Ask a Christian to provide a positive case for Christianity:. >the Bible

Ask a Christian to provide a positive case for Christianity:
>the Bible
>logical arguments for God's existence
>moral objectivity
>historical evidence of Jesus
>miracles
>the witness of the Church throughout history
>rich philosophical tradition
>charitable works
>beauty of religion

Ask an Atheist to provide a positive case for Atheism:
>I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! YOU'RE A moron!

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    >the Bible
    OK, why should I believe that a talking snake convinced the first 2 people to eat fruit and sin?
    There also isn't really any historical evidence of Jesus outside of the Gospels. There's historical evidence for Christians in Rome in the reign of Nero, but not really any evidence for Christ himself outside of the Gospels.
    Also for most of that you can have a positive case for Islam as well.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can you please provide a positive argument for the Atheist position, instead of negative arguments for non-Atheistic positions?

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        >not believing in God
        >no actual reason to believe in a God or gods
        There, that's it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Again, I'm not asking for you to tell me what you personally believe, or to prove that Christianity is false. I'm asking for you to prove why Atheism is true. Your personal lack of faith does nothing to demonstrate that Atheism is true, only that you personally believe it is true. A positive argument would provide evidence or reasons for why you believe it is true.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I will try to answer you
          How do you believe the world was created?
          Everything seems too specific
          From the human body
          To all these organisms
          To literally all these galaxies and planets
          All planets also being perfectly aligned around the sun in our system
          It just seems too much to just be a coincidence

          • 1 month ago
            Schizoidberg

            If the universe was created by God it wouldn't need to be specific. Things would just happen because he willed it, not because of some law of causality or atoms or gravity or anything that makes any sense, unless he just kickstarted everything with the Big Bang and let it do its thing from there.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lack of moral objectivity (this can be seen how different societies hold different values/morals)

        Atheists themselves are a much more credible source in belief (as they argue and believe through logic rather than faith--> As Christians must reject truth to pursue their ideas)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I understand how the objective existence of morality is evidence of the existence of a morally good God. But how would differences in morality accross different cultures prove that Atheism is true? Even most atheists would disagree with you, since they universally agree that things like slavery, murder, and rape are objectively wrong, regardless of cultural differences, so I don't think your point is even correct. But assuming it were correct, how does that prove that no God exists?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have to show why it's worth developing the mental framework. Otherwise, why not just believe in the flying spaghetti monster. God is a word. What does it mean, and why should anyone use it. Whoever uses a wo4d needs to justify its use. So why do you have a mental framework around the word "God". What does it do for you, and why should others also use the same word with the same meaning that you have given to the "word".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no evidence of christ outside gospels

      You have a few
      >Antiquities of the israelites by Josephus Flavus
      >Talmud also calling Jesus a sorcerer (same things the pharisees called him)
      >Roman historian Tacitus in Annals

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        Talmud brings up a bunch of "Yeshuas," at least one of which lived at about 150 AD. It's not really "evidence," and the Talmud was compiled long after Christianity became an anti israeli force.
        Tacitus and Josephus talk about Christians, but not directly a Christ. Even then, they were written long after the events in question.

        Revelation 12
        > 9The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth
        The serpent could mean the devil in the story of creation in Genesis

        That's not an answer at all.

        I will try to answer you
        How do you believe the world was created?
        Everything seems too specific
        From the human body
        To all these organisms
        To literally all these galaxies and planets
        All planets also being perfectly aligned around the sun in our system
        It just seems too much to just be a coincidence

        We live in a place conducive to life, so life evolved here. None of it requires a god or gods to believe in. It's like a puddle thinking that somebody made the hole it's in, and claiming it was designed for it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >that’s not an answer at all
          You couldn’t believe a snake talked so I answered about what the snake could be
          >none of it requires a god or gods to believe him
          How did all this become a reality?
          How was this created?
          >puddle thinking that somebody made the hole it’s in
          Well somebody buried the hole it’s in

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >You couldn’t believe a snake talked so I answered about what the snake could be

            no you didn't, bible says it was a literal serpent

            >How was this created?
            not my problem

            >Josephus
            >Testimonium Flavianum
            About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many israelites and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
            Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the israelites, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3[37]

            that's controversial and it's doubtful that josephus would have held christ in such high attitude.

            Talmud brings up as well a Yeshua who was a sorcerer and son of a woman named Mary

            the talmud was formulated several centuries after christianity became a thing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Josephus
          >Testimonium Flavianum
          About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many israelites and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
          Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the israelites, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3[37]

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Talmud brings up as well a Yeshua who was a sorcerer and son of a woman named Mary

      • 1 month ago
        Schizoidberg

        Josephus was fake and gay. Talmud was long after the fact. Romans only wrote about Christians and their beliefs, not any actual man named Jesus they met.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Revelation 12
      > 9The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth
      The serpent could mean the devil in the story of creation in Genesis

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Anon Jesus being a historical figure is a very accepted fact in history, outside of niche academics loke Richard Carrier, you are not gonna find people who agree wkth you. Its conspiracy tier thinking. Very mainstream historians like Bart Ehamn who isn't even Christian, affirm the historicity of Jesus.

      I will try to answer you
      How do you believe the world was created?
      Everything seems too specific
      From the human body
      To all these organisms
      To literally all these galaxies and planets
      All planets also being perfectly aligned around the sun in our system
      It just seems too much to just be a coincidence

      This seems like you are referring to evolution, which isn't what the conversation is about. Im Christian and i believe in evolution, lots of Christians affirm evolution.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are right, and outright Jesus denialism makes no case for atheism either so I don't get why people are drawn to it.

        However on your second point, even though most Christians do believe in evolution, evolution -- and the broader naturalistic understanding of reality it represents -- do present a case for atheism. It is one of the strongest reasons to argue against the necessity of a god, while necessity is one of the main arguments FOR God.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I dont think evolution is a problem for Christianity but i do think its a problem for fundamentalism/literalism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe less a problem for Christianity in particular, definitely a bigger problem for fundies etc., but my point is more that it poses a problem for theism in general. Not to say it's a fatal problem necessarily. And no disrespect.

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        It means at one time there was an apocalyptic israeli prophet a cult coalesced around, that doesn't mean he did miracles and shit. People attribute miracles to human beings now, and usually they're liars.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The negation of false miracles does nothing to discredit the existence of true miracles. Surely you must understand the concept of not being able to prove a negative, right?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            There are no "true miracles." They were lying or misrepresenting things.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            Because I have no reason to believe it, and it's the same context as other works of mythology. Do you believe Muhammed flew to Jerusalem atop a magic horse?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            Not answering the question.
            Do you believe that Muhammed flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse, or that the Buddha grew from a lotus blossom? It's called applying a standard of proof.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not believing in something doesn't prove it false anymore than believing in something proves it true.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            OK. Why should I believe that Christ did those miracles, and why should I believe them any less than believing Muhammed flew to Jerusalem on a magic horse, or that Joseph Smith had magic golden plates? I'm directly asking you these questions; you should be able to answer them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm directly asking you these questions; you should be able to answer them.
            Why should I believe that God does not exist? That is the topic of the thread. Can you answer that without changing the topic to Christianity and Islam?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >Why should I believe that God does not exist?
            You shouldn't.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            Or, at least, shouldn't just believe it. There's no actual reason to believe in God.
            I am asking about Christianity because that, also, is the subject of the thread, which has not actually been answered. Why should anyone believe in a talking serpent that tempted the first 2 humans to sin?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I am asking about Christianity because that, also, is the subject of the thread
            No, the topic is Atheism. What arguments are there that Atheism is true? Proving that Christianity is false would not prove that Atheism is true, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

            >Why should I believe that God does not exist?
            You shouldn't.

            >You shouldn't.
            Yet you can't think of a single argument?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            I thought the topic was about Christianity.
            >What arguments are there that Atheism is true?
            There's no fundamental reason to believe in any god or gods besides faith.
            > Proving that Christianity is false would not prove that Atheism is true,
            It wouldn't, but the OP explicitly talks about Christianity, so it's completely relevant.
            >Yet you can't think of a single argument?
            Already stated them. There are no miracles, really, and there's no God coming down from above to save you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I thought the topic was about Christianity.
            You thought wrong.

            >There's no fundamental reason to believe in any god or gods besides faith.
            I'm not talking about faith. I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true.

            >It wouldn't, but the OP explicitly talks about Christianity, so it's completely relevant.
            I included Christianity as an example of how someone could make positive arguments for their position. So far, you have made no positive argument for Atheism, only negative arguments against particular religions, which does nothing to prove the truth of Atheism.

            >There are no miracles
            How do you know? Can you prove this?

            >there's no God coming down from above to save you.
            Where is your proof that there is no God?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >I'm not talking about faith. I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true.
            > So far, you have made no positive argument for Atheism, only negative arguments against particular religions, which does nothing to prove the truth of Atheism.

            Lack of belief in anything doesn't need a true/false thing. It's just a lack of faith. There's no particular reason to believe in it.
            >How do you know? Can you prove this?
            I'm not sure if you're able to understand what I'm saying, but there's no reason to believe in any of it. That is why I asked about Muhammed, Buddha, and Joseph Smith. I am asking you as to why I should believe in them. That is something you should be able to answer if you believe in them.
            >Where is your proof that there is no God?
            Living in this world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not asking about your faith in Atheism. I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true. It has nothing to do with whether or not you personally believe in it.

            >Living in this world.
            What about the world proves that there is no God?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true
            I'm asking you repeatedly to tell me why I should believe in these miracles. For whatever reason you can't or won't answer.
            Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any god or gods. That's it.
            >What about the world proves that there is no God?
            Being around human beings. There is no reason to believe in it. What is your reason to believe in it? I have been repeatedly asking you this and, for whatever reason, you are repeatedly refusing to answer. Why do you believe in God, and why do you believe in miracles? If it's the Christian God, why the Christian God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true.
            That's not how it works.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is a weird angle to go for. Obviously mère belief has no bearing on actual truth. But that doesn't help your argument as a Christian who's entire world view is constructed on blind belief.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Anon Jesus being a historical figure is a very accepted fact in history
        So is the existence of Muhammad. I guess Islam is true now?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can’t have a believe about objective reality, it simply is.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      belief*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What about objective reality proves that there is no God?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    bad thing happen

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only one of these that is remotely a solid case is the historical existence of Jesus, however if we are going by the historical Jesus that most secular scholars acknowledge, that alone would discount many conservative interpretations of Christianity.
    >>I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING!
    Correct, soft atheism is only a skepticism or lack of belief in a divine being, It doesn't require a stronger case than a lack of solid evidence for such a thing.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Ask a Muslim to provide a positive case for Islam:
    >>the Quran
    arguments for God's existence
    objectivity
    >historical evidence of Jesus and Mohammadd

    >>the witness of the Imamate throughout history
    >>rich philosophical tradition
    works
    of religion
    Problem?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Bible. You say: 'Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one.' Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. … By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: 'Produce something like it'?!
        Problem?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! YOU'RE A moron!
    Yes, this unironically. You can't prove a negative, moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
      Great. So can you prove that there is no God?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >can't prove a negative, moron.
        Are you esl?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So you can't prove that Atheism is true.

          >I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true.
          That's not how it works.

          I accept your concession.

          >I'm asking you to prove that Atheism is true
          I'm asking you repeatedly to tell me why I should believe in these miracles. For whatever reason you can't or won't answer.
          Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any god or gods. That's it.
          >What about the world proves that there is no God?
          Being around human beings. There is no reason to believe in it. What is your reason to believe in it? I have been repeatedly asking you this and, for whatever reason, you are repeatedly refusing to answer. Why do you believe in God, and why do you believe in miracles? If it's the Christian God, why the Christian God?

          >why I should believe in these miracles.
          What miracles? What do miracles have to do with Atheism being true or false?

          >Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any god or gods.
          That's the definition of an Atheist. I'm asking whether Atheism is true (the claim that no gods actually exist).

          >Being around human beings.
          What about human beings proves that there is no God? This is just as dumb as a Christian saying "Being around human beings proves God exists."

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >What miracles? What do miracles have to do with Atheism being true or false?
            The ones involved with Christianity and other believers in other religions. The miracles in Christianity are generally those given in the Gospels. One of the miracles attributed to Muhammed is that involving flying on a winged horse to Jerusalem before death.
            > I'm asking whether Atheism is true
            If it is, it is. If it's not, it's not. It doesn't need to be proven or disproven since it's simply a lack of belief.
            >What about human beings proves that there is no God?
            Tens of millions of people died during the Second World War. Perhaps up to a hundred million people died over the course of the Communist revolutions and the Cold War. No god came down to save humanity, nothing. People who believe in God generally are members of an Abrahamic faith, who believe in a personal God that created the universe and created them. That God doesn't care about them.
            If you instead believe in a faceless Supreme Being, fine, but atheism is not an organized belief, it's simply lack of faith. It doesn't need to be proven true or false.
            I'm asking about miracles since Christianity was explicitly in the OP. And you still have not answered any of the questions I had about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Christianity
            I'm not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about Atheism (the claim that no gods exist). Whether Christianity is false is irrelevant to whether Atheism is true. For example, we might prove Christianity is false, only to realize Islam is true. Or we might prove Christianity and Islam are false only to discover that Judaism is true. Or maybe polytheism is true. Or we might discover they are all wrong and that theism is true. Proving any number of religions wrong does not prove that Atheism is true, which is the topic of the thread.

            >It doesn't need to be proven or disproven since it's simply a lack of belief.
            Once again, I'm not asking about your personal belief or lack thereof, I'm asking whether the claim "There are no gods" is true or false, and what are the arguments that support that claim.

            >Tens of millions of people died during the Second World War. Perhaps up to a hundred million people died over the course of the Communist revolutions and the Cold War. No god came down to save humanity, nothing. People who believe in God generally are members of an Abrahamic faith, who believe in a personal God that created the universe and created them. That God doesn't care about them.
            That doesn't even disprove what you think it disproves, but again, disproving a *different* belief system (Christianity) does nothing to prove that *your* belief system (Atheism) is true.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >I'm not talking about Christianity
            then you shouldn't have put it in the OP
            > I'm asking whether the claim "There are no gods" is true or false, and what are the arguments that support that claim.
            Because, simply put, there's no rational reason to think so.
            >disproving a *different* belief system (Christianity) does nothing to prove that *your* belief system (Atheism) is true.
            Oh, I'm not an atheist lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >then you shouldn't have put it in the OP
            I put it there as an example so that you can get a better idea of what a positive argument looks like for a position, since you seem incapable of understanding the concept.

            >there's no rational reason to think so
            Based on what evidence?

            >Oh, I'm not an atheist lol.
            Really?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            >Based on what evidence?
            Belief in God is not rational in and of itself. There can be no rational reasons to believe in a god or gods, only justifications. There is no evidence for any god or gods.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Belief in God is not rational in and of itself.
            Why not? Give an argument to support your claim, instead of simply bare assertions. I could equally claim.
            >Belief in God is rational in and of itself.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            Because a belief in God requires a belief in a supernatural force which by its very definition is beyond the rational.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you understand what is a rational argument?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            Yes, and I have no reason to think that any sort of a belief in God is necessarily "rational." Could you tell me why I should think so?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Could you tell me why I should think so?
            Could you tell me why belief in Atheism is rational?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            I have and I have repeatedly done so.
            Now it seems curious that you are completely refusing to answer any of my questions. I have asked you repeatedly why one should believe in God, or why a belief in God should be rational. You are refusing to answer any questions about this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I have and I have repeatedly done so.
            No, you haven't. You keep talking about why specific religions are false.

            >There has yet to be a solid case made for a divine being, therefore I remain unconvinced that one exists.
            There has yet to be a solid case made for Atheism, therefore I remain unconvinced that Atheism is true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There has yet to be a solid case made for Atheism, therefore I remain unconvinced that Atheism is true.
            OK. what do you believe instead? Since you seem so logical about your beliefs and the burden of proof then surely the answer is not biblical Christianity.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            No, I have explained why people don't believe. Not believing in any god or gods is just what atheism is, as well as not believing in any religion at all.
            So then, I am directly asking you: what is the rational argument for believing in any god or gods? What is your explanation?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not talking about belief states of people, I'm talking about the objective reality of whether or not God exists. Why is that so hard for you to get?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            So, what do you believe? Do you think God exists? What are rational arguments for God existing?
            If you're not talking about the "belief states" of people, what was even the point of this thread?
            Why do you keep refusing to actually answer a question?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Right, I'm talking about the claim "No gods exist." Whether or not you or I believe that claim is irrelevant to whether it is true or false. Saying "It's true because I believe it!" is not an argument in support of Atheism. Your being an Atheist or not does not support the claim that Atheism is true. The topic has nothing to do with your personal Atheism or lack thereof. How can I make that any more clear?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            Then what do you believe, what are your arguments against atheism, why should anyone believe your arguments?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't matter what I believe, I'm asking for arguments that support Atheism. Tell me what your positive arguments are, and I will show why they are wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            I've been posting them and you haven't shown why they are wrong. In fact, you've refused to answer really very many questions at all, instead just constantly deflecting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I claim God exists
            I reject that claim
            >Oh so now you're making a claim
            No I'm not, I'm rejecting yours
            >Prove your claim then
            I don't have a claim, I'm rejecting yours. Prove your claim
            >No. My claim depends on pretending that you're the one with a claim and I'm not

            that's owning atheists in a nutshell. It's fairly embarrassing. Rank evasion and conflation in blatantly bad faith. theists think that because the psychosocial construct of god or gods is so pervasive, i.e. because THEY believe it, because it's "out there" in the ether, it is not itself a positive claim. It is. They try to delude themselves that the rejection of such a baseless positive claim is, itself, a positive claim. It is not. Moreover, they often seem to insist that it is the ONLY positive claim in the conversation. That's more than wrong, it's petulant. If it was a sincerely held belief, it would be stupid. I'm agnostic on whether it's petulance or stupidity.

            Here's a thing to to try. Let's agree that theism AND atheism are both things/ideas that exist. As such, neither is a claim and neither has to support itself. We'll just review the record and see which side is acting in egregiously bad faith and grant the point to the other guy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >whether the claim "There are no gods" is true or false
            whether the claim "Have you stopping shitting under yourself after getting drunk each morning?" is true or false

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I accept your concession.
            If I made a claim like "I do not own a big green dragon" it would be quite literally impossible to prove to you that I don't own a big green dragon.
            So no, that's not how it works.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The claim being examined isn't
            >"I don't know whether or not gods exist."
            but rather
            >"No gods exist."

            If you are unable to prove that no gods exist, and you admit that you don't know, you are an agnostic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That chart is garbage and probably made by a moron. You can't prove something doesn't exist. Your definition of athiesm is epistemologically nonsensical.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm asking whether Atheism is true (the claim that no gods actually exist).
            Hardly any atheist makes this as a hard claim, therefore they have no mandate to prove it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >therefore they have no mandate to prove it.
            Now read the OP again. You can say "I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING" all you want, but you haven't demonstrated why Atheism is true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > but you haven't demonstrated why Atheism is true.
            But that isn't my goal. Certainly is your hangup, not mine. There has yet to be a solid case made for a divine being, therefore I remain unconvinced that one exists. That is all. One might exist, but no one has demonstrated it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's telling that atheists think everything abstract is a fake construct that should be destroyed, and yet so much of their attack becomes nonsensical unless they cling to the "burden of proof" abstract rhetorical word game.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's telling that atheists think everything abstract is a fake construct that should be destroyed
        Bullshit you made up. Abstract concepts are abstract, your god would not be an abstract concept if it was real

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >abstract concept if it was real
          Jesus is the physical form of the abstract concept. Like when you say that a woman is beutiful. Beuty is the abstract concept, but it is also physically real, in that when you look at a woman, the beuty becomes flesh.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >rich philosophical tradition

    Aka The Cope Olympics

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Ask an Atheist to provide a positive case for Atheism:
    "Zero is indivisible, so that zero belief cannot be rigorously differentiated from belief in zero. It is in this sense that atheism is a religion. Not that atheism is committed to a specific conviction, quite the opposite; it is precisely the specificity of conviction that it attacks. Understood negatively it denies the false absolute of theos, but understood positively it affirms the true absolute marked by the ‘privative’ a-; the *nihil* from which creation proceeds, the undifferentiable cosmic zero."

    "Everything has obviously gone wrong for us in order for Plato to begin with One rather than Zero. To take One as originary is to presuppose everything; such as unity, individuation, achieved form, and dogmatic plenitude. The One is the phallomorphic base of Occidental culture, in the sense that Irigaray understands it. It is the mono—of monotheism, and monotheism is condensed irreligion; the definitive patriarchal effacing of intra-uterine indifferentiation (and thus of the primary ripple from out of chaotic zero). The differentiated one is the Father, and his adorers understand nothing of religion. Even in writing the nothing, as Aquinas does, they eclipse it with absolute ego (Him). Nor is it the case that primary immanence is merely crushed with arbitrariness beneath a partially inadequate metaphorics, since—far from being neutral between the sexes—it is precisely because indifferentiation (= 0) is sexually unsegmented that it is even more feminine than the mother. The femininity of zero is uncompromised by its indifference, due to the unilateral character of individualizing deviation. Whilst zero is certainly alien to the Father, there is no differentiation from zero. Indeed, zero is so utterly vulvo-uterine that patriarchy is synonymous with irreligion (faith)."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Between barter systems and money systems there is a difference strictly analogous to that between Roman arithmetics and the place-value system from India, transmitted by the Arabs to the West. Like zero, money is a redundant operator; adding nothing in order to make things hum. When Marx associates capital with death he is only drawing the final consequence from this correspondence. Surplus value comes out of labour-power, but surplus production comes out of nothing. This is why capital production is the consummating phase of nihilism, the liquidation of theological irreligion, the twilight of the idols. Modernity is virtual thanocracy guided insidiously by zero; the epoch of the death of God. There is no God but (only) zero—indifferentiation without unity—and *nihil* is true religion. "

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the Bible
    it is impossible to write untrue things in a book
    >logical arguments for God's existence
    all junk.
    >moral objectivity
    does not exist
    >historical evidence of Jesus
    zero
    >miracles
    zero
    >the witness of the Church throughout history
    irrelevant
    >rich philosophical tradition
    that's actually a negative. a religion claiming gawd wants everyone to be saved would be simple and straightforward enough to understand at a first glance, or indeed to be self-evident for anyone without extra chromosomes
    >charitable works
    how is this a positive case?
    >beauty of religion
    irrelevant

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    of religion

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! YOU'RE A moron!
    basically this

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon I don’t think you know what proof is.
    Proof of your god would either be a captured image of your god, or an easier method, just prove prayer can do things like move objects etc.
    “Rich philosophical tradition” isn’t proof that your god isn’t fiction, plus it’s subjective

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Proof of an invisible God is a photograph of a visible God

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    None of that is proof that a trinity god(s) exist based off of Yahweh and a Roman judean as his son. That they are real, existing right now deities(deity) that rule the universe.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING!
    But you do since God is proven by the impossibility of the country.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Contrary*

  15. 1 month ago
    Schizoidberg

    Correct. You probably don't believe in unicorns for the very same reason.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a positive case for Atheism
    Another day, another Christian who doesn't even know what atheism is.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the Bible
    Full of bullshit: talking snakes, 6000 year old earth, talking donkeys, language diverging a few thousand syears ago, global deluge a few thousands years ago, moses and his magic, noah 10000000000000 tons woodne ship in 2500 BC, Solomon being the wealthiest king who ever lived, everyone descending from trhree dued in 2500 BC (Shem, Ham and Japeth), millions of itnernal cotnradictions, all moronic bs nobody could believe in 21th centuey without a full lobotomy
    >logical arguments for God's existence
    Debuked
    >moral obectivety
    Relative to God, nto onjective
    historical evidence of Jesus
    Does not prove divinity even if granted, but Richard Carrier debunked even his emr existence
    >miracles
    made up nonsense
    the witness of the church
    Deluded low iq morons sniffing their own farts and believing in the deluge
    rich philosophical tradition
    apologists coping and copying Aristotles like mentally studned parrots
    >charitable works
    In bad faith, and they prove nothing regardless
    >beauty of religion
    subjective and irrelevant, for many it's ugly

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *