Disbelief in God undermines itself.

Disbelief in God undermines itself. Without God we can't trust our logic, and the conclusion that an atheist reaches necessarily destroys the tools they used to get to the conclusion.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Without God we can't trust our logic,
    Brainworms. Apologia crafted by dickhead Christians to gaslight and scare their congregations and followers into not leaving Christianity

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God doesn't necessarily mean Christianity anon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s bullshit for any god but this is a line I hear from Christians.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Still haven't explained how

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t need a god for logic. I don’t need a god to determine how many products fit inside a container. Whoever sold you on this was manipulating you, sorry.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You need a god to trust logic absolutely

            >He wouldn't
            Then why did he? Also you didn't answer the first question. Aren't you assuming God is real and responsible for logic.

            He didn't

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You need a god to trust logic absolutely
            Random bullshit platitude you’ve pulled out of your ass, or actually are just parroting from someone trying to manipulate you by planting a seed designed to drive you insane if you left your religion. They were lying.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Without God we can't trust our logic
            Why?
            > the conclusion that an atheist reaches necessarily destroys the tools they used to get to the conclusion
            How?

            Please answer my first question.
            By saying you can't have logic without God, are you assuming that God exists and is responsible for logic?
            >He didn't
            Then why did he?

            >Without God we can't trust our logic
            Prove it.

            Without logic existing such that it leads us absolutely to truth, how can we know that anything is true? And how can we know that logic leads absolutely to truth?
            >Then why did he?
            Why is 2+2 = 6?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            No, that's still not any argument for God.
            It's all rhetoricism anyway; the only actual truth is in mathematical equations, which don't care about any feelings.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Videochan

            Reminder that mathematics only works if you assume infinity. So you're already getting into the territory of theological thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mathematics acts according to the laws of logic, how do you know that those are true?

            >how can we know that anything is true?
            By observing objective reality, building models to describe it and testing those models against it. See? No magic daddy needed.

            >observing objective reality
            You're begging the question. How do we know what is and isn't objective reality?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            >Mathematics acts according to the laws of logic
            It is the only pure logic.
            >How do we know what is and isn't objective reality?
            Truthfully, you don't and you can't.

            Reminder that mathematics only works if you assume infinity. So you're already getting into the territory of theological thought.

            No, it has nothing to do with theological thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Videochan

            Infinity has nothing to do with theology? Are you insane? Okay, go ahead and show me a single example of infinity in the observable universe.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            this certainly doesn't
            this is certainly poor logic
            the closest thing to "infinity" would be the spread of the universe, or possibly an infinite programming loop

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the sister in Christ killed you

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Truthfully, you don't and you can't.
            How do you know that?
            There, you've lost. Reductionad absurdum, keep asking the question and it'll never end.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How do we know what is and isn't objective reality?
            By what we experience on a reproducible basis. Not by reading books about magic israelites.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >reproducible
            How do we know that's not the result of random chance that we happen to get right?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By taking a probability 101 class.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Already done. The probablility will never reach 1, only approach it.

            I meant that don't require God to function. My bad.
            [...]
            You can infact use different axioms in your system of logic.

            Show me your system then

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Show me your system then
            I'm actually going to disprove God.
            Axiom 1: God doesn't exist.
            Conclusion 1: Because God doesn't exist he doesn't exist.
            This is completely a valid system and isn't self contradictory.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Axiom 1: God doesn't exist.
            >Conclusion 1: Because God doesn't exist he doesn't exist.
            the intellectual power of atheism

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Implicit in that is the assumption of universal truth, which doesn't work without God. There are actually a whole host of hidden axioms that disprove the conclusion

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >assumption of universal truth
            You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you anon?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sometimes you have to risk it for the biscuit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is only 1 axiom.
            >which doesn't work without God
            This is itself an assumption.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are assuming the law of noncontradiction, for one

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The probablility will never reach 1, only approach it.
            So?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how can we know that anything is true?
            By observing objective reality, building models to describe it and testing those models against it. See? No magic daddy needed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Without logic existing such that it leads us absolutely to truth, how can we know that anything is true
            Anon I can’t stress enough how little this makes sense to anyone who hasn’t been psyopped by a priest
            I use logic everyday.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your epistemology is just trash

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh please, you think I can’t measure a shelf without some god from ancient myth. Get over yourself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is 2+2 = 6?
            Because {0,1,2,3,6,7,8,9} base 8 number system.
            >Absolute truth
            Why do you assume such a thing exists?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because {0,1,2,3,6,7,8,9} base 8 number system.
            What???
            >Why do you assume such a thing exists?
            If you're disputing that then you've lost the argument

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're disputing that then you've lost the argument
            Absolute truth in the sense of the religious meaning of some divine order, that things are "right" and the true is more than just a state of a condition. why do you assume this exists?
            >What??
            {0,1,2,3,6,7,8,9}
            4 and 5 are not a part of the number system I am using. Therefore 2+2 = 6 is true. True depends on my base assumptions. You assume God is real and is responsible for logic but you can't prove God is real.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that things are "right" and the true is more than just a state of a condition. why do you assume this exists?
            Well an objective state of condition. Because to assume the opposite would lead to contradiction.
            >4 and 5 are not a part of the number system I am using. Therefore 2+2 = 6 is true
            I'm talking about the objects that are meant by "2" and "6" in our base-10 system. In this case 2+2 = 6 is false, and asking someone to explain why it's true is an absurd question. 2 and 6 are just arbitrary labels to numbers anyways.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But by changing my assumptions I can make 2+2=6 in the same way why are there valid systems of logic that disprove God if God is the arbiter of all logic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Disprove God!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I meant that don't require God to function. My bad.

            Where's your valid system of logic that disproves God?
            >by changing my assumptions
            You're not though, you're just changing the labels. It's like saying a translated philosophy book proves the original wrong lmao.

            You can infact use different axioms in your system of logic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where's your valid system of logic that disproves God?
            >by changing my assumptions
            You're not though, you're just changing the labels. It's like saying a translated philosophy book proves the original wrong lmao.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Start with a logical system A. You can reduce it to a logical system B such that B has less information than A and therefore A and B are not equal. So in this scenario you'd have not only changed labels. So no, there's not one and only one logical system. There are many.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Please answer my first question.
            By saying you can't have logic without God, are you assuming that God exists and is responsible for logic?
            >He didn't
            Then why did he?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA but here is the twist. Did you notice how he didn't say he isn't Christian? That's because he is a Christian and this "line" is only to get you to concede that a God has to exist by being a Schrodinger's sophist. Then he will become a Christian.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Walmart Level Philosophy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not an argument

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't you assuming God is real and responsible for logic? And if so why would God make logic in such a way that it could be used to conclude he isn't real?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why would God make logic in such a way that it could be used to conclude he isn't real?
      He wouldn't

      says who?

      The laws of logic

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He wouldn't
        Then why did he? Also you didn't answer the first question. Aren't you assuming God is real and responsible for logic.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    says who?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >baby discovers the inductive nature of human reasoning
    Now go ahead an deductively derive the "laws of logic" (which do not even exist in the way you think they do) from your "God exists" axiom.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    >Without God we can't trust our logic
    Why?
    > the conclusion that an atheist reaches necessarily destroys the tools they used to get to the conclusion
    How?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Videochan

      >Why?
      Because you need a foundation to build up logic from. Some sort of system of axioms, which should be both non-contradictory and very simple.. y'know, like a divine being.
      >How?
      Because you're undermining the very logic by which you're arguing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not aware of any major logician, from Aristotle to modern times, who assumes the existence of God as the foundation of their logic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >be amoral Christian theologian/preacher/priest/pastor
      >realize Christians are thinking their way out of religion (not hard)
      >tell them they can’t trust their eyes, ears, brains or even basic logical thought processes if they stop believing
      >stupid flock leaves the church and tries to tell this to people who don’t believe in Christianity
      >doesn’t understand how ridiculous this is or how they’re perceived when saying it because they completely lack the ability to model other peoples thought processes
      Why? It’s not complicated, they’re dumb.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Without God we can't trust our logic
    Prove it.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there was no math before the bible

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pi=3 according to the bible

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        astoundingly good approximation

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >christoids have lost every logical argument
    >resort to pretending only they are allowed to use logic
    Christians are such fricking pussies.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >someone isn't a nihilist
      >he must be a christian

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God doesn't necessarily mean Christianity anon

        Tell us about your special snowflake god

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm basically just a monotheist

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're basically just a polyatheist?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            babble

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for summarizing whatever you wanted to say so succinctly.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >recognize that our sensory data and ability to use reason might not be infallible
    >just presupposing that god exists and has given us the ability to perceive the world accurately is supposed to be a valid answer to this
    theres a reason nobody takes presup or tag shit seriously

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I couldn't have said it better myself.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does your god have rules or is it just a creation placeholder?

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