>atheism isn't the claim that god doesn't exist!

>atheism isn't the claim that god doesn't exist! It's just simply the lack of belief in god!

This is a huge cope for midwits who are unable to defend a position they clearly hold but still want to act like they are intellectual debate masters

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God unfalsifiable, though
    How could anyone possibly know that God doesn't exist?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They can't because He does

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How do you know?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          He revealed Himself

          No, all beliefs are not the same.
          It's still true that Christians are being inconsistent.

          How are they being inconsistent?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He revealed Himself
            How do you now that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is both self-evident, and expounded on by the word of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is both self-evident
            How did you come to that conclusion?
            >and expounded on by the word of God
            How do you know your holy book is the word of god?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How did you come to that conclusion?
            he's a troll by all likelihood, but if not, then he is infallible, like every single theist, when it comes to evaluating the implications of personal experience. not even satan himself could mislead such a one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >revealed himself
            This is just to restate your position, that you know God exist.
            I would like you to be more specific, as to how you know

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is just to restate your position, that you know God exist.
            No it isn't.
            >I would like you to be more specific, as to how you know
            The same way you do.

            >It is both self-evident
            How did you come to that conclusion?
            >and expounded on by the word of God
            How do you know your holy book is the word of god?

            >How did you come to that conclusion?
            It is self-evident. I will expound further: imagine if I saw a tree, and declared "I see a tree". You ask me "how do you know you saw a tree?" That I saw the tree is evinced merely by the fact I saw the tree. I do not require external proof to know I saw the tree, that knowledge is contained in the fact of having seen it. Likewise, the fact of God revealing Himself contains the truth that He revealed Himself.
            >How do you know your holy book is the word of god?
            An excellent question. The Lord said "my sheep hear my voice and the voice of another they will not follow". It is manifest that God spoke not to the void, but with the intention of being heard. Hence, His word shall contain the means of its own efficacy. The Holy Spirit as He raises His children to spiritual life, at the same time enables them to recognize the marks of inspiration imprinted upon the text of scripture so that they will know the word of their Lord to be guided by it. Moses did not need to question how he knew "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" was the voice of God. This is why the tradition has existed from the beginning, with the Christians in every corner of the world recognizing that these books are the words of God, because they had the Spirit, and the books were self-authenticating.

            [...]
            Here's an example of you being inconsistent

            It's self evident that Allah exist, and he expounded(?) himself to us, by the words of Prophet Muhmmad
            Yet you don't believe this.

            No it isn't. Would you like to try again?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what you're really saying is that you have a feeling.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The same way you do
            I don't know that God exist

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yyyyeah not buyin it
            christ cucks are shitty salespeople

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is both self-evident, and expounded on by the word of God.

            Here's an example of you being inconsistent

            It's self evident that Allah exist, and he expounded(?) himself to us, by the words of Prophet Muhmmad
            Yet you don't believe this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's self evident
            It isnt

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It isnt
            Right. Lol. It's like all abrahamists have the minds of children

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How are they being inconsistent?
            Christians thinks it true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago, yet don't believe me when I tell them the story of how my neighbor walked on the water in his swimming pool last week

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why should they believe you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            For this hypothetical, for the same reasons they believe the Bible
            Imagine I told a story about having 500 eyewitnesses, or a bunch of other people believe me. Reasons like that

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >For this hypothetical, for the same reasons they believe the Bible
            You can't have the same reasons they believe the bible, which you clearly do not understand.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't have the same reasons
            I can. It's a hypothetical , lol

            You reject engaging with it, because you know you are inconsistent.
            Given the same reasons, you would believe that a man walked on water 2000 years ago, but not my neighbor

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I can.
            You don't. Obviously, if you did, they would believe you.
            >It's a hypothetical , lol
            Spiderman is real. In this hypothetical, there are the same reasons for believing it as there are for believing in atoms. Just imagine I told you 500 guys in labcoats said so
            >You reject engaging with it, because you know you are inconsistent.
            Wrong again

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Obviously, if you did, they would believe you.
            ???
            It's a hypothetical
            Suppose other people believe me. If popularity is one of the reasons you believe the Bible about Jesus walking on water.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not one of the reasons to believe the bible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then other people believing me, is not relevant for you to believe me.

            What are some reasons you believe the Bible, when it says a man walked on water?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe the bible because it's the word of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's circular reasoning anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what circular reasoning is? Something I noticed is that atheists don't actually know what that means, it's just a buzzword

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's only circular reasoning, if your answer to why you believe the Bible is the word of God, is because the Bible says it is the word of God, any you believe it when it's says it's the word of God because it's the word of God because it says it's the word of God

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if your answer to why you believe the Bible is the word of God
            That wasn't the question, the question was why I believe something the bible says is true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I got no clue. Go ahead and tell me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tell you what?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What circular reasoning is

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Black person

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            When a premise and the conclusion are identical. That's what circular reasoning is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, like, why you believe the Bible, when it says it's the word of God?
            Does it have something to do with the Bible saying it's the word of God?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I explained here

            >This is just to restate your position, that you know God exist.
            No it isn't.
            >I would like you to be more specific, as to how you know
            The same way you do.
            [...]
            >How did you come to that conclusion?
            It is self-evident. I will expound further: imagine if I saw a tree, and declared "I see a tree". You ask me "how do you know you saw a tree?" That I saw the tree is evinced merely by the fact I saw the tree. I do not require external proof to know I saw the tree, that knowledge is contained in the fact of having seen it. Likewise, the fact of God revealing Himself contains the truth that He revealed Himself.
            >How do you know your holy book is the word of god?
            An excellent question. The Lord said "my sheep hear my voice and the voice of another they will not follow". It is manifest that God spoke not to the void, but with the intention of being heard. Hence, His word shall contain the means of its own efficacy. The Holy Spirit as He raises His children to spiritual life, at the same time enables them to recognize the marks of inspiration imprinted upon the text of scripture so that they will know the word of their Lord to be guided by it. Moses did not need to question how he knew "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" was the voice of God. This is why the tradition has existed from the beginning, with the Christians in every corner of the world recognizing that these books are the words of God, because they had the Spirit, and the books were self-authenticating.
            [...]
            No it isn't. Would you like to try again?

            circular reasoning is when you justify a position with that position.
            Here's wiki:
            >Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

            What you said is essentially I believe the Bible because the Bible is correct. To justify your position you have to explain why the Bible is correct and is the word of God. Simply stating that it is correct isn't an argument.

            >Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy
            Nope, it's wrong. It is a formal fallacy because it is expressible in symbolic logic, eg "A is true therefore A is true". It is also wrong in saying the premises also require proof, the problem is the premise and the conclusion are exactly the same, so there's no difference between it and saying nothing.
            >What you said is essentially I believe the Bible because the Bible is correct
            Question: is a proposition being true the same thing as a book being the word of God? Yes or no please.
            >explain why the Bible is correct
            Because the bible is the verbal expression of an infallible God, the truth value of any given scripture is reducible to the tautology "infallible statements are true". Thus the bible is not merely probably, but certainly true, simply because it says so.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what polysemy is?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            when you marry many women at once, or something?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is a formal fallacy
            When used in this context, don't people usually say "begging the question" ?
            You weren't making a formal argument, I don't think anyone is accusing you of a formal fallacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do not need to state an argument in formal terms for it to include a formal fallacy. Begging the question is a distinct fallacy (and it is informal) in which the truth of the premise is contingent on the truth of the conclusion. I didn't do this one either

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You kinda do, though

            >This is just to restate your position, that you know God exist.
            No it isn't.
            >I would like you to be more specific, as to how you know
            The same way you do.
            [...]
            >How did you come to that conclusion?
            It is self-evident. I will expound further: imagine if I saw a tree, and declared "I see a tree". You ask me "how do you know you saw a tree?" That I saw the tree is evinced merely by the fact I saw the tree. I do not require external proof to know I saw the tree, that knowledge is contained in the fact of having seen it. Likewise, the fact of God revealing Himself contains the truth that He revealed Himself.
            >How do you know your holy book is the word of god?
            An excellent question. The Lord said "my sheep hear my voice and the voice of another they will not follow". It is manifest that God spoke not to the void, but with the intention of being heard. Hence, His word shall contain the means of its own efficacy. The Holy Spirit as He raises His children to spiritual life, at the same time enables them to recognize the marks of inspiration imprinted upon the text of scripture so that they will know the word of their Lord to be guided by it. Moses did not need to question how he knew "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" was the voice of God. This is why the tradition has existed from the beginning, with the Christians in every corner of the world recognizing that these books are the words of God, because they had the Spirit, and the books were self-authenticating.
            [...]
            No it isn't. Would you like to try again?

            >The Lord said
            You are using "Lord said" as a reason as to how you know the lord said
            That's totally including the conclusion, in the premise. If you were to lay it out, formal-like

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are using "Lord said" as a reason as to how you know the lord said
            Nope, I'm using the bible to construct a theological point. What you're complaining about right now is internal consistency, not circularity.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >construct a theological point
            We were asking "how you know?", though

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And I answered.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No he didn't, he's backtracking and say it was "a theological point", not an answer

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you tell me what my answer was? I think you're in such a hurry to act in bad faith you don't even know what you're arguing against

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When an atheist complains about arguing in "bad faith"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He didn't answer.
            He backtracked and said some stuff about internal consistence and theological point.
            Apparently "lord said" is not the reason he believe lord said.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Apparently "lord said" is not the reason he believe lord said.
            Thank you for proving my point. If you guys weren't so intellectually dishonest, you may have noticed the bible verses I quoted don't even say the bible is the word of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you even telling us Bible verses?
            Were at the point in the conversation of "how u know the Bible is tru?"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you even telling us Bible verses?
            A better question would be "if I'm saying I know the bible is the word of God because it says it's the word of God, why don't the bible verses I quoted say the bible is the word of God?" Could it be because it's a strawman?
            >Were at the point in the conversation of "how u know the Bible is tru?"
            What was my answer to that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look, you don't need tell me how you justify your interpretation of the Bible. I think it's all made-up.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What was my answer to that?
            I genuinely don't know. I mixed it up with your theological points.
            Can you please tell me again, short and concise

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Lord said "my sheep hear my voice and the voice of another they will not follow". It is manifest that God spoke not to the void, but with the intention of being heard. Hence, His word shall contain the means of its own efficacy. The Holy Spirit as He raises His children to spiritual life, at the same time enables them to recognize the marks of inspiration imprinted upon the text of scripture so that they will know the word of their Lord to be guided by it. Moses did not need to question how he knew "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" was the voice of God. This is why the tradition has existed from the beginning, with the Christians in every corner of the world recognizing that these books are the words of God, because they had the Spirit, and the books were self-authenticating.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bible is tru, because... THE LORD SAID

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where did he say that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            First sentence, first 3 words

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Bible true because, self-authenticating.

            I don't even know what that would mean. Self-authenticating...
            >Self-authenticating
            >serving to prove oneself to be real, true, or genuine : not requiring extrinsic proof of one's authenticity
            As a reason to why Bible is true. This one sounds really circular.
            Bible true because it's true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon how do you know you're looking at a IQfy post?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know? A brain in a vat can certainly experience anything including whatever would feel like divine inspiration. Reformed epistemology is nonsense. The only way out of the cave.is faith.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Faith is bestowed by God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if that were the case, you're a fence-climber who tried to cheapen it into mental certainty. Faith is more beautiful than you can imagine and until you take the leap of faith, to will not be prepared for the coming deceptions.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hello Kierkegaard. Left heaven for a moment to visit us?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophically, there is no way to absolutely prove anything.
            To interact with the world, we make the basic assumption that reality is real and that our perceptions generally are correct, though we can recognize that our senses and our reasoning can sometimes fail, like with optical illusions, drug-induced hallucinations, or schizophrenia.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do these assumptions have any justification? Is there any intellectual distinction between you and the schizophrenic?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are some very real issues schizophrenics have due to their perception not aligning with reality, such as harming themselves or others because of what a voice they heard said.
            I do not have that problem.

            But again, my point is that this is a basic assumption that everyone makes to an extent. You can't prove anything to 100% certainty.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            A 4can post appearing as if in front of me, is expected if there's actually a post in front of me
            A 4can post appearing as if in front of me, is unexpected if there's actually no post in front of me

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What exactly is wrong about circular logic?

            This is so silly.
            I wanted to understand how self-authentication worked in regards to the Bible.
            Not for dumbasses to go "how you even know anything???"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            anon this poster is probably a Presuppositionalist. They can't logically explain why this is correct because they presuppose it because if they don't they'll have an existential crisis.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What exactly is wrong about circular logic?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it has no explanatory power. It's a fallacy called begging the question. Might as well start with axioms (or brute facts) to establish ontological truth. Presup doesn't meet the outsider test for faith and converts noone.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's true, presup converts nobody, Reformed epistemology converts nobody. The Holy Spirit does.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well beg for him to convert you because you have a worthless faith in facts that doesn't change you at all, like James White. Faith isn't just saying yes I agree with the fundamental pillars of this religion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Faith isn't just saying yes I agree with the fundamental pillars of this religion.
            Amen. Faith is trust in God. I have faith, I also have a blessed assurance. The bible says the Holy Spirit is the down payment of our assurance.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Down payment of our salvation*

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No I meant in the sense that God doesn't even use it as a means of softening hearts. It's just completely worthless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is explanatory power required?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            anon I think it's self-evident that to make an argument you have to at the very least explain something.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do I need to make an argument?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you don't have to, but if you aren't interested in making an argument I'm not sure why we're having a conversation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why should I be interested in making an argument?
            >You just have to, OKAY?!?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where did I say you had to lol. You're free to continuing shitting in this thread. You're free to just type pee pee poo poo over and over again. I won't stop you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't. You could shut up instead.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So in recap:
            >You can't use circular logic
            >Because it lacks explaining power
            >Because you have to make an argument
            >Because you can't use circular logic

            Do you see how you are using circular logic here?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, if you want to prove something, by definition you have to make an argument.
            If you're not, that's a different matter. You're free to continue expressing your opinion without proving it, but don't be surprised when other people just dismiss you out of hand or don't take you seriously.

            All you accomplish is looking like a smug belligerent moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if you want to prove something
            Why should I want to "prove" something? Is that good? What makes that good?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            homie I legit do not care

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no reason for you to want to want to prove things, independent of your subjective desire to persuade them, engage in conversation, be taken seriously, etc

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is any of that "good"? If you're going to make the case that circular logic is bad or wrong, you should at least be able to explain why.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good is word humans made-up for stuff they like
            It entirely depends on what you want to do

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I could probably appeal to shared goals and values we have in common.
            If you don't care about any of that, it's not like *shouldn't* make circular arguments

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's good to me because I actually want to have discussions about meaningful topics with people I disagree with. I'm not interested in engaging with this trollish
            >well why do I need to prove anything?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If your assertion is that circular reasoning is bad because you can't prove it, yet you can't prove why it's bad, then you are engaging in the exact thing you hate. In the same way, if you attack someone else's worldview by saying it is based on circular reasoning, yet your own worldview is also based on circular reasoning, then there is no advantage in your worldview. It's like saying,
            >"Your house sucks because it is built on Earth, and sometimes there are natural disasters that destroy houses on Earth."
            Ok, so what is your house built on?
            "Oh, my house? It's built on Earth. That's way better."

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tautologies are not circular. Hence justifying your reasoning on the laws of logic (good reasoning) is just a brute fact. You can assert God as a brute fact if you want.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Hence justifying your reasoning on the laws of logic (good reasoning) is just a brute fact.
            There are no brute facts. Everyone relies on circular logic to some extent in everyday conversation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Whatver. I know you're moronic, cuz I know you're moronic

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your only defense for your position is calling other Anons moronic. Think about that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, that is only a problem for.you because you have to ground your logic in a book outside yourself, instead of starting with yourself. The irony of presup is that it presupposes the entire system of analytic philosophy, created by atheists, as its basis.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you have to ground your logic in a book outside yourself, instead of starting with yourself
            So your logic is not grounded? Why do you think using yourself as the standard of what is logical is a superior system that everyone should follow? Using your own logic, I should use myself as the metric for what is logical, and if I read the Bible I can decide for myself whether it is logical or not. I wouldn't want to do that, by the way, because that is entirely circular, which according to the atheists in this thread makes it wrong.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Logic is the grounds in itself. Even God must act logically, although Descartes didn't think so.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Logic is grounded in truth. God both truth and the justification for truth in the real world. You can be an atheist and believe in metaphysical truth, but there is no physical evidence to such a belief.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I not an atheist, I just find presup embarrassing. Christians need to be more mystical. All this systematic theology stuff is embarassing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because that is entirely circular, which according to the atheists in this thread makes it wrong.
            Atheists are morons. I use circular arguments to believe whatever the frick I want.
            What they gonna do? Cry?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No ones crying, they’re going to mock and laugh at you as your religion continues to fall into obscurity in your society and thanks to people like you people are increasingly seeing Christianity as a problem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t know about you guys, but I discovered logic by realizing how things work and applying that knowledge.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. You won. I kneel.
            You got my permission to believe the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says it is the word of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a presuppositionalist. I believe in the Bible because I believe in the Church that Jesus founded and the Holy Spirit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think lying is okay?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How much of your income do you give to the poor and sick outside of taxes. You’re not saving money are you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not a presuppositionalist
            Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness AND borrowing from my worldview...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hey man if the laws of physics change tomorrow then logic will fail. I don’t know how you possibly escape that problem when your god supposedly can and does interfere with reality on a whim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science helps with that because science is self defeating.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Circular reasoning is not "bad" in the abstract, it is bad in the context of having a good faith discussion, which you obviously don't want to do.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it wrong on your worldview? Are "begging the question" and "special pleading" validated as fallacies?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I can see an embarassing hamfisted attempt at logic and somebody punching way above his weight class in Bruggencatian fashion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not only are you not aware of your use of circular logic, but you can't even see it when it's pointed out to you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like I said, embarassing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The thing is with theological points is that they can only convince people who already believe what you believe. It's like if you tried to convince a Muslim that Jesus is God by citing the Gospels. A muslim does not believe that the Gospels are the infallible word of God, so they can in turn just cite the Quran back at you saying that Jesus was not God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            anon the point is you have not proved that the Bible is infallible, you have just stated you believe it is infallible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's infallible because God is infallible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Quran is infallible because Allah is infallible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I imagine a muslim would believe that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's using pretty much the same method as you, right?
            Do you think he may have made some sort of mistake in his reasoning, to get another conclusion? Or is the method unreliable?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's the same conclusion as me (that what God says is true). What's false is the premise that the quran is the word of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well anon the Quran is infallible because it is the word of God. Case closed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What does the quran say about the bible?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what circular reasoning is?
            It's the thing Christians do, right?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            circular reasoning is when you justify a position with that position.
            Here's wiki:
            >Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

            What you said is essentially I believe the Bible because the Bible is correct. To justify your position you have to explain why the Bible is correct and is the word of God. Simply stating that it is correct isn't an argument.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am an atheist because I believe god does not exist.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That statement is completely true and a valid position. It's Christians who seem to expect people to make a giant exception with regards to believing things that they themselves wouldn't apply elsewhere.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are all beliefs exactly the same?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, all beliefs are not the same.
        It's still true that Christians are being inconsistent.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rocks are atheists

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you will perhaps be surprised that as an atheist I completely agree with you on this.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What religion is famous for is holding to its own self-evidence as a constant, such as "God/Allah is perfect and the Bible/Quran is true," to form a self-consistent logic loop, such as "because the Quran is true/Allah said this... women should dress like ancient Arabs and eat no pork" as if that has nothing to do with geographic conditions or their backward pork-processing technology that made people sick when they ate pork so they decided "God" had decided that people shouldn't eat it.

    I say there's a city called New York City and there's a rich guy who lives there named Michael Bloomberg. You say there's a city called Gotham and there's a rich guy who lives there named Bruce Wayne. There's no way that Bloomberg is more real than Bruce Wayne because of the insertion of this logic virus. Then the believers can claim that science can't defeat religion because Jesus didn't agree (ultra-conservative) nor disagree (moderate/reformed believers) with quantum physics.

    That is not as convincing nowadays, so now there are people who give up religion but believe we possibly live in a giant matrix or inside a black hole, which is much higher than those old-school medieval or even earlier stories, because the former has some kind of phenomenon and data to examine. If religion is really as much of a fan of alternative reality as the believers claim, assuming they can accept and face science, the matrix religion where Keanu Reeves is the prophet should be the most popular religion. Maybe it will be in the future.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Science can't defeat religion because friends don't fight.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP I will admit that I lean towards the positive belief God does not exist, but I acknowledge this is only my opinion and I cannot prove it. It's impossible to prove actually.
    However, my intellectual position is that there is no way to know if there is or isn't a God.
    Holding both these ideas isn't a contradiction.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Hi Mom!
    Another demonstration that Atheism is just a desperate cope for manchildren to "get back" at their Christian parents.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also notice how it's done in a pussy passive aggressive way. I can't think of one outspoken atheist who is actually a respectable man. It's beta behavior.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      My daddy is bigger and stronger than yours, he lives in the sky and created our world

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I didn't make a positive claim just that trying to tear down other people's beliefs is childish.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You know what else is childish?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's SKYDADDY
            People thinking skydaddy real, are mental children

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            See? You're an ill behaved child

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/N5mcJBq.png

            See? You're an ill behaved child

            You both are acting like children.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/N5mcJBq.png

            See? You're an ill behaved child

            I know I am. But what are you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Or maybe he wanted to say hi to his mom if she saw him on tv?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    "God" doesn't exist because before israelites were around, nobody thought about it or believed in it

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What a sad sad thread. Absolutely zero good faith arguments.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, half this thread is "God real because I want him to be". It has nothing to do with hats.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why do they wear the hats?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I can't see any posts that say that

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Start right here

            He revealed Himself
            [...]
            How are they being inconsistent?

            and follow the thread

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, still none

            The thing is with theological points is that they can only convince people who already believe what you believe. It's like if you tried to convince a Muslim that Jesus is God by citing the Gospels. A muslim does not believe that the Gospels are the infallible word of God, so they can in turn just cite the Quran back at you saying that Jesus was not God.

            >The thing is with theological points is that they can only convince people who already believe what you believe
            The people who are convinced is irrelevant, the truth value of propositions is not contingent on people accepting them.
            >It's like if you tried to convince a Muslim that Jesus is God by citing the Gospels.
            I don't think you know anything about how Christians argue against Islam

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Whatever. You got a circular "argument".
            You've put the conclusion in the premise.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What was the premise? What is the conclusion?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do not need to state an argument in formal terms for it to include a formal fallacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The people who are convinced is irrelevant, the truth value of propositions is not contingent on people accepting them.
            Neither is the truth contingent on what you believe to be true.

            >I don't think you know anything about how Christians argue against Islam
            Anon, that was an analogy for what you are doing ITT, not to say how you do or do not try to convince Muslims.
            And if the idea that you might have argued with Muslims in this manner offended you or your intelligence, why would you then use this same type of reasoning to try to convince us?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why would you then use this same type of reasoning to try to convince us?
            I didn't. You're attacking a strawman because you weren't intellectually honest enough to pay attention to what my argument actually was.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said

            I believe the bible because it's the word of God.

            >I believe the bible because it's the word of God.
            And that

            It's infallible because God is infallible.

            >It's infallible because God is infallible.
            I have not misrepresented you by saying that your conclusion is in your premise, that you're using circular logic. You very clearly stated it in these posts.

            And further, when I used the analogy that

            The Quran is infallible because Allah is infallible.

            >The Quran is infallible because Allah is infallible.
            You agreed with the structure of this logic in essence as the same as your's, but that

            It's the same conclusion as me (that what God says is true). What's false is the premise that the quran is the word of God.

            >It's the same conclusion as me (that what God says is true). What's false is the premise that the quran is the word of God.
            So I fail to see how I am strawmanning or mispresenting you.

            If you genuinely feel that I am, quote where I strawmanned you and show the difference between what I said and what you actually believe.

            If you do, I'll read your reply, but I'm done with this conversation because it's unproductive. I highly suggest you try to see things from other people's perspectives.
            Have a good day.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>I believe the bible because it's the word of God.
            This was in response to why I believe the propositions contained in the bible are true.
            >>It's infallible because God is infallible.
            This is also not circular because God is not the bible.
            >So I fail to see how I am strawmanning or mispresenting you.
            Because I never said the bible is the word of God because it's the word of God or anything equivalent to it.
            >I highly suggest you try to see things from other people's perspectives.
            I highly suggest you look in a mirror

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sick of Westoids and the back and forth.

    Why can't they just be indifferent like all the pagans who didn't worship the God of the Hebrews?

    >but muh hecking rightarinos

    Stop being a soft homosexual and do something about it aside from screaming in believers' faces. They're not gonna leave the religion because you're pissy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no going back. The creation of Secondary Religions opened a Pandora's box.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do I have a "secondary" religion?

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't priests and preachers have entire sermons dedicated to doubt and questioning one's faith?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its a realy simple thing, most adult people in developed countries do not believe there is a god, thats that, theres nothing more to it, its not a 'position' of any kind, people still decorate christmas trees and paint eggs for easter and no one gives two fricks
    The atheists youre reffering to are fedora tipping spergs and they basicaly only exist online
    Iv never heard anyone discuss this or declare anything about any of this in any way IRL, not even once

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >people still decorate christmas trees and paint eggs for easter
      People pray, go to Church and worship God.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, you have to be either crazy or stupid to assert Cartesian certainty.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you certain?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No. Nice sorty trick there. You can assert it with regards to the Cogito. You have to have faith to believe whatever else, including the existence of God. You don't think a brain in a vat could experience the ineffable or know of a book claiming itself to be the ultimate truth?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry*

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >No
          So you don't have to be crazy or stupid?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes you do, to say you have Cartesian certainty that God exists or not. Or much more to say that the Bible is error free. Those things have to be taken on faith (no my little Calvie, faith isn't a divine download)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know God doesn't exist. Yes, I could be wrong about that.
      What's the problem?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you could be wrong then you are by definition not asserting Cartesian certainty. Pretty much the only things we have that for are he existence of the self and the existence of other minds, thanks to Wittgenstein's private language argument.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >not asserting Cartesian certainty.
          Right. I'm just making a knowledge claim. That I know there is no God.
          Not merely stating that I lack a belief in God.
          What's the problem with that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's prideful.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Would you extend the same accusations of pride to stuff like:
            I know there's no vampires
            I know there's no lord Vishnu
            I know there's no poltergeists

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, but I still think it's prideful. It's the ultimate in pride to reject the very salient concept of God out of hand.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's prideful to reject the very salient concept of Brahma.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is a special case albeit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >out of hand.
            I got plenty of reasons, I've spent a lot of time talking to theists about God

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I know there's no poltergeists
            Ghosts are biblical

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >judeochirstcucks so perma-butthurt at atheism they'll spam the board 24/7
    rent free, with a mansion and a yatch, thanks, christcuck

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the threads I see are by atheists whining about Christianity, not even about religion in general. Godjak Anon posted almost every day for 2 months straight.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christians PAY their rent

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Every single known shitposter on IQfy is Christian. Dirk, Gervaisposter, JWanon, the one creationist who always rants about government education, this new "white people are the children of God" homosexual. A new moron seemingly every week...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There is also the "Hebrew is Phoenician" dude who seems to be an atheist, but he's kind of a niche poster who other people probably don't notice.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT Christian tries to own atheists but just flips the proverbial chessboard over when issues in his own reasoning are shown.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How so anon?

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do unintelligent people who cannot obfuscate or use philosophical jargon try to use presup? At least in the hands of a Darth Dawkins it appears viable but when someone like Sye Ten Bruggencate uses it, it appears like a child going "why" over and over again.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who in this thread is advocating for presup?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Figure it out, moron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Then you don't understand what is a presuppositional argument. Asking for a justification for an argument like "circular reasoning is bad" is not presup.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh! I got no justification that doesn't bottom out in presuppositions
            Guess, we all have our presuppositions ¯_ (ツ)_/¯
            And if it's that a guy with holes in his hands is the the grounds for intelligibility that's OK

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not against circular reasoning, so long as you understand that it is circular.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think the appeal of it is that you can be confident in not thinking.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The reason why I'd say "I don't believe in God" is because I can more easily follow up with "because I see no reason to believe in God."

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When does Paul or anybody else call on people to ground their intelligibility? Yeah, G.E.Moore is totally biblical.

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