias.
There are forces in the universe that I'm unaware of and I've never experienced, many of which I would probably never survive if I had. But there are a lot of observable and measurable natural phenomena from which we can analyze and draw conclusions.
It simple to me. If you can levitate at will, with I will re-think my perception of gravity. to be consistent, I would need gravity-tier proof of a deity before I would even consider your claim rising from hypothesis to theory.
>>81364869
Why are you keep trying to prove God with science?
The scientific method was only designed to describe the physical world
>>81363901
>You're a moron
>The fallacy means: there possibly being negative consequences from gravity (me dying) can't make gravity true
>Gravity may be true for many other reasons, but not because of this
Go back and read the fallacy again, then I'll accept your apology.
Gravity is a fact. Perception, interpretation, belief, none of that makes any difference to gravity. It is a very natural phenomenon and we all share a very similar exerience with it.
When you walk off your roof to prove me wrong, gravity won't kill you - it will be the idiot who thought he might escape the negative consequences of gravity by not believing in it - he's the guy that pulled the trigger.
>>81328828
It must be hard to see your screen with that fedora tipped so aggressively
>>81366036
>Gravity is a fact
The proof for this being?
>>81364869
So you're saying that is impossible for a lunatic to subjectively believe his is levitating while you subjectively see that he is not?
Anon how do you know you're the sane one in the first place?
>>81341936
>No matter how many people come to believe something, it does not make it true
Let me start bey giving you credit for something well said.
>>81362642
>Faith is needed in order to start the use of logic
Hypothetical thinking is an entirely different construct from "faith". They didn't teach you this in school?
>>81334632
>God may not reveal Himself to the world empirically or scientifically
>>81335613
>God is needed to even have a (working) epistemological model
>>81336550
>God has to exist in order to things to make sense
You are reduced to a mountain of irrational and illogical assumptions to get to this Fantasy Island.
>>81341006
>You need the Classical Theistic definition of the Abrahamic God for things to make sense. Or in general an Absolute and interventionist source of power and authority
Fallacy Alert! False Dilemma.
>>81343745
>Science cannot understand the world more than any religion would
If we can agree on a rational definition of the word "understanding", then science can explain the ways in which the world functions so technologies can be built on that knowledge.
Religion says this is how the world must be and there can offer no other or further explanations.
Religion may give you some spiritual "understanding", but it severely limits your grasp of the natural world.
>>81366579
>Anon how do you know you're the sane one in the first place?
Welp, I'm not the religious guy. That's clearly a start.
>>81365266
>Why are you keep trying to prove God with science?
How could you be so irretrievably stupid to believe that?
>>81329273
You got trigger Atheist Gorge
>>81368460
>Hypothetical thinking is an entirely different construct from "faith".
It's essentially the same thing. Treating something as if it were true (or false)
>They didn't teach you this in school?
I've augmented what I've been taught :^)
>You are reduced to a mountain of irrational and illogical assumptions to get to this Fantasy Island.
It's called Theological Rationalism
I don't discard empirical observations. But logic takes precedence
And logic needs God
>Fallacy Alert! False Dilemma.
It's true. Without that absolute source, you will never escape Relativism
>If we can agree on a rational definition of the word "understanding",
State it
>then science can explain the ways in which the world functions so technologies can be built on that knowledge.
It cannot explain it truthfully. By its own admissions (and yours), science is purely a hypothetical and forever incomplete search for objective truth
>Religion says this is how the world must be and there can offer no other or further explanations.
Gnostic religions yes. Agnostic religions no
>Religion may give you some spiritual "understanding", but it severely limits your grasp of the natural world.
There is nothing limiting me form using science on the *presumption* that it works. It's the only way one can use it
>>81369842
Theistic* Rationalism
>>81368918
Aren't you expecting God to prove Himself to you Empirically or Scientifically?
![humptydumpty[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CVjZrmZ.jpg "humptydumpty[1].jpg")
>>81369842
>It's essentially the same thing. Treating something as if it were true (or false)
No. Seriously, no.
Hypothetical thinking starts "what if" and states the hypothesis.
Faith, or dogma, generally starts by stating the belief and declaring it to be the indisputable and unwavering truth, and that it must be acceptable unconditionally.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
>>81328188
Lord, we thank you for enabling us to protect the faith
Let /pol/ forever remain in your service
In Your name we pray. Amen
>>81328188
>religious people bashing atheists for their collectivism
wew lad
>>81371928
>Hypothetical thinking starts "what if" and states the hypothesis.
No. It starts as such: Given A (assuming A is true(or false)) what are the implications?
>Faith, or dogma, generally starts by stating the belief and declaring it to be the indisputable and unwavering truth, and that it must be acceptable unconditionally.
Truth may always be disputable. Christianity has blended in with Rationalism since the Enlightenment
You are merely ignorant of history
>>81370920
>Aren't you expecting God to prove Himself to you Empirically or Scientifically?
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No.
Seriously, no. That would be entirely retarded.
Claims made without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
You can't produce any evidence because you haven't got any. Your best hope is to muddy the water and blur the lines and pretend it's opposite day on your planet.
There have been tens of thousands of societies, cultures, states and nations in history. They fabricated thousands of beliefs, superstitions, gods, deities and religions to control their people. They are all gone now and so are their silly gods.
Your new religious fictions are no different. Invisible sky-men, priests and profits, unoriginal miracles, supernatural tales, blah blah. SSDD
A woman puts her baby in the microwave and says God told her to do it. You say you pray to receive God's messages.
I wouldn't begin to know how to tell you two apart.
>>81372312
>No. It starts as such: Given A
The what if is the given. It's just another way of saying it.
>>81374499
>Claims made without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
"God doesn't exist" is exactly that sort of claim as well
Be sure to likewise dismiss it
>>81372312
>Truth may always be disputable.
Wouldnt't that make it not the truth?
>>81375016
>"God doesn't exist" is exactly that sort of claim as well
Who is making that claim? A non-believer wouldn't rationally make a claim either way about something he doesn't believe in.
>>81374934
"If" gives the psychological impression that it could not believably be true
"Given" takes away all psychological barriers to exploring a possibility
"Given" is more compatible with agnostic religious belief
What's worse, an atheist or a vegan?
Don't even care.
Matter, Time and Space, all simultaneously came into existence when the Big Bang occurred.
The state prior to it had to exist without those restrictions. If it did it would be;
>Omnipresent- Not bound by space.
>Eternal- Not bound by time.
>Immaterial- Not bound by matter.
The state of being eternal + immaterial + omnipresence = Omnipotence (Which is the definition of God)
Chessmate, atheists
>>81375392
That sort of non-believer is called a Weak Agnostic. And it includes agnosticism
>>81369842
>And logic needs God
I disagree. People who've never been told about Allah have logical ability.
>>81375102
Only if the dispute is valid
>>81375622
Logical ability is different than having a working logic
You can't have a working logic in a Naturalist world
>>81375016
>hurr atheists have faith too!
>Not praying to a god makes you very religious
This is by far the funniest contortion of reality that religious people try to make.
>>81375404
>"If" gives the psychological impression that it could not believably be true
No, the What If creates the hypothetical that is tested. It doesn't have to be believable or non believable. It's just a hypothetical situation.
>"Given" takes away all psychological barriers to exploring a possibility "Given" is more compatible with agnostic religious belief
You're just pulled that out of your ass. I thought this might a halfway intelligent conversation about religion, but I this guy is just a BS artist.
>
>>81340373
>Implying all christians, jews, and muzzies think that
>>81376063
Faith is not the same as religion
If you believe God does not exist, you are faithful
>>81376173
It does have to be believable in order for religious thought to be possible
It's merely a personal preference. It means the same thing
>>81375915
>Logical ability is different than having a working logic You can't have a working logic in a Naturalist world
You just pulled that out of your ass, too. There is no "working logic".
Are religious people liars because they fall for lies?
>>81370920
Try proving yourself to God first ;)
>>81376526
>There is no "working logic".
A logic that can fulfil its purpose of discerning truths from falsities has to exist
>>81375583
>agnostics are literally infants
>>81376228
>Faith is not the same as religion
But faithful is the same as religious
>If you believe God does not exist, you are faithful
Well it's not as funny if you just keep saying it. You need to change up the act a little.
>>81377154
Is "God does not exist" true?
>babies are automatically classified as atheists
>babies lack reason and intelligence
sounds about right
![alleged-pagan-plagiarism1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ppZxYwF.jpg "alleged-pagan-plagiarism1[1].jpg")
>>81376228
>If you believe God does not exist, you are faithful
I don't believe Zeus really exists, but that doesn't require any faith on my part, just the logical ability to see that this whole god-manufacturing business has been going on for a long time.
The evidence suggests that all those Greek and Roman, gods, the Persian gods, the Egyptian gods, the Hindu gods, the Abrahamic gods are all just made up.
There's literally no reason to believe any of them ever existed.
>>81377578
>zeitgeist meme
this can't have been the first time you've posted it, no one has ever pointed out that everything in that image is completely wrong?
be honest.
>>81377578
>just the logical ability to see that this whole god-manufacturing business has been going on for a long time.
Use that logic right now and prove it
>The evidence suggests that all those Greek and Roman, gods, the Persian gods, the Egyptian gods, the Hindu gods, the Abrahamic gods are all just made up.
State that evidence
>>81376526
>Are religious people liars because they fall for lies?
They peddle falsehoods, fabrications and fooling the feeble-minded. It is their tradecraft.
>>81328188
But I don't though. Fuck collectivism and fuck islam.
I look up to businessmen way more than X liberal leader
>>81377742
>Use that logic right now and prove it State that evidence
He did. It's undeniable that Ra was a fictitious Egyptian God. Ormusz was a fictitious Persian God.
Religionistas are funny when they get backed into a corner.
>>81378301
How do incomplete commonalities to the Christian faith prove that Jesus isn't God?
>>81377742
>The evidence suggests that all those Greek and Roman, gods, the Persian gods, the Egyptian gods, the Hindu gods, the Abrahamic gods are all just made up.
Let me fix that for you.
>The lack of evidence suggests that gods are all just made up.
>>81377259
Of course it is
The "perfect word of god" is imperfect.
>>81376762
>A logic that can fulfil its purpose of discerning truths from falsities has to exist
What other kind of logic would there be? Non-working logic like faith?
I get it now.
>>81378618
If it is the Word of God how would you be able to see imperfections in it?
Nothing anyone does or says can change the fact that god doesn't exist. But hey, if you think ancient Jews had it all figured out and you want to live your lives by ancient Jewish teachings knock yourselves out. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
>>81378804
A logic that one would have no way of telling if it can indeed find truth
>>81377737
> no one has ever pointed out that everything in that image is completely wrong?
Even the stuff about Jebus? They probably lied about him too.
>>81378878
But we see imperfections in it, therefor its not the word of a perfect god.
>>81378878
How would I not be able to see them? The book is overflowing with them.
Snakes don't talk
>>81378902
Jews currently rule the world. You don't think some of them were on to something?
>>81378429
>How do incomplete commonalities to the Christian faith prove that Jesus isn't God?
It's the same con game over a nd over, they just keep renaming the main characters and the audience is a fresh set of drooling fools.
>>81379025
How could an imperfect being detect imperfections in a Perfect Word?
>>81378982
no.
>>81377756
>they peddle falsehoods, fabrications
hypocrite.
>>81379078
You can't induce that to all snakes that ever had existed
>Problem of Induction
>>81379175
>It's the same con game over a nd over, they just keep renaming the main characters and the audience is a fresh set of drooling fools.
Any proof that it's "just" that?
>>81328188
There's no such thing as "community value". "Communities" don't have values, because "communities" don't have wills by which they can have beliefs, and thus values, toward or about anything.
>>81379246
>How could an imperfect being detect imperfections in a Perfect Word?
1. Easilly, by using logic
2. How could an imperfect being come to the conclusion that this "word" is perfect?
>>81379246
>How could an imperfect being detect imperfections in a Perfect Word?
The use of logic doesn't require that the user be "perfect" or all knowing or omnipotent.
>>81379094
They're the best liars, cheats and thieves humanity has to offer. So if that's the pinnacle of human existence in your opinion you can be like Trump and join them. It worked for him, he's a very successful liar and cheat as well. And like them he knows the books are bullshit, but who cares? They keep the people obedient and easy to manipulate.
>>81379494
Without God, prove to me that logic can find truth
>>81379504
To you too >>81379691
>>81379340
>You can't induce that to all snakes that ever had existed
However, it's not an article of faith to say that no snakes have ever spoken a language. It's well evidenced and follows from everything we know.
Induction is not necessarily faith. You're equating the two but it's not the same.
>>81379524
Some jews were really good people. Early Christian Jews were the founders morality
Not to mention Jesus. But Jesus was God
>>81379691
Never heard of the scientific method?
But even before that, before that question can even be relevant or addressed, prove to me that a god exists.
>>81375539
>Chessmate, atheists
This is crazier than the lady that God told to put her baby in the microwave.
>>81379940
>muh empiricism
gfsf
>>81379766
>However, it's not an article of faith to say that no snakes have ever spoken a language. It's well evidenced and follows from everything we know.
It's an article of faith unless you have all the evidence for it: You have examined all snakes to have existed
Until then, you cannot induce
>>81380133
An allpowerfull being could do that yes, too bad such a thing is not only stupid, but also not real.
>>81379940
>Never heard of the scientific method?
I've asked you to prove that logic by itself can find truth
>But even before that, before that question can even be relevant or addressed, prove to me that a god exists.
God has to exist for logic to be able to make sense
>>81379912
>Jews were the founders of morality
According to the book they wrote
>Jesus was God
Unlike the other thousands of gods people believed in .. nope he's the one. Cause it says here in this book written by Jews. And Jews are very trustworthy people! According to this book. Written by them.
>>81380033
is the new policy to literally not even argue that your beliefs are correct?
have yet to see a "christian" in any of these threads who even said he believed in christianity or god
>>81380048
>It's an article of faith unless you have all the evidence for it: You have examined all snakes to have existed
>Until then, you cannot induce
There's no such thing as all the evidence.
All inductive claims can be wrong.
I don't need to examine all the snakes that have ever existed; If i did that, i would be using DEducition.
