God does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, and these same models are extremely accurate at predicting phenomenon. Why do you think God is abscent from these models anon? Could it perhaps be because he doesn't exist?
But why do you choose to be so dumb and so insane? You guys are just trolling, right?
Based on the evidence. If your plan is to belive in God only after you see him, then you're doomed, because God has decided that you will not see him in this life.
So, how can you be sure that God exists? You have to check the evidence. Has he sent anyone? Has he sent anything?
If you dug just a little bit, you'll see that He has indeed sent human beings and books that point to his existance.
>God has decided that you will not see him in this life
Okay, but why can't we smell him either?
>There's no "scientific proof" that God exists
Yeah. And there never will be. So?
It's like atheists have placed a requirement. It's like they want to command God lolololol.
Imagine you have the mindset like for example "If I'm not able to go to Mars on my bicycle, I will not believe in God." Then of course you won't belive because what you want is IMPOSSIBLE. God has ordered or put a law that makes it impossible for you to bike to Mars, just as he has ordered that you will not see (hear, touch, smell) Him in this life.
Wouldn't it be more sane to just accept God's rules then to request for hopeless terms and conditions?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Just keep looking anon. You got this.
This literally just translates to >just keep engaging with our church's material until you get emotionally attached to it
There is no good evidence for your god, else one of the many Christians I've talked to would've been able to present it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm not a Christian.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Wouldn't it be more sane to just accept God's rules then to request for hopeless terms and conditions?
Not really, as i live a hedonistic lifestyle: I feel like your God's rules might get in the way of that
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>what you want is impossible
christcucks will say this and then continue bragging about how nothing is impossible for their god
Why can't I smell atoms? Why can't I hear the number 2?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Atoms cannot choose whether or not to have a scent, but assuming God is all powerful, he can choose to have one. So why does God choose to remain odorless?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
He cannot choose to have a scent because He cannot choose to cease being God. Your senses detect matter, which God cannot be. He could create a smell and associate it with Himself like He created a burning bush but it would not literally be a "divine smell" the same way He is not a plant on fire.
The Bible was not written by God, Churches were not built by God. If God exists beyond the physical world and does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, this means that even if he does exist, he has absolutely no effect or bearing on reality. Even if God did exist, the metaphysical argument would imply that religion itself is still just made up bullshit.
>The Bible was not written by God
Every word of scripture was given by inspiration of God. >Churches were not built by God
The Church, as the global community of all Christians, was established by God millennia ago. >If God exists beyond the physical world and does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, this means that even if he does exist, he has absolutely no effect or bearing on reality
Natural laws are the manifestation of divine will in ordering creation and the motion of every atom is controlled by divine providence. Reality is the constant product of God's mind. If He stopped willing for you to exist, you would immediately cease to exist.
You've never heard someone pronounce the word two?
I've heard them pronounce the word two but not the number two.
>Just keep looking anon. You got this.
This literally just translates to >just keep engaging with our church's material until you get emotionally attached to it
There is no good evidence for your god, else one of the many Christians I've talked to would've been able to present it.
The fact you are breathing right now is indisputable evidence, Anon.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well, why has he decided that only matter has a scent? Wouldn't a god be able to bend reality and the laws of physics to his will?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The fact you are breathing right now is indisputable evidence, Anon.
Well I'm disputing it. The fact that I'm breathing right now is not evidence of the existence of the God of Israel and his rabbi son who is also the very same God of Israel.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You've never heard someone pronounce the word two?
>Has he sent anyone? Has he sent anything?
That's not how it works. First you prove that God exists, then you wonder if X or Y was sent by him. Trying to do it the other way around is an admission there's no evidence for God's existence. Or I cold just claim I was sent by Osiris and you have no conclude Osiris is real.
>If you dug just a little bit, you'll see that He has indeed sent human beings and books that point to his existance.
The human beings that would be evidence are only documented in the book, and the book has a laughable amount of contradictions and includes verses that are 100% known forgeries, meaning "God" couldn't even protect his own message.
>i have a crippling urge for human attention >i will use retarded means of revelation such as spreading famines, flooding everything and sending mail to the same exact people over and over again >no i wont show my face
your god is retarded
God does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, and these same models are extremely accurate at predicting phenomenon. Why do you think God is abscent from these models anon? Could it perhaps be because he doesn't exist?
The Bible was not written by God, Churches were not built by God. If God exists beyond the physical world and does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, this means that even if he does exist, he has absolutely no effect or bearing on reality. Even if God did exist, the metaphysical argument would imply that religion itself is still just made up bullshit.
>>if God real why He not a natural phenomenon
"Assume the myths are all lies. Still, the spire of Ashenzohn *had* to be broken. Whatever the depths of its cloud burial, certain elementary facts could not be concealed from the mental probes of inference. If there had ever been an Asttro-Babal – an Old Empyre – nurturing what were now-inconceivable cosmic intimacies, it manifestly died, long ago. Ashenzohn no longer connected to an orbital twin. The celestial path was stumped. The name of the city said as much, if the sources were to be credited. If they were not, it mattered little. Ruin had befallen it, and any Temple of Phyl-Undhu, situated at its uppermost limit, could only have been blasted and charred beyond all imagination in the catastrophe. Final breakage was the demonstrated reality – the entire movement of the Whurrld. The late poets, even in the gathering senescence of the times, with each of their words caged in the desiccated formulas of an all-enveloping decadence, had still caught a vivid glimpse of the dread contour. *O scorched and shattered Ashenzohn! Your highest and holiest place – if it exists in truth at all – is no more than a blackened relic of doomed aspiration. Our damned Way-Stump, rooted in an ocean of blood, crowned with an abolished heaven*."
You’re right, there is no rabbi in the sky
Good job!
God does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, and these same models are extremely accurate at predicting phenomenon. Why do you think God is abscent from these models anon? Could it perhaps be because he doesn't exist?
>uh god isn’t real because my fav model of the universe doesn’t think he’s real >oh… you’re saying god transcends the universe… >but he can’t do that according to my model about the universe.
Why do atheists think religion and science are mutually exclusive? Why do they rehearse these stereotypes so much?
I don't know why i am an Atheist. It just sort of happened
>my beliefs aren’t really my beliefs, they just pop into my head lol >no I can’t reflect on my own thoughts, why would I need to do that? >but I’ll still defend my beliefs as though I came up with them myself 🙂
I've dug into the evidence and it seems incredibly made up. You're just a bit too gullible.
>OP says “why do atheists expect material evidence for a spiritual-para-psychological phenomenon” >Atheist begs question (again)
>I’ve dug deeper >there’s rules against jerking off and obeying my most basic impulses >sorry, seems like this whole religion thing is unnatural and actually fake
Atheists cannot into abstract thought:
If God exists beyond the physical and natural realm, this implies that religion itself is inherently materialist and is bullshit.
>if god is above and outside the material universe… >then he must also be material, because this definition of god relates him to the material universe.
It’s a form of autism, which people forget is on a really long spectrum; atheists/autists are highly systemic in their cognition, but so much so that they can’t formulate abstract concepts (such as immaterial, supernatural, parapsychological, and etc phenomena). Basically “I need to see it to believe it” taken to the extreme.
The Bible was not written by God, Churches were not built by God. If God exists beyond the physical world and does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, this means that even if he does exist, he has absolutely no effect or bearing on reality. Even if God did exist, the metaphysical argument would imply that religion itself is still just made up bullshit.
Again, the materialism. >humans put wisdom in book, attribute it not to themselves and their supreme morality (they are humble, exemplary of their wisdom), but to an abstract concept with which they credit their ability to have thought of this wisdom in the first place >this is bad because……… we need to be worshiping living people that I can see!!!!!
>>my beliefs aren’t really my beliefs, they just pop into my head lol
that guy was just shitposting and it seemed to go over your head. And this might blow your mind, but everyone on Earth is born an atheist. If you disagree, it means you don't understand what atheism actually is, and thats a (you) problem
God does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, and these same models are extremely accurate at predicting phenomenon. Why do you think God is abscent from these models anon? Could it perhaps be because he doesn't exist?
Embarrassing to have no response to wojaks. I suppose spite can only carry you so far? Get well soon (with your mental illness)
>Just keep looking anon. You got this.
This literally just translates to >just keep engaging with our church's material until you get emotionally attached to it
There is no good evidence for your god, else one of the many Christians I've talked to would've been able to present it.
>no evidence of god >won’t believe in god
While you’re treating Christianity like a monolith of “do what the book says, or else,” you’re ignoring the very obvious social benefits that religion has. God’s existence has nothing to do with religion, because religion is how people create institutions surrounding spiritual content. Your objection is ostensibly that god doesn’t exist, but your evidence is that people exist and they aren’t god.
>I've made it impossible to know I exist other than some visions to a random desert tribe 3000 years ago and people who know of me since then >You have to believe in me for me to accept you
Even assuming this God exists, it's concerning that he seems to select for gullible people.
>it’s impossible to verify god’s existence >you are the only known creature in the universe able to conceptualize the archetypal “God,” an all-powerful being beyond material constraints >thanks to finite brain matter that can somehow generate a conscious experience, with boundless imaginative thought and the ability to self-reflect recursively ad infinitum >but you use *logic* to rule out god’s existence, and you also have no way to verify your claim >outta sight outta mind, but this isn’t ignorance because [mental gymnastics]
If you can’t grasp the concept, and you have sour grapes about, why is your next act to spread your own confusion?
>Wouldn't it be more sane to just accept God's rules then to request for hopeless terms and conditions?
Not really, as i live a hedonistic lifestyle: I feel like your God's rules might get in the way of that
What do you expect from a pig but a grunt
But at least you’re honest! I’ve always said how atheists are basically chronic masturbators and drug addicts first, and atheists second. It’s good to see a plain example.
>The fact you are breathing right now is indisputable evidence, Anon.
Well I'm disputing it. The fact that I'm breathing right now is not evidence of the existence of the God of Israel and his rabbi son who is also the very same God of Israel.
>fixated on the history of ideas
You’re not that smart, anon. Bronze Age israelites (not the same ones as today) came up with a solid corpus of wisdom, which they kept to themselves. But Christians took that good wisdom, obviously modified it for their new audience, and spread it to the gentiles. You’ll notice how Europeans (who are Christian) have taken these moral lessons and influenced the entire world. The rabbis are still out there, but that’s separate.
>just follow the religion without believing god exists, bro
Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Finally someone trying to convert LULZ to atheist Christianity.
>But at least you’re honest! I’ve always said how atheists are basically chronic masturbators and drug addicts first, and atheists second. It’s good to see a plain example
Hedonism doesn't necessarily imply degeneracy. It just means you aren't picking up no stinkin' cross every day. Everyone is a hedonist. And Christians are just hedonists who are low time preference.
>I've made it impossible to know I exist other than some visions to a random desert tribe 3000 years ago and people who know of me since then >You have to believe in me for me to accept you
Even assuming this God exists, it's concerning that he seems to select for gullible people.
So you're a 'all cosmologies are valid and lead to God' type? If so, then so is atheism. If not, tell that to uncontacted tribes that worship their ancestors and natural phenomena.
The thing is, if they say that, they still would not believe even if they saw.
27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
I have never seen a church that looks like this, even liberal apostate ones, however I have seen a number of trannies in secular environments, like Yale. Go outside
>checkmate Christians, we pozzed your community
So atheists are homosexuals after all?
So you're a 'all cosmologies are valid and lead to God' type? If so, then so is atheism. If not, tell that to uncontacted tribes that worship their ancestors and natural phenomena.
are you fuckin dumb? That’s not what he said. The cosmological models don’t mention god because they they’re scientific, and so they’re concerned with material phenomena. We’re discussing something that is immaterial, so why do you beg the question of why an immaterial entity has no readily observable material evidence? >uncontacted tribes that worship their ancestors and natural phenomena
It’s actually hilarious that you’d note an example of early human spirituality, but you didn’t pick up on how that’s an early stage in psychological evolution. Religion is the material side of spirituality, spirituality is a legitimate aspect of the psyche which you need only flip through a psychology journal to learn. At one point, that same spiritual tradition of ancestor worship was predominant in all human society; and in certain areas of the world (by chance or divine inspiration or by some other factor), communities slowly developed more complex psychological structures and experiences. The way it happened, Bronze Age israelites came up with the idea and Christians prepared it for the globe. >inb4 atheism is the ultimate conclusion of the progression of spirituality, when we realize we have no need for silly religions
This is false. Atheism is at best actively using your intellect to deny your intellect exists, and is at worst passively denying your intellect in favor of constant gratification.
What is it like to be so utterly retarded that you believe the same shit as my double digit IQ braindead boomer Q anon believing father?
I'm 26 and he's 70. What's it like to believe whatever your mommy and daddy told you when you were little? Is being a retard fun?
Another excellent example of why someone might be an atheist: their dad is religious
Pottery
And grow up, you’re 26 complaining about your dad (who looks like he lived a full life before your hateful self came along). Why are atheists so concerned with how other people live their lives? >dad you don’t know shit. I log onto my computer every day and get the facts. >No I didn’t read the Bible, I watched a couple YouTube videos
The former then. >The cosmological models don’t mention god because they they’re scientific, and so they’re concerned with material phenomena. We’re discussing something that is immaterial, so why do you beg the question of why an immaterial entity has no readily observable material evidence?
Meaningless distinction. If the 'immaterial' exists it will have a provable effect on the 'material', even if limited to human behaviour. Therefore one can prove that it exists and atheism is just as viable 'stage in psychological evolution' as any other, so you can stop seething about it.
>I'm 26
Embarrassing. >What's it like to believe whatever your mommy and daddy told you when you were little?
Dunno, what's it like to believe whatever established authority figures told you?
>established authority figures
Says the one believing the same shit as all of the major politicians running the country, assuming you're also an American. Are you retarded? Someone who is publicly atheist can't even become president.
>heh… I’m so smart and different… >my litmus test for intelligence is not believing what my icky parents told me >you don’t know shit dad (alive to see and learn from more human behavior and mass action that you’ll ever see in the same amount of time), jerking off is healthy and drugs make you feel good so they’re good
You are running away from something, not towards something. You have no direction. Your life must feel very confusing, if only there was a source of wisdom or learning that could help you with giving yourself meaning or developing positive coping mechanisms… probably therapy right? The one where you pay pill-mill to give you pharmaceutical drugs instead of self-medicating?
>the only way to figure out that the universe probably wasn't created by a Canaanite storm god is to hear it from an authority figure
Nice projection.
>fixated on the history of ideas
Yes, indeed the Canaanites worshipped a storm god. That was their religion, not their spirituality. Elements of their spirituality persisted, and others were modified or influenced by others. Today it’s probably totally different in terms of religious expression (contrary to your straw man), but the spiritual content has been constantly developed en masse by humans across the world- not just Canaan.
Anyone who doesn't go to pastor Jim Bob's United Fiery New Baptist Salvation Providence Ministries™ church of Alabama is not a real Christian.
>there is only one type of Christianity >and it’s the one with gaudy churches and greedy pastors, which is frowned upon by the more well-established types of Christianity
This is like a straw man mixed with a no true Scotsman.
>>my beliefs aren’t really my beliefs, they just pop into my head lol
that guy was just shitposting and it seemed to go over your head. And this might blow your mind, but everyone on Earth is born an atheist. If you disagree, it means you don't understand what atheism actually is, and thats a (you) problem
>everyone is born an atheist
Staying an atheist seems quite infantile, then. By your logic. Should we all go back to wearing bibs, too?
>nooo you must have a different standard for the magic sky person
No
>noooo you can’t tell me I have an incorrect understanding (purely strawmen and stale one-liners that are steeped in fallacy)
Nobody’s forcing you to learn about Christianity, but why would you then jump into a conversation and be so resistant? Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder, not beliefs worth defending.
>just follow the religion without believing god exists, bro
Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Finally someone trying to convert LULZ to atheist Christianity.
>without believing god exists
Reading comprehension?
Strawman thread, that's not even the position of most atheists. They will not believe in God unless they see proof. It's not like I don't believe Michigan exists because I've never seen it
You just reiterated the OP, so how is it a straw man?
>Has he sent anyone? Has he sent anything?
That's not how it works. First you prove that God exists, then you wonder if X or Y was sent by him. Trying to do it the other way around is an admission there's no evidence for God's existence. Or I cold just claim I was sent by Osiris and you have no conclude Osiris is real.
>If you dug just a little bit, you'll see that He has indeed sent human beings and books that point to his existance.
The human beings that would be evidence are only documented in the book, and the book has a laughable amount of contradictions and includes verses that are 100% known forgeries, meaning "God" couldn't even protect his own message.
>first you prove god exists. >but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence. >yes, we are testing an idea which does not pose itself as a material entity. >the test has failed. Who knew?
I’m thinking you lack the ability to really check your own beliefs. If you could, you’d take this one step further and ask “what does it mean to be immaterial in the first place?”
>you can’t tell me I have an incorrect understanding
Do you have any proofs that your understanding is correct or do you just larp here?
For one, my understanding isn’t a one-line straw man that is plainly wrong. There’s no storm god in the Bible.
Embarrassing to have no response to wojaks. I suppose spite can only carry you so far? Get well soon (with your mental illness)
[...] >no evidence of god >won’t believe in god
While you’re treating Christianity like a monolith of “do what the book says, or else,” you’re ignoring the very obvious social benefits that religion has. God’s existence has nothing to do with religion, because religion is how people create institutions surrounding spiritual content. Your objection is ostensibly that god doesn’t exist, but your evidence is that people exist and they aren’t god.
[...] >it’s impossible to verify god’s existence >you are the only known creature in the universe able to conceptualize the archetypal “God,” an all-powerful being beyond material constraints >thanks to finite brain matter that can somehow generate a conscious experience, with boundless imaginative thought and the ability to self-reflect recursively ad infinitum >but you use *logic* to rule out god’s existence, and you also have no way to verify your claim >outta sight outta mind, but this isn’t ignorance because [mental gymnastics]
If you can’t grasp the concept, and you have sour grapes about, why is your next act to spread your own confusion?
[...]
What do you expect from a pig but a grunt
But at least you’re honest! I’ve always said how atheists are basically chronic masturbators and drug addicts first, and atheists second. It’s good to see a plain example.
[...] >fixated on the history of ideas
You’re not that smart, anon. Bronze Age israelites (not the same ones as today) came up with a solid corpus of wisdom, which they kept to themselves. But Christians took that good wisdom, obviously modified it for their new audience, and spread it to the gentiles. You’ll notice how Europeans (who are Christian) have taken these moral lessons and influenced the entire world. The rabbis are still out there, but that’s separate.
>checkmate Christians, we pozzed your community
So atheists are homosexuals after all?
[...]
are you fuckin dumb? That’s not what he said. The cosmological models don’t mention god because they they’re scientific, and so they’re concerned with material phenomena. We’re discussing something that is immaterial, so why do you beg the question of why an immaterial entity has no readily observable material evidence? >uncontacted tribes that worship their ancestors and natural phenomena
It’s actually hilarious that you’d note an example of early human spirituality, but you didn’t pick up on how that’s an early stage in psychological evolution. Religion is the material side of spirituality, spirituality is a legitimate aspect of the psyche which you need only flip through a psychology journal to learn. At one point, that same spiritual tradition of ancestor worship was predominant in all human society; and in certain areas of the world (by chance or divine inspiration or by some other factor), communities slowly developed more complex psychological structures and experiences. The way it happened, Bronze Age israelites came up with the idea and Christians prepared it for the globe. >inb4 atheism is the ultimate conclusion of the progression of spirituality, when we realize we have no need for silly religions
This is false. Atheism is at best actively using your intellect to deny your intellect exists, and is at worst passively denying your intellect in favor of constant gratification.
[...]
[...]
Another excellent example of why someone might be an atheist: their dad is religious
Pottery
And grow up, you’re 26 complaining about your dad (who looks like he lived a full life before your hateful self came along). Why are atheists so concerned with how other people live their lives? >dad you don’t know shit. I log onto my computer every day and get the facts. >No I didn’t read the Bible, I watched a couple YouTube videos
>heh… I’m so smart and different… >my litmus test for intelligence is not believing what my icky parents told me >you don’t know shit dad (alive to see and learn from more human behavior and mass action that you’ll ever see in the same amount of time), jerking off is healthy and drugs make you feel good so they’re good
You are running away from something, not towards something. You have no direction. Your life must feel very confusing, if only there was a source of wisdom or learning that could help you with giving yourself meaning or developing positive coping mechanisms… probably therapy right? The one where you pay pill-mill to give you pharmaceutical drugs instead of self-medicating?
[...] >fixated on the history of ideas
Yes, indeed the Canaanites worshipped a storm god. That was their religion, not their spirituality. Elements of their spirituality persisted, and others were modified or influenced by others. Today it’s probably totally different in terms of religious expression (contrary to your straw man), but the spiritual content has been constantly developed en masse by humans across the world- not just Canaan.
[...] >there is only one type of Christianity >and it’s the one with gaudy churches and greedy pastors, which is frowned upon by the more well-established types of Christianity
This is like a straw man mixed with a no true Scotsman.
[...] >everyone is born an atheist
Staying an atheist seems quite infantile, then. By your logic. Should we all go back to wearing bibs, too?
[...] >noooo you can’t tell me I have an incorrect understanding (purely strawmen and stale one-liners that are steeped in fallacy)
Nobody’s forcing you to learn about Christianity, but why would you then jump into a conversation and be so resistant? Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder, not beliefs worth defending.
[...] >without believing god exists
Reading comprehension?
TLDR atheists are incapable of abstract thought, specifically when it comes to constructing a mental image of something that they haven’t seen before. It’s probably due to a very light degree of autism (extreme male brain syndrome, the hyperfixation on systemic thought), or as some other atheists ITT have said: >I’m a hedonist, so clear-cut moral rules get in the way (atheist by accident, guided by animal impulses) >I hate my parents, so I hate the clear-cut moral rules they want me to follow (atheist by accident, mentally running away with no direction) >I just don’t care (atheist by accident, walking dead NPC at best, psychopath/politician at worst)
Despite not wanting to be an atheist by choice (i.e. their beliefs are not secure, as evident by their constant need to gaslight others), atheists still fight tooth and nail to recite the same fallacies: >begging the question, why is an immaterial thing not observable in the material world? (And yes there is an immaterial world. It is called consciousness.) >tu quoque >strawman
Atheists need to learn the difference between religion and spirituality, because most of their objections relate to how religious institutions behave, not the content of the spiritual meaning. Very few retards on this board actually say “might is right,” and they’re usually pagan chuds.
I'm totally fine with a deductive argument for god. The problem is that none of them are really conclusive and generally don't even point to a kind of god that would be a sensible target of worship.
>You just reiterated the OP, so how is it a straw man?
Read my reply again but slowly this time and then ponder on the difference between 'I want to see something before I believe it' and 'I want to see proof of something before I believe it'
>>but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence.
Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
>I’m thinking you lack the ability to really check your own beliefs.
Pathetic projection. I'm not even gonna pull out my list of Bible contradiction because I know not a single one of them is gonna make you "check your own beliefs."
>If you could, you’d take this one step further and ask “what does it mean to be immaterial in the first place?”
No because I know things that are immaterial. They're still possible to define, model and reason about, and they're typically associated with material things. Religion isn't because religion is designed to basically be "stop asking questions and obey my criminal organization."
>Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles. Can't find any, therefore they aren't real. >I'm not even gonna pull out my list of Bible contradiction
That you haven't read.
>Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles. Can't find any, therefore they aren't real.
Particle detectors exist. God detectors don't. Try again.
>That you haven't read.
I have, and contradictions can't be handwaved by reading the rest of the book.
>Particle detectors exist.
No, you have to use your eyes. Prove to me quantum particles exist using only the 5 senses >I have
X Doubt
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If he accepts particle detectors, will you provide him with an analogous god detector?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
God detectors do not exist because God is not material. That's also why number detectors don't exist.
The fact that there are 31 of these "denbookings" on Inspiring Philosophy's channel indicates that its reasonable to assume the Bible isn't inerrant.
>make up contradictions >get deboonked >"this proves it's reasonable to believe there are errors in the bible"
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>God detectors do not exist because God is not material.
Then it would appear that your objection was disanalogous. >That's also why number detectors don't exist.
I'm sure that anon would readily accept that both god and numbers exist as abstract concepts.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Then it would appear that your objection was disanalogous.
No, because they are both standards of measurement which arbitrarily exclude the thing we're supposedly trying to detect in the first place. >I'm sure that anon would readily accept that both god and numbers exist as abstract concepts
God is a spirit, not an abstract object.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No, because they are both standards of measurement which arbitrarily exclude the thing we're supposedly trying to detect in the first place.
You were claiming that particles would be outside of what anon's method would admit. They are clearly not. >God is a spirit, not an abstract object.
Then God and numbers are not analogous.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You were claiming that particles would be outside of what anon's method
No, I was claiming they would be outside of my arbitrary method. Not his arbitrary method. >Then God and numbers are not analogous.
They are analogous because they are both immaterial and as a result, equally empirically immeasurable.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No, I was claiming they would be outside of my arbitrary method. Not his arbitrary method.
If that's your line of reasoning, then you should provide a reason why anon should use your method instead. >They are analogous because they are both immaterial and as a result, equally empirically immeasurable.
Conceptual things are in the mind and therefore directly verifiable by the mind. When I think of a pink unicorn, I know that there is the concept of a pink unicorn.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If that's your line of reasoning, then you should provide a reason why anon should use your method instead.
My line of reasoning is that it is unreasonable to use methods which automatically exclude the subject of inquiry. >Conceptual things are in the mind and therefore directly verifiable by the mind. When I think of a pink unicorn, I know that there is the concept of a pink unicorn.
There is an ontological argument similar to this which proves the existence of God.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>My line of reasoning is that it is unreasonable to use methods which automatically exclude the subject of inquiry.
Then you should've provided an alternate method. >There is an ontological argument similar to this which proves the existence of God.
Anselm's argument is widely considered a failure.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Anselm's argument is widely considered a failure.
Appeal to popularity
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I wasn't making a counterargument, I was just informing you of the argument's status in contemporary discourse in case you were not aware. The argument has a rich history of refutation, starting with Gaunilo's island followed by things like Aquinas' point about the impossibility of conceiving god or Kant's argument about existence not being a predicate.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>make up contradictions
Is it possible to cope any harder?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No, you have to use your eyes.
Not in your terms. You said material evidence, I use material evidence. Shifting the goalposts only shows you're seething.
>contradictions can't be handwaved by reading the rest of the book.
Also, is this an admission that your fake contradictions require reading them out of context? Lol
>is this an admission that your fake contradictions require reading them out of context?
No. Unless you have the verse that explains away that Jesus was at two places at the same time doing two completely different things 3 days after getting baptized?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Not in your terms. You said material evidence, I use material evidence. Shifting the goalposts only shows you're seething.
Read the posts above yours. >No. Unless you have the verse that explains away that Jesus was at two places at the same time doing two completely different things 3 days after getting baptized?
Still not interested in arguing contradictions for the reason previously stated
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Read the posts above yours.
With the greatest pleasure.
You just reiterated the OP, so how is it a straw man?
[...] >first you prove god exists. >but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence. >yes, we are testing an idea which does not pose itself as a material entity. >the test has failed. Who knew?
I’m thinking you lack the ability to really check your own beliefs. If you could, you’d take this one step further and ask “what does it mean to be immaterial in the first place?”
[...]
For one, my understanding isn’t a one-line straw man that is plainly wrong. There’s no storm god in the Bible.
[...]
[...]
[...]
TLDR atheists are incapable of abstract thought, specifically when it comes to constructing a mental image of something that they haven’t seen before. It’s probably due to a very light degree of autism (extreme male brain syndrome, the hyperfixation on systemic thought), or as some other atheists ITT have said: >I’m a hedonist, so clear-cut moral rules get in the way (atheist by accident, guided by animal impulses) >I hate my parents, so I hate the clear-cut moral rules they want me to follow (atheist by accident, mentally running away with no direction) >I just don’t care (atheist by accident, walking dead NPC at best, psychopath/politician at worst)
Despite not wanting to be an atheist by choice (i.e. their beliefs are not secure, as evident by their constant need to gaslight others), atheists still fight tooth and nail to recite the same fallacies: >begging the question, why is an immaterial thing not observable in the material world? (And yes there is an immaterial world. It is called consciousness.) >tu quoque >strawman
Atheists need to learn the difference between religion and spirituality, because most of their objections relate to how religious institutions behave, not the content of the spiritual meaning. Very few retards on this board actually say “might is right,” and they’re usually pagan chuds.
>>but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence.
You said my epistemology only allows material evidence.
>>but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence.
Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
>I’m thinking you lack the ability to really check your own beliefs.
Pathetic projection. I'm not even gonna pull out my list of Bible contradiction because I know not a single one of them is gonna make you "check your own beliefs."
>If you could, you’d take this one step further and ask “what does it mean to be immaterial in the first place?”
No because I know things that are immaterial. They're still possible to define, model and reason about, and they're typically associated with material things. Religion isn't because religion is designed to basically be "stop asking questions and obey my criminal organization."
>Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
I agreed with a perfectly reasonable explanation.
>Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles. Can't find any, therefore they aren't real. >I'm not even gonna pull out my list of Bible contradiction
That you haven't read.
>Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles.
Typical Christian dishonesty kicks in, you shift the goalposts and ask me to prove quantum particles with the five senses.
>Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles. Can't find any, therefore they aren't real.
Particle detectors exist. God detectors don't. Try again.
>That you haven't read.
I have, and contradictions can't be handwaved by reading the rest of the book.
>Particle detectors exist.
I don't catch on your shifting of the goalposts yet and make my point.
>Particle detectors exist.
No, you have to use your eyes. Prove to me quantum particles exist using only the 5 senses >I have
X Doubt
>No, you have to use your eyes.
You seethe of rage.
It's extremely easy to read.
>Still not interested in arguing contradictions for the reason previously stated
And what is your reason exactly? That you've decided I haven't really read the Bible just because I wasn't convinced that a guy who was at two places doing two different things at the same time and then predicted he'd come back and establish a worldwide peaceful kingdom within his disciples' lifetime and never did is God?
>contradictions can't be handwaved by reading the rest of the book.
Also, is this an admission that your fake contradictions require reading them out of context? Lol
OP is a false flagging atheist. This place was better when it was just history. Now ist a discord tranny colony that types up blogposts about "hijra dalits" and "is TND compatible with Christianity"
>>I will not believe in God until I see him
"The insane ghost of a slain lesser god remains a terrible thing. Its residual power, dreadfully irresistible for mortals of the degraded echelons, manifests through a delicate devastation of time. It happens too soon. Messages multiply, so far advanced, they appear as if from nowhere. The Anglossic intercourse has begun, contactless, or immaculate, before that makes any sense, even within itself. Once the stream has broadened, it has already been an elaborately developed conversation, long underway, protective of its origins, endlessly absorbing of all memory.
Try to fold the madness inwards and it turns immediately into laughter. That’s a hectic path, never wisely taken. It circles back upon itself, forever, as its rhythms close. Everyone understands that truly *bad* jokes really aren’t funny, in the slightest, but are rather the absolute antithesis of redemption. Stillness before all, therefore, even in the vortex. Calm acceptance is needed to follow the Old Road ..."
There's no rabbi in the sky. Grow up.
But why do you choose to be so dumb and so insane? You guys are just trolling, right?
Why do you believe in gawd?
Based on the evidence. If your plan is to belive in God only after you see him, then you're doomed, because God has decided that you will not see him in this life.
So, how can you be sure that God exists? You have to check the evidence. Has he sent anyone? Has he sent anything?
If you dug just a little bit, you'll see that He has indeed sent human beings and books that point to his existance.
I've dug into the evidence and it seems incredibly made up. You're just a bit too gullible.
>it seems incredibly made up
Because it is not naturalism, which is a denial of God's existence
No, because it follows the patterns that you'd expect if it were made up.
Just keep looking anon. You got this.
>There's no "scientific proof" that God exists
Yeah. And there never will be. So?
It's like atheists have placed a requirement. It's like they want to command God lolololol.
Imagine you have the mindset like for example "If I'm not able to go to Mars on my bicycle, I will not believe in God." Then of course you won't belive because what you want is IMPOSSIBLE. God has ordered or put a law that makes it impossible for you to bike to Mars, just as he has ordered that you will not see (hear, touch, smell) Him in this life.
Wouldn't it be more sane to just accept God's rules then to request for hopeless terms and conditions?
>Just keep looking anon. You got this.
This literally just translates to
>just keep engaging with our church's material until you get emotionally attached to it
There is no good evidence for your god, else one of the many Christians I've talked to would've been able to present it.
I'm not a Christian.
>Wouldn't it be more sane to just accept God's rules then to request for hopeless terms and conditions?
Not really, as i live a hedonistic lifestyle: I feel like your God's rules might get in the way of that
>what you want is impossible
christcucks will say this and then continue bragging about how nothing is impossible for their god
>God has decided that you will not see him in this life
Okay, but why can't we smell him either?
Why can't I smell atoms? Why can't I hear the number 2?
Atoms cannot choose whether or not to have a scent, but assuming God is all powerful, he can choose to have one. So why does God choose to remain odorless?
He cannot choose to have a scent because He cannot choose to cease being God. Your senses detect matter, which God cannot be. He could create a smell and associate it with Himself like He created a burning bush but it would not literally be a "divine smell" the same way He is not a plant on fire.
>The Bible was not written by God
Every word of scripture was given by inspiration of God.
>Churches were not built by God
The Church, as the global community of all Christians, was established by God millennia ago.
>If God exists beyond the physical world and does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, this means that even if he does exist, he has absolutely no effect or bearing on reality
Natural laws are the manifestation of divine will in ordering creation and the motion of every atom is controlled by divine providence. Reality is the constant product of God's mind. If He stopped willing for you to exist, you would immediately cease to exist.
I've heard them pronounce the word two but not the number two.
The fact you are breathing right now is indisputable evidence, Anon.
Well, why has he decided that only matter has a scent? Wouldn't a god be able to bend reality and the laws of physics to his will?
>The fact you are breathing right now is indisputable evidence, Anon.
Well I'm disputing it. The fact that I'm breathing right now is not evidence of the existence of the God of Israel and his rabbi son who is also the very same God of Israel.
You've never heard someone pronounce the word two?
>Has he sent anyone? Has he sent anything?
That's not how it works. First you prove that God exists, then you wonder if X or Y was sent by him. Trying to do it the other way around is an admission there's no evidence for God's existence. Or I cold just claim I was sent by Osiris and you have no conclude Osiris is real.
>If you dug just a little bit, you'll see that He has indeed sent human beings and books that point to his existance.
The human beings that would be evidence are only documented in the book, and the book has a laughable amount of contradictions and includes verses that are 100% known forgeries, meaning "God" couldn't even protect his own message.
>i have a crippling urge for human attention
>i will use retarded means of revelation such as spreading famines, flooding everything and sending mail to the same exact people over and over again
>no i wont show my face
your god is retarded
why do you believe in lgbt-alphagetti bullshit
Transwomen are confused men.
t. atheist
>christcuck brings up trannies when he can’t argue
Pottery
>if God real why He not a natural phenomenon
If God exists beyond the physical and natural realm, this implies that religion itself is inherently materialist and is bullshit.
>If God exists beyond the physical and natural realm, this implies that religion itself is inherently materialist
?????
The Bible was not written by God, Churches were not built by God. If God exists beyond the physical world and does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, this means that even if he does exist, he has absolutely no effect or bearing on reality. Even if God did exist, the metaphysical argument would imply that religion itself is still just made up bullshit.
>>if God real why He not a natural phenomenon
"Assume the myths are all lies. Still, the spire of Ashenzohn *had* to be broken. Whatever the depths of its cloud burial, certain elementary facts could not be concealed from the mental probes of inference. If there had ever been an Asttro-Babal – an Old Empyre – nurturing what were now-inconceivable cosmic intimacies, it manifestly died, long ago. Ashenzohn no longer connected to an orbital twin. The celestial path was stumped. The name of the city said as much, if the sources were to be credited. If they were not, it mattered little. Ruin had befallen it, and any Temple of Phyl-Undhu, situated at its uppermost limit, could only have been blasted and charred beyond all imagination in the catastrophe. Final breakage was the demonstrated reality – the entire movement of the Whurrld. The late poets, even in the gathering senescence of the times, with each of their words caged in the desiccated formulas of an all-enveloping decadence, had still caught a vivid glimpse of the dread contour. *O scorched and shattered Ashenzohn! Your highest and holiest place – if it exists in truth at all – is no more than a blackened relic of doomed aspiration. Our damned Way-Stump, rooted in an ocean of blood, crowned with an abolished heaven*."
You’re right, there is no rabbi in the sky
Good job!
>uh god isn’t real because my fav model of the universe doesn’t think he’s real
>oh… you’re saying god transcends the universe…
>but he can’t do that according to my model about the universe.
Why do atheists think religion and science are mutually exclusive? Why do they rehearse these stereotypes so much?
>my beliefs aren’t really my beliefs, they just pop into my head lol
>no I can’t reflect on my own thoughts, why would I need to do that?
>but I’ll still defend my beliefs as though I came up with them myself 🙂
>OP says “why do atheists expect material evidence for a spiritual-para-psychological phenomenon”
>Atheist begs question (again)
>I’ve dug deeper
>there’s rules against jerking off and obeying my most basic impulses
>sorry, seems like this whole religion thing is unnatural and actually fake
Atheists cannot into abstract thought:
>if god is above and outside the material universe…
>then he must also be material, because this definition of god relates him to the material universe.
It’s a form of autism, which people forget is on a really long spectrum; atheists/autists are highly systemic in their cognition, but so much so that they can’t formulate abstract concepts (such as immaterial, supernatural, parapsychological, and etc phenomena). Basically “I need to see it to believe it” taken to the extreme.
Again, the materialism.
>humans put wisdom in book, attribute it not to themselves and their supreme morality (they are humble, exemplary of their wisdom), but to an abstract concept with which they credit their ability to have thought of this wisdom in the first place
>this is bad because……… we need to be worshiping living people that I can see!!!!!
>>my beliefs aren’t really my beliefs, they just pop into my head lol
that guy was just shitposting and it seemed to go over your head. And this might blow your mind, but everyone on Earth is born an atheist. If you disagree, it means you don't understand what atheism actually is, and thats a (you) problem
God does not fit into any cosmological model of the universe, and these same models are extremely accurate at predicting phenomenon. Why do you think God is abscent from these models anon? Could it perhaps be because he doesn't exist?
I don't know why i am an Atheist. It just sort of happened
>If God exists beyond the physical and natural realm, this implies that religion itself is inherently materialist and is bullshit.
Christianity in currentyear is indefensible without posting jaks. What a sad state to be in, imagine if the Church Fathers were around to see this...
Embarrassing to have no response to wojaks. I suppose spite can only carry you so far? Get well soon (with your mental illness)
>no evidence of god
>won’t believe in god
While you’re treating Christianity like a monolith of “do what the book says, or else,” you’re ignoring the very obvious social benefits that religion has. God’s existence has nothing to do with religion, because religion is how people create institutions surrounding spiritual content. Your objection is ostensibly that god doesn’t exist, but your evidence is that people exist and they aren’t god.
>it’s impossible to verify god’s existence
>you are the only known creature in the universe able to conceptualize the archetypal “God,” an all-powerful being beyond material constraints
>thanks to finite brain matter that can somehow generate a conscious experience, with boundless imaginative thought and the ability to self-reflect recursively ad infinitum
>but you use *logic* to rule out god’s existence, and you also have no way to verify your claim
>outta sight outta mind, but this isn’t ignorance because [mental gymnastics]
If you can’t grasp the concept, and you have sour grapes about, why is your next act to spread your own confusion?
What do you expect from a pig but a grunt
But at least you’re honest! I’ve always said how atheists are basically chronic masturbators and drug addicts first, and atheists second. It’s good to see a plain example.
>fixated on the history of ideas
You’re not that smart, anon. Bronze Age israelites (not the same ones as today) came up with a solid corpus of wisdom, which they kept to themselves. But Christians took that good wisdom, obviously modified it for their new audience, and spread it to the gentiles. You’ll notice how Europeans (who are Christian) have taken these moral lessons and influenced the entire world. The rabbis are still out there, but that’s separate.
>just follow the religion without believing god exists, bro
Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Finally someone trying to convert LULZ to atheist Christianity.
>But at least you’re honest! I’ve always said how atheists are basically chronic masturbators and drug addicts first, and atheists second. It’s good to see a plain example
Hedonism doesn't necessarily imply degeneracy. It just means you aren't picking up no stinkin' cross every day. Everyone is a hedonist. And Christians are just hedonists who are low time preference.
>I've made it impossible to know I exist other than some visions to a random desert tribe 3000 years ago and people who know of me since then
>You have to believe in me for me to accept you
Even assuming this God exists, it's concerning that he seems to select for gullible people.
God literally made it impossible to not know He exists.
So you're a 'all cosmologies are valid and lead to God' type? If so, then so is atheism. If not, tell that to uncontacted tribes that worship their ancestors and natural phenomena.
The thing is, if they say that, they still would not believe even if they saw.
27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
>Christianity in currentyear is indefensible without posting jaks. What a sad state to be in, imagine if the Church Fathers were around to see this...
you're out of date son
I have never seen a church that looks like this, even liberal apostate ones, however I have seen a number of trannies in secular environments, like Yale. Go outside
>checkmate Christians, we pozzed your community
So atheists are homosexuals after all?
are you fuckin dumb? That’s not what he said. The cosmological models don’t mention god because they they’re scientific, and so they’re concerned with material phenomena. We’re discussing something that is immaterial, so why do you beg the question of why an immaterial entity has no readily observable material evidence?
>uncontacted tribes that worship their ancestors and natural phenomena
It’s actually hilarious that you’d note an example of early human spirituality, but you didn’t pick up on how that’s an early stage in psychological evolution. Religion is the material side of spirituality, spirituality is a legitimate aspect of the psyche which you need only flip through a psychology journal to learn. At one point, that same spiritual tradition of ancestor worship was predominant in all human society; and in certain areas of the world (by chance or divine inspiration or by some other factor), communities slowly developed more complex psychological structures and experiences. The way it happened, Bronze Age israelites came up with the idea and Christians prepared it for the globe.
>inb4 atheism is the ultimate conclusion of the progression of spirituality, when we realize we have no need for silly religions
This is false. Atheism is at best actively using your intellect to deny your intellect exists, and is at worst passively denying your intellect in favor of constant gratification.
Another excellent example of why someone might be an atheist: their dad is religious
Pottery
And grow up, you’re 26 complaining about your dad (who looks like he lived a full life before your hateful self came along). Why are atheists so concerned with how other people live their lives?
>dad you don’t know shit. I log onto my computer every day and get the facts.
>No I didn’t read the Bible, I watched a couple YouTube videos
The former then.
>The cosmological models don’t mention god because they they’re scientific, and so they’re concerned with material phenomena. We’re discussing something that is immaterial, so why do you beg the question of why an immaterial entity has no readily observable material evidence?
Meaningless distinction. If the 'immaterial' exists it will have a provable effect on the 'material', even if limited to human behaviour. Therefore one can prove that it exists and atheism is just as viable 'stage in psychological evolution' as any other, so you can stop seething about it.
Can Christ's Bride be defended without argumentum ad transgenderism?
What is it like to be so utterly retarded that you believe the same shit as my double digit IQ braindead boomer Q anon believing father?
>atheist is angsty teenager rebelling against dad
I'm 26 and he's 70. What's it like to believe whatever your mommy and daddy told you when you were little? Is being a retard fun?
>I'm 26
Embarrassing.
>What's it like to believe whatever your mommy and daddy told you when you were little?
Dunno, what's it like to believe whatever established authority figures told you?
>the only way to figure out that the universe probably wasn't created by a Canaanite storm god is to hear it from an authority figure
Nice projection.
>established authority figures
Says the one believing the same shit as all of the major politicians running the country, assuming you're also an American. Are you retarded? Someone who is publicly atheist can't even become president.
They aren't Christians.
Anyone who doesn't go to pastor Jim Bob's United Fiery New Baptist Salvation Providence Ministries™ church of Alabama is not a real Christian.
This is not a bad product tbh
If you want to hold a mass in the middle of nowhere
Just bring along a bottle of wine and some crackers. I've done that before and I'm not even Christian.
>heh… I’m so smart and different…
>my litmus test for intelligence is not believing what my icky parents told me
>you don’t know shit dad (alive to see and learn from more human behavior and mass action that you’ll ever see in the same amount of time), jerking off is healthy and drugs make you feel good so they’re good
You are running away from something, not towards something. You have no direction. Your life must feel very confusing, if only there was a source of wisdom or learning that could help you with giving yourself meaning or developing positive coping mechanisms… probably therapy right? The one where you pay pill-mill to give you pharmaceutical drugs instead of self-medicating?
>fixated on the history of ideas
Yes, indeed the Canaanites worshipped a storm god. That was their religion, not their spirituality. Elements of their spirituality persisted, and others were modified or influenced by others. Today it’s probably totally different in terms of religious expression (contrary to your straw man), but the spiritual content has been constantly developed en masse by humans across the world- not just Canaan.
>there is only one type of Christianity
>and it’s the one with gaudy churches and greedy pastors, which is frowned upon by the more well-established types of Christianity
This is like a straw man mixed with a no true Scotsman.
>everyone is born an atheist
Staying an atheist seems quite infantile, then. By your logic. Should we all go back to wearing bibs, too?
>noooo you can’t tell me I have an incorrect understanding (purely strawmen and stale one-liners that are steeped in fallacy)
Nobody’s forcing you to learn about Christianity, but why would you then jump into a conversation and be so resistant? Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder, not beliefs worth defending.
>without believing god exists
Reading comprehension?
>Reading comprehension?
Well, you didn't give a reason for believing god exists.
>you can’t tell me I have an incorrect understanding
Do you have any proofs that your understanding is correct or do you just larp here?
>nooo you must have a different standard for the magic sky person
No
Strawman thread, that's not even the position of most atheists. They will not believe in God unless they see proof. It's not like I don't believe Michigan exists because I've never seen it
You just reiterated the OP, so how is it a straw man?
>first you prove god exists.
>but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence.
>yes, we are testing an idea which does not pose itself as a material entity.
>the test has failed. Who knew?
I’m thinking you lack the ability to really check your own beliefs. If you could, you’d take this one step further and ask “what does it mean to be immaterial in the first place?”
For one, my understanding isn’t a one-line straw man that is plainly wrong. There’s no storm god in the Bible.
TLDR atheists are incapable of abstract thought, specifically when it comes to constructing a mental image of something that they haven’t seen before. It’s probably due to a very light degree of autism (extreme male brain syndrome, the hyperfixation on systemic thought), or as some other atheists ITT have said:
>I’m a hedonist, so clear-cut moral rules get in the way (atheist by accident, guided by animal impulses)
>I hate my parents, so I hate the clear-cut moral rules they want me to follow (atheist by accident, mentally running away with no direction)
>I just don’t care (atheist by accident, walking dead NPC at best, psychopath/politician at worst)
Despite not wanting to be an atheist by choice (i.e. their beliefs are not secure, as evident by their constant need to gaslight others), atheists still fight tooth and nail to recite the same fallacies:
>begging the question, why is an immaterial thing not observable in the material world? (And yes there is an immaterial world. It is called consciousness.)
>tu quoque
>strawman
Atheists need to learn the difference between religion and spirituality, because most of their objections relate to how religious institutions behave, not the content of the spiritual meaning. Very few retards on this board actually say “might is right,” and they’re usually pagan chuds.
I'm totally fine with a deductive argument for god. The problem is that none of them are really conclusive and generally don't even point to a kind of god that would be a sensible target of worship.
>You just reiterated the OP, so how is it a straw man?
Read my reply again but slowly this time and then ponder on the difference between 'I want to see something before I believe it' and 'I want to see proof of something before I believe it'
>For one, my understanding isn’t a one-line straw man that is plainly wrong. There’s no storm god in the Bible.
So you just larp, ok
>>but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence.
Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
>I’m thinking you lack the ability to really check your own beliefs.
Pathetic projection. I'm not even gonna pull out my list of Bible contradiction because I know not a single one of them is gonna make you "check your own beliefs."
>If you could, you’d take this one step further and ask “what does it mean to be immaterial in the first place?”
No because I know things that are immaterial. They're still possible to define, model and reason about, and they're typically associated with material things. Religion isn't because religion is designed to basically be "stop asking questions and obey my criminal organization."
>Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles. Can't find any, therefore they aren't real.
>I'm not even gonna pull out my list of Bible contradiction
That you haven't read.
I could refute this but then you'd pull out another one which is why talking about contradictions is a waste of time
The fact that there are 31 of these "denbookings" on Inspiring Philosophy's channel indicates that its reasonable to assume the Bible isn't inerrant.
>Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles. Can't find any, therefore they aren't real.
Particle detectors exist. God detectors don't. Try again.
>That you haven't read.
I have, and contradictions can't be handwaved by reading the rest of the book.
>Particle detectors exist.
No, you have to use your eyes. Prove to me quantum particles exist using only the 5 senses
>I have
X Doubt
If he accepts particle detectors, will you provide him with an analogous god detector?
God detectors do not exist because God is not material. That's also why number detectors don't exist.
>make up contradictions
>get deboonked
>"this proves it's reasonable to believe there are errors in the bible"
>God detectors do not exist because God is not material.
Then it would appear that your objection was disanalogous.
>That's also why number detectors don't exist.
I'm sure that anon would readily accept that both god and numbers exist as abstract concepts.
>Then it would appear that your objection was disanalogous.
No, because they are both standards of measurement which arbitrarily exclude the thing we're supposedly trying to detect in the first place.
>I'm sure that anon would readily accept that both god and numbers exist as abstract concepts
God is a spirit, not an abstract object.
>No, because they are both standards of measurement which arbitrarily exclude the thing we're supposedly trying to detect in the first place.
You were claiming that particles would be outside of what anon's method would admit. They are clearly not.
>God is a spirit, not an abstract object.
Then God and numbers are not analogous.
>You were claiming that particles would be outside of what anon's method
No, I was claiming they would be outside of my arbitrary method. Not his arbitrary method.
>Then God and numbers are not analogous.
They are analogous because they are both immaterial and as a result, equally empirically immeasurable.
>No, I was claiming they would be outside of my arbitrary method. Not his arbitrary method.
If that's your line of reasoning, then you should provide a reason why anon should use your method instead.
>They are analogous because they are both immaterial and as a result, equally empirically immeasurable.
Conceptual things are in the mind and therefore directly verifiable by the mind. When I think of a pink unicorn, I know that there is the concept of a pink unicorn.
>If that's your line of reasoning, then you should provide a reason why anon should use your method instead.
My line of reasoning is that it is unreasonable to use methods which automatically exclude the subject of inquiry.
>Conceptual things are in the mind and therefore directly verifiable by the mind. When I think of a pink unicorn, I know that there is the concept of a pink unicorn.
There is an ontological argument similar to this which proves the existence of God.
>My line of reasoning is that it is unreasonable to use methods which automatically exclude the subject of inquiry.
Then you should've provided an alternate method.
>There is an ontological argument similar to this which proves the existence of God.
Anselm's argument is widely considered a failure.
>Anselm's argument is widely considered a failure.
Appeal to popularity
I wasn't making a counterargument, I was just informing you of the argument's status in contemporary discourse in case you were not aware. The argument has a rich history of refutation, starting with Gaunilo's island followed by things like Aquinas' point about the impossibility of conceiving god or Kant's argument about existence not being a predicate.
>make up contradictions
Is it possible to cope any harder?
>No, you have to use your eyes.
Not in your terms. You said material evidence, I use material evidence. Shifting the goalposts only shows you're seething.
>is this an admission that your fake contradictions require reading them out of context?
No. Unless you have the verse that explains away that Jesus was at two places at the same time doing two completely different things 3 days after getting baptized?
>Not in your terms. You said material evidence, I use material evidence. Shifting the goalposts only shows you're seething.
Read the posts above yours.
>No. Unless you have the verse that explains away that Jesus was at two places at the same time doing two completely different things 3 days after getting baptized?
Still not interested in arguing contradictions for the reason previously stated
>Read the posts above yours.
With the greatest pleasure.
>>but you have to use my hyper specific paradigm, which only allows material evidence.
You said my epistemology only allows material evidence.
>Yes. When two people disagree, the only valid arbiter is objective reality. I don't see anything unreasonable with that.
I agreed with a perfectly reasonable explanation.
>Ok, so let's use our five senses to find quantum particles.
Typical Christian dishonesty kicks in, you shift the goalposts and ask me to prove quantum particles with the five senses.
>Particle detectors exist.
I don't catch on your shifting of the goalposts yet and make my point.
>No, you have to use your eyes.
You seethe of rage.
It's extremely easy to read.
>Still not interested in arguing contradictions for the reason previously stated
And what is your reason exactly? That you've decided I haven't really read the Bible just because I wasn't convinced that a guy who was at two places doing two different things at the same time and then predicted he'd come back and establish a worldwide peaceful kingdom within his disciples' lifetime and never did is God?
>contradictions can't be handwaved by reading the rest of the book.
Also, is this an admission that your fake contradictions require reading them out of context? Lol
OP is a false flagging atheist. This place was better when it was just history. Now ist a discord tranny colony that types up blogposts about "hijra dalits" and "is TND compatible with Christianity"
>>I will not believe in God until I see him
"The insane ghost of a slain lesser god remains a terrible thing. Its residual power, dreadfully irresistible for mortals of the degraded echelons, manifests through a delicate devastation of time. It happens too soon. Messages multiply, so far advanced, they appear as if from nowhere. The Anglossic intercourse has begun, contactless, or immaculate, before that makes any sense, even within itself. Once the stream has broadened, it has already been an elaborately developed conversation, long underway, protective of its origins, endlessly absorbing of all memory.
Try to fold the madness inwards and it turns immediately into laughter. That’s a hectic path, never wisely taken. It circles back upon itself, forever, as its rhythms close. Everyone understands that truly *bad* jokes really aren’t funny, in the slightest, but are rather the absolute antithesis of redemption. Stillness before all, therefore, even in the vortex. Calm acceptance is needed to follow the Old Road ..."
>I will not believe in God until I get proof
Fixed that for you.
The word of god shall be spread with the fire and the sword, not with nerdspeak.