atheists just cannot be coherent/consistent

>atheists: I don't know if a justification is necessary.
>Theists: Well it is.
>atheists: Prove it.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    what justification does there need to be to believe or not believe in a god?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well there are the transcendentals but let's start with the simple one.
      What's your justification for the uniformity of nature?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What's your justification for the uniformity of nature?
        Prior experience. I expect nature to be uniform because it has been in the past. But I cannot dogmatically affirm that nature is and always shall be uniform. I can only probabilistically state that it has been.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Prior experience.
          That's a non sequitur, the past cannot justify the future, meaning it's not a justification.
          The question remains.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That's a non sequitur, the past cannot justify the future, meaning it's not a justification
            Why not? That's how we see patterns, past experiences inform future ones.

            If I punch you in the face every time I see you with your dick and balls out, you're going to take that into consideration every time you take your dick and balls out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You still insist upon taking it for granted when it's questioned.
            What you're actually doing is, you're rejecting the question.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes when I perform a chemical reaction I expect the same reaction to occur in the same conditions later on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What makes you think we can have perfect justified knowledge about the uniformity of nature? Perhaps we simply cannot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We don't. What we have is extremely plausible knowledge that if you drop a rock in new york, moscow, beijing, or on the Moon, that the rock will accelerate at the same rate relative to the gravitational pull.

            We have extremely good observational knowledge the universe tends to follow certain laws.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        explain "uniformity of nature"
        are you that same ESL who keeps saying that? nature isn't really "uniform"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well the discussion is only possible because of the uniformity of nature so that line of objection is redundant.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            wtf is "uniformity of nature"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He keeps making the same thread over and over. I wonder if an atheist fricked his gf or something.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nature naturally congregates itself in (imagined, given that they exist only in our head) patterns, these patterns are the most efficient and viable, which leads to their repetition. Which leads to unformity.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nature is not actually uniform, the uniformity of nature is just a convenient mental tool of the human brain. Which is contantly attempting to categorize and organize the environment and its relationship with the person/body. The patterns you see repeat themselves in nature are a mental construct that arises from connecting similarities between isolated incidents, in service of this outlook, you might also make generalizations and ignore the differences to focus on the similarities.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kek. Uniformity of nature is just an empiricist’s cope. True reality is that even if god exists, he is powerless compared to the true nature of the universe, which is random chance. It is odds that determine his actions, and whether he exists is also random. The only reason why we’re in the place where we are is because it’s literally so low a probability of events happening to break the illusion of an organized nature that you will almost guaranteed never see anything anomalous that breaks your preconceived notions of logic and order. There’s a known magnitude of probability of things happening within our small corner of reality. I’ll go find it, hold on.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Might do the math myself by saying it will happen once in the entire lifespan of the human race, and calculating off that as the barrier for reasonable chance. I think that is fair enough.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >atheist: evidence?
    >theist: HURF DURF MUH PHULOSUFICAL WORD GAMES IM TOTALLY NOT A CLOSET GAY HURF DURF

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Where is the evidence of the cause of the existence of evidence?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >HURF DURF MORE WORD GAMES

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's literally what you said Black person.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >that cause of evidence? the god of the hebrew bible

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it always amazes me how religious larpers find some way to make their arguments even more moronic than before, followed by them wondering why any place with more than a few braincells keeps abandoning their religion

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Contrary to popular belief, atheists have never won in the high-level discourse, it always ends in a cop out with a description of their psychological state "I'm not convinced", which nobody is interested in.
      But yeah, on the normative level of discourse, of course the midwits are going to reign supreme, it's globohomosexual pop culture.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he says while posting on a website for morons that want to pretend they are high iq
        >he says while every study shows the more intelligent you are, the less likely it is for you to be religious

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Yes, I'm a midwit.
          It's better to be dumb and right than never being smart enough to be right though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no you are the midwit
            what a great argument, which is certainly not cope, or the previous mentioned example of moron pretending he is smarter than he really is

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If modern atheists all had an IQ of 200 and theists all had an IQ of 50 it still wouldn't be a fair comparison since atheists captured institutions in the 20th century with the assistance of the state. There used be an actual Christian elite for nearly the entirety of Western history that simply doesn't exist now. And was it worth it, you think? Did dismantling Christianity like that in the 20th century really pay off for the West? I guess if you love immigrants and sodomy the answer is an unqualified "yes" but the declining standard of living here is starting to become untenable. Christians built this civilization, atheists are wrecking it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >complaining about immigrants
            >while every major church in some way approves of it
            its funny how many of you morons are "religious" because you think it will give you bonus points for your meme politics, followed by jumping through even more mental hoops to justify the inevitable contradictions it brings

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If institutions that formerly did not support a policy suddenly start promoting it alongside the rise of atheism, it seems safe to assume they have been heavily influenced by atheism. I'd like to say more but there's really nothing relevant worth responding to in your post.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            one problem with that is athiesm wasn't relevant to the US until decades after immigration laws were changed, in fact the most christian party in the US ironically helped in getting in the various hispanics your currently seethe about, and again your own major churchs outright state to support migrants, which shows you don't really care about the religion but just associate it with whatever "trad" belief you currently hold

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That means God favours atheists

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism has been extremely important in the United States since the beginning, before the Great Awakening much of the country was religious in name only and the deism of its founders was just atheism-lite. You and I are both aware that religion strongly correlates with nationalist sentiment, your argument that such people aren't really practicing Christianity right just because you say so isn't convincing me. If I say you're not doing atheism right because you haven't moved to China to support the CPC, how could you argue against me? After all that's the biggest atheist institution, so using your logic you should support it by default.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >isn't convincing me
            it isn't because you ignore any examples that contradict you, like how you gays happily overlook Reagan being the one who helped kick start the wave of migrants from Mexico and central America, or how nearly any relevant church still states their support for said migrants (mostly because they come from the areas that are still actually religious and thus need to appeal to them)

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have yet to prove a justification is necesssary

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are you seriously not hearing yourself right now?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why so upset? Can't you explain your reasoning?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/5STVH2a.jpg

          >atheists: I don't know if a justification is necessary.
          >Theists: Well it is.
          >atheists: Prove it.

          So, you haven't explaimed yet what needs justification and why

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >still hasn't explained what needs justification and why

      Black person, you do realize that you're proving my point that a justification is necessary when you ask for the justification of that, right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I still don't know what you want justified and why it needs to be justified; stop making scenarios in your head

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well there are the transcendentals but let's start with the simple one.
          What's your justification for the uniformity of nature?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do I need to justify the uniformity of nature?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do I need to justify the uniformity of nature?
            >Why

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, why?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You have to justify that there has to be justifications.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No; you have to explain why a jutification is needed; it seems you don't know why either or you would have just said it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Black person, when you say
            >You have to justify
            You have already proven that
            >there has to be justifications
            When you say
            >you have to explain why
            you have already proven that
            >a justification is needed
            When you continue to ask
            >Why?
            you have already proven that you're moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Natural revelation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Resorts to oxymoronical statements.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Natural revelation isn't an oxymoron; it is obvious to any intellectually honest individual; I get you aren't one of th

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Something which gives you revelation of the uniformity of nature is not natural as it is by definition is a mind.
          >you are the midwit
          The issue here is that this remains true.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >uniformity of nature is not natural as it is by definition is a mind.
            That contradicts natural revelation; so it is easily rejected; the only logicsl alternative is therefore that natural revelation comes from nature

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What? How is a mind which gives you revelation of the uniformity of nature, natural?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Natural revelation prevents it from being a mind; it would be contraddictory therefore illogical

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Revelations are by definition from a mind anon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not under natural revelation; saying otherwise is illogical

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hahaha. Genuine chuckle.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >still hasn't explained what needs justification and why

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do christschizos think words have some sort of magical power? It's like they believe that if they just play around with definitions and wording enough for their statements to have a pretense of internal logic it's gonna somehow change the real world
    But no, it won't, there still won't be a israeli wizard in the sky controlling reality even after you do enough linguistic tricks with the imperfect english language

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They are logocentrists. We also call this sophistry.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >WAAAH!!! WHY CAN'T I JUST BE ALLOWED TO AD HOC AND ARBITRARY OR CONTRADICTORY?!!
      >WHY DO I HAVE TO BE COHERENT AND CONSISTENT?!!! WHY DO I HAVE TO FOLLOW LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS?!!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!!
      >CAN'T WE JUST PRETEND GOD IS NOT REAL?!! WHY DO I HAVE TO THINK?!!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you keep asking "why?" every single belief is going to either end in
        >A: An arbitrary end point of dogma.
        >B: Circular reasoning
        >C: Infinite regress of explanations.
        This includes God, which falls under category A. God exists and is the uncaused cause because he just is... ok?!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your God is just as much a cope as anything else is what I'm getting at.
          Of course, your belief in God is dogmatic and not logical. Given that the only sensible answer to that question is "I don't know" with a perhaps a "I'm inclined towards X position because Y and Z"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Infinite regress of explanations.
          The only viable option. All other require you to stop thinking.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >This includes God, which falls under category A
          The answer (God) revolves around solving the problem, you don't arbitrarily add non existent ones to it.
          And I already explained in the other thread.
          God is the answer which logically follow as the contrary is circular logic.
          "It just is" is not enough and never was.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not him, but tbh I can't even begin taking presupp seriously because the majority of its proponents are young Earth creationists whose view ends up internally inconsistent anyway due to empirical data.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And on what basis do you interpret the empirical data?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not about my interpretation, it's about theirs. That's what I mean by their view being internally inconsistent.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When God exists, how could you dismiss the supernatural?
            It just comes down to which makes more sense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's one of the funny bits. They start with the proposal that there's this problem with stuff like uniformity of nature, inductive reasoning and so on, and that you need to presuppose the big incel in the sky to solve that. But once that's all said and done, they end up saying that nature actually isn't uniform and you can't use inductive reasoning to study it. YEC defeats the whole point of presupp.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't get it, your argument against God presupposes God?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not making an argument against god, I'm saying that YEC presupp is contradictory and useless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see how it's contradictory.
            An internal critique is something which assumes the case, not presupposes it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I told you how it's contradictory here

            That's one of the funny bits. They start with the proposal that there's this problem with stuff like uniformity of nature, inductive reasoning and so on, and that you need to presuppose the big incel in the sky to solve that. But once that's all said and done, they end up saying that nature actually isn't uniform and you can't use inductive reasoning to study it. YEC defeats the whole point of presupp.

            . It sets up a supposed issue with belief in uniformity of nature, inductive reasoning and so on and wants to solve it via belief in Yahweh, but the end result is that on this view, nature isn't uniform and inductive study of nature fails.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The answer (God) revolves around solving the problem, you don't arbitrarily add non existent ones to it.
            So God is an arbitrary stopping point that rests on shared assumptions/Dogma? Just like how you can ask "why?" until I run out of answers, I too can "why?" God into oblivion.
            >And I already explained in the other thread.
            I was not there.
            >God is the answer which logically follow as the contrary is circular logic.
            So A? There's 3 options in Münchausen's trilemma, and God is neither B nor C.
            >"It just is" is not enough and never was.
            Where did God originate from? Why is he uncreated? How do you know that? Or he just is?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Regardless, your logic is flawed because you can just as well say the universe originated from an uncaused explosion of pre-existing matter and that the order of the universe came from matter arranging itself in the most efficient forms possible over and over. This includes life. Explanation that just cuts the middleman out and does away with God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            While still using the same rationale, I might add.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So God is an arbitrary stopping point that rests on shared assumptions/Dogma? Just like how you can ask "why?" until I run out of answers, I too can "why?" God into oblivion.
            Depends upon the kind of "why". Give me one example.
            >So A? There's 3 options in Münchausen's trilemma, and God is neither B nor C.
            A: It's not arbitrary, it due to the invalidity of the contrary which is circular logic.
            B: You haven't explained how it's circular in anyway for me to address this one.
            C: Like I said, you don't add non existent problems to an answer. If you're arguing that there is, then give me one.
            >Where did God originate from? Why is he uncreated?
            Loaded questions which presupposes that God has to come from or created to begin with, which we have no reason to believe.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you can't actually answer of god is uncreated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I can't answer loaded questions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't a loaded question; How did you come to the conclusion god is uncreated?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It wasn't a loaded question
            How did you come to the conclusion that God has to be created?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if god is uncreated or created; now can you answer instead of trying to change subject? Are you scared?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well I don't believe he has to be created, now could you answer God is created or has to be created? Cause that's what your question presupposes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *could you answer how God is created or has to be created?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >now could you answer God is created or has to be created?
            I don't know what I don't know; but you admitted to just belive god is uncreated, is there anything else beside your opinion?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't how God is created or has to be which your question presupposes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *That doesn't answer how God is created

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it is just your opinion huh? And I already told you I don't know if god is created or not, can't you read?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well I don't believe he has to be created
            Special pleading; jistify your belief

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why don't you believe something?
            Cause it precisely hasn't been justified?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *Precisely cause

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it is arbitrary

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wut?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is arbitrary; saying that the opposite isn't proven doesn't prove your assertion is right; so you arbitrarely decide you are right; which leads to speacial pleading again

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >prove your assertion is right
            What is that?
            >so you arbitrarely decide you are right
            That made no sense, you're too painstakingly cautious.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A: It's not arbitrary, it due to the invalidity of the contrary which is circular logic.
            A set of Dogmatic assertions based on shared assumptions that are continually reasserted rather than defended are just as invalid.
            Second, this assumes a sort of process of elimination where if 2/3 choices are invalid the other one must be valid. (Which misses the point of the trilemma)
            P.S. We are currently doing an infinite regress.
            >C: Like I said, you don't add non existent problems to an answer. If you're arguing that there is, then give me one.
            You will just repeatedly assert that the answer is the answer because it just is the answer. But I will indulge you:
            >Why is an uncreated god possible but an uncreated universe not?
            I don't know if God has to be created or not. But you certainly have a strong opinion on that matter.
            >Loaded questions which presupposes that God has to come from or created to begin with, which we have no reason to believe.
            You presuppose god can be uncreated, which no other thing can be. Why the exception?
            But Knowing you are a Presuppositionalist, this discussion is pointless because we will not find neutral ground on this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which btw, the Trilemma is because none of the 3 options are actually valid proof in any meaningful way.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to think this question would break him that hard

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        #

        >he's throwing a tantrum
        Lmao

        #
        >WHY CAN'T I MAKE SELF-REFUTING STATEMENTS?! THIS IS LIKE.. TOTALLY SOPISY!!!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cont.
          Like Black person, we are here because of YOUR sophistry to begin with.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's just typical abrahamic pilpul (christisraelites call it casuistry from memory). It forms the foundation and core of all israeli religions.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ALLOW ME TO THINK GOD IS NOT REAL?!! CAN'T I JUST BELEIVE WHATEVER I WANT TO BELEIVE?!!!

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >CAN'T WE JUST GO BACK TO THE FLYING SPHAGETTI MONSTER?!! OR THE EVIL OF RELIGION?!!
    >GOD IS LIKE.. TOTALLY MEAN AND STUFF!!! RIGHT?!!!

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >AND THERE ARE LIKE LOTS OF CELEBRITIES WHO AGREES WITH US! RIGHT?!!

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >he's throwing a tantrum
    Lmao

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah dude that's all very interesting but like... where's this YHWH of yours?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Where's the location of the cause of the existence of location?
      Go anon, go on.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pajeet thread
    hide&ignore

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If you doubt a single tenet of my religion you MUST be a radical skeptic
    This, ESL-kun is a non-sequitur.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    whatever it takes to get your mind off the uncomfortable fact that your religion is one of many, and a fanfiction on an earlier one we saw evolving over time.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist here. All of these things are mythologies:
    >Christianity
    >Islam
    >Judaism
    >Hinduism
    >Buddhism
    >Roman mythology
    >Greek mythology
    >Norse mythology
    Etc. And mythologies aren't literally true. They're just stories.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    .

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Black person.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOOOOOO! YOU CAN'T JUST HECKIN' NOT KNOW THINGS. LAST NIGHT GOD UPLOADED PI TO AN ARBITRARILY HIGH NUMBER OF DIGITS IN MY BRAIN!

    Presup in a nutshell

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Dionysus-Priopos

    most thiest ed up that way from acknowladging the reality of existence and making the faith statement that it is good because of self evident truths available to us all. god is the natural following thought because there is no good existence without god so im genuinely curious as to how these fedora gays interpret what we all percieve as meaningless?

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