*still hasn't been refuted*

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >*OP still hasn't stopped sucking dick*

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i won't bother reading it. what's the summary?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
      BTFO'd by an article that starts with an "Imagine..." shit post.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >a paragraph that never rises above the level of "nuh uhhhh"
        Guess it just goes to show that religion is all fluff and no substance. Not that the fluff is all bad, mind you. Gives foot fetishes a whole way of life they can abide by.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Your reading comprehension sucks (obviously, you take Dawkins seriously) so I'll help you out:

          >it points out that Dawkins, a "professional atheist" (lol), presents a very shallow understanding of religion
          >he mocks Dawkins's pretense of rationalism as undermining his ability to deal with religious understanding; it's employed so as to distance himself from dealing with the subject
          >this leads to a shallow treatment of the subject; strawman arguments that are glaringly cheap/vulgar to anyone with even a beginner's understanding of the subject
          >there is an obvious resentment towards the subject which has lead to the adoption of ill-informed positions, the more emotional Dawkins becomes the worse are his arguments
          >with given illustrative examples, one would usually take a given subject seriously and study it at a level beyond the superficial before pontificating; Dawkins leans on presenting the idea of being strongly opinionated to carry his discussion
          >theology itself has historic significance even to that area which Dawkins presumes himself to champion

          Also, it's an introduction, moron. If you want to read the detailed arguments click the link.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            kek, fedoranon got btfo'd

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          well if you read dawkins' book, you can see how out of his element he is. he says that most historians agree there was no jesus. when confronted with the fact that most historians actually agree there was a man named jesus by lennox, he deflects and says i may have alluded to that. so right away we're off to a great start. he has entire chapters to strawmanning st thomas' 5 proofs and never quotes a single one. he summarizes what he thinks they mean, then attacks them; textbook straw manning. the central premise to the book is "if god created the universe, who created god?" which is bottom of the barrel atheist understanding which really makes me wonder who the book is written for? he's a biologist, but clearly total dogshit at philosophy and understanding basic fundamentals of christianity. the hilarious part about all of this is that he concedes that christianity may be better than a world without it as it is a bulwark against what he fears may be far worse.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Another banger from Eagleton:

            >Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms.

            Lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The view he's parodying is exactly the view of God held by most Christians. Feser even talks about that in his book I remember a chart with levels of understanding about God and Feser calling most Christians "naive". And it just begs the question that if God isn't some person watching our every move and threatening us with hell if we step out of line then why should I give a shit about Christianity? The more philosophical understanding of God is toothless. There are plenty of abstract arguments that I just don't care about

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The view he's parodying is exactly the view of God held by most Christians.
            Why should this matter if they're simply incorrect? That's like saying because most people have a horrible grasp of mathematics, then mathematics isn't true. A concept's validity does not depend on the perceptions of the dumbest people who believe that concept.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why should this matter if they're simply incorrect?
            I said why. The naive view is clearly stupid and any more sophisticated view is academic regardless of it's truth of falsity. Without the guy in the sky potentially sending you to hell no one would care about Christianity. Either you're stuck defending a moronic view of God or a view no one cares one way or the other about.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            One reason could be that theists often mention the fact that billions of people are/were theists to gain a dialectic advantage, it's framed as the common sense view.
            It's hard to say if, in some sense at least, it's even the same religion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The view he's parodying
            He isn't parodying anything. He's ridiculing low hanging fruit because he has a superficial understanding of the subject.

            >strawman arguments that are glaringly cheap/vulgar to anyone with even a beginner's understanding of the subject
            Got an example?
            >there is an obvious resentment towards the subject
            No shit. The guy is pretty open about his bias on the subject.
            >the more emotional Dawkins becomes the worse are his arguments
            That's everybody. He could try picking apart these arguments instead of just handwaving.
            This whole article is just a bunch of ad-hom and a complete failure to point out the difference between Dawkins's caricatures of faith and the actual thing.
            The guy's main argument is that God can't be understood nor is meant to be understood by man, but is completely lost on the fact that he's following a whole ass religion around such a being.

            >Got an example?
            Stopped reading there. I know fedoratards favor being strongly opinionated over doing the work to acquire knowledge but the article is there. Read it or don't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He isn't parodying anything.
            The view Eagleton is parodying not Dawkins. Eagleton is saying Dawkins is attacking a straw man of Christianity. I'm saying that straw man Dawkins supposedly created is actually most Christians view of things

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The view Eagleton is parodying not Dawkins.
            Yes it is.
            >I'm saying that straw man Dawkins supposedly created is actually most Christians view of things
            And another anon pointed out that's moronic and like saying the fact most people have a shit understanding of math means math doesn't exist. All you could do is assert it's the same thing, lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"if god created the universe, who created god?" which is bottom of the barrel atheist understanding
            Could you explain yourself on this? If god created the universe, who created god? If the answer is nothing, the buck stops with him, then why could this not possibly apply to the universe itself? Theists claim this is such a bottom of the barrel argument, but never actually provide any refutation of it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            god is eternal. that is, without beginning nor end; a being outside of space, time and matter. the universe is not infinite. it has a beginning and will have an end. presuming god must have a creator is a fundamental misunderstanding of what god is. getting into the mechanics of the universe and if the big bang is a mechanism to prevent infinite regress is another thing, but dawkins is clearly lacking in theology, as you can then see when he attacks what he thinks st thomas is saying. fundamentally, the universe needs a mover to create everything from nothing; a being to have honed the laws of physics to such precision.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the universe is not infinite. it has a beginning and will have an end
            So just say the universe is eternal problem solved.
            >but the big bang
            The big bang says something came from nothing. You can't claim the big bang is true when it supports you're position but false when in doesn't

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So just say the universe is eternal problem solved.
            science will never be able to prove that biological life came from nonbiological compounds. it simply cannot be done, but disbelievers of god will make their leap of faith there. being a random cosmic occurrence is far more convenient.
            >The big bang says something came from nothing. You can't claim the big bang is true when it supports you're position but false when in doesn't
            elaborate more. from my understanding, it then becomes are argument on whether the laws of physics constrain the universe or not, which would then point to intentional design.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >science will never be able to prove that biological life came from nonbiological compounds
            Evolution denial. Yawn
            >it then becomes are argument on whether the laws of physics constrain the universe or not, which would then point to intentional design.
            No it wouldn't. That's a non sequitur if there ever was one

            The point is that asking what created God destroys cosmological arguments. The preferred argument now, the Kalam cosmological argument, is specially designed to try and get around the obvious question of where God came from. But it's really just as goofy since it relies on God being eternal and never coming into existence. Who says the universe can't be eternal?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the genesis creation story coincides perfectly well with evolution, granted there is a god to bring order to the chaos and make our planet habitable. you should read it sometime.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the genesis creation story COINCIDES PERFECTLY well with evolution
            I don't think those words mean what you think they mean

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            tell me where it doesn't. the story in genesis 2 elevates mankind to being the center focus of it all as god's creation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >god is eternal. that is, without beginning nor end; a being outside of space, time and matter
            How do you know? Why can't the universe be eternal itself?
            >the universe is not infinite. it has a beginning and will have an end
            You don't know that. Just because WE have a hard limit on how far back we can see, that doesn't mean the universe hasn't been chugging along in an endless cycle much longer (or some other time-transcendent variable)
            >presuming god must have a creator is a fundamental misunderstanding of what god is
            Presuming the universe must have a creator is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the universe is
            >and if the big bang is a mechanism to prevent infinite regress
            It doesn't really work that way. It's just the furthest back we can make sense of with our current model of physics. Could be nothing. Could be gods. Could be the universe popping in and out of existence endlessly. Science doesn't pretend to actually know past what we can prove.
            >fundamentally, the universe needs a mover to create everything from nothing
            No it doesn't. We don't even know if there ever was nothing. That spark could have always been there, just changing arrangement.
            > a being to have honed the laws of physics to such precision
            Assuming there was a creator, we don't know if we're the only creation. Could be an infinite amount of dead universes out there with different physics, but not a single soul in them to ponder how perfect their little home is for them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >then why could this not possibly apply to the universe itself?
            Because of the problem of infinite regress. If time is infinite then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before you can come into existence. This is logically absurd. That's why an appeal to a concept outside the universe makes sense and the retort "WHO CREATED GOD THEN!" demonstrates a shit understanding of what's actually being argued.

            It wouldn't be so bad if you guys actually thought about this shit instead of parroting bad arguments. Fedoras. Lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The universe came from nothing. This has all been explained by Lawrence Krauss in his book. No god is needed 🙂

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've actually read that book. He doesn't say that the universe came from nothing (i.e. he admits in the intro that he can't make an argument relating to ex nihilo).

            Also, it's pretty fricking hilarious that Dawkins calls the book "on par with Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle" when it's a fricking popsci book, not even a good one, that will randomly sperg about God.

            And then there's pic-related, lol. These are the types of argument this moron makes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >popsci
            Theist cope word
            >having sex with young, of age women is le bad!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >being promiscuous doesn't feed sociopathic behavior and diminish your ability to social pair bond.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no response
            You didn't even read it, did you? Figures, lol.
            >popsci
            It is and it's telling that Dawkins markets it to his followers as being on par with The Voyage of the Beagle (which I'm sure you'll have to look up). It's a quick read popsci book that doesn't break any new ground.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because of the problem of infinite regress
            So why doesn't the problem of infinite regress apply to God? If he existed eternally an infinite amount of time would have had to pass before he created the universe.
            >but God is outside time
            So just say the universe was outside of time before the Big Bang. Cosmological arguments are trivially refutable by just asking whatever universal property the christcuck wants to claim exists doesn't also apply to God. It always devolves into special pleading at the end.
            >God doesn't need a cause
            >God isn't subject to infinite regress arguments
            >God is outside of time
            All special pleading. If you're going to allow these possibilities you have to show why the universe can't have them without resorting to nothing can and then special pleading God

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So why doesn't the problem of infinite regress apply to God?
            Again, you're not understanding why that's a bad argument. The problem of infinite regress applies to things inside the universe. One can use the passage of time as an illustrative example (i.e. it takes an infinite amount of time before you can ever exist meaning you will never exist). In order to square it you have to posit something outside of the universe. You can make an argument that it isn't God but saying "why doesn't it apply to the thing outside the universe" indicates you don't understand what's actually being argued. If anything, it's an introduction/justification for a metaphysical argument. Even if you don't want to accept the idea of God it demonstrates that materialism is limited.
            >So just say the universe was outside of time before the Big Bang.
            So you want to make an appeal to faith? Lol, you really don't get it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So you want to make an appeal to faith?
            So you admit that calling something outside of time is an appeal to faith? So that means I've won this argument. You've admitted that cosmological argument that rely on God being outside of time are faith based and fundamentally irrational.
            >but it's not faith based to claim God is outside of time while it is faith based to claim the universe is outside of time
            Like I said, special pleading.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So you admit that calling something outside of time is an appeal to faith?
            No. I told you that the purpose of the argument is to break the infinite regress. I made fun of you by pointing out you're making an appeal to faith by saying "the big bang just existed outside of time" when you don't actually have reason to assert such. What you're doing is demonstrating you still don't get the purpose of the argument while being dumb enough to supplant your caricature of religion with an ideology you prefer.
            >You've admitted that cosmological argument that rely on God being outside of time are faith based and fundamentally irrational.
            Lol, you're moronic.
            >special pleading
            That's projection, anon. See above (i.e. replacing a caricature with a preferred idea that is ironically just as bad).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, you're not understanding why that's a bad argument.
            This is directly caused by you being completely unable to sufficiently explain why it's a bad argument.
            >The problem of infinite regress applies to things inside the universe.
            Says fricking who? And is the universe itself inside the universe? On that note, is anything inside god? If he is outside of time, then does he experience? Can even even create if he has no time to do it?
            >Even if you don't want to accept the idea of God it demonstrates that materialism is limited.
            I can accept the idea of God. But that's all I see God as. An idea.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If time is infinite then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before you can come into existence.
            And it has!
            This is logically absurd.
            So it is!
            >That's why an appeal to a concept outside the universe makes sense
            Logic requires us to invent further concepts to keep our explanations from falling apart. It's a wonder it is ever useful at all—so long as we keep it to measurable units it works, but as for "pure" notions of time, space, "god" it gets very absurd very quickly

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And it has!
            Proof?
            >This is logically absurd.
            An infinite regress is logically absurd. If you can provide a non-metaphysical argument to break it instead of begging the question I'm happy to hear it. However, seeing as you continued to misunderstand what the argument is actually about despite having it explained to you multiple times I think it's pretty unlikely, lol.
            >Logic requires us to invent further concepts to keep our explanations from falling apart.
            Youve never actually studied logic. Say, are you the same anon who was pretending to have read Krauss's book and then stopped responding when you found out I actually have? Lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neither anon.
            Why is it logically absurd for things as we organize them to be caused by other things? Declaring your investigation over doesn't mean you found the first thing

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Declaring your investigation over doesn't mean you found the first thing
            It's an argument to break infinite regress that justifies the use of metaphysical arguments while displaying the poverty of materialism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you have a pokemon battle tier understanding of the concepts you've selected

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because of the problem of infinite regress. If time is infinite then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before you can come into existence
            How is this a problem? How do you know that every time you die, infinite time passes and you are reformed to do it all over again, albeit with a chance of different variations. You look out and all you see are repeating patterns, iterating upon each other, even through layers of abstraction. Just like with God, you can't disprove an eternal universe. I'd say it's more likely, given you've got one less variable to explain in the whole equation.
            >This is logically absurd.
            It's just as logically absurd as believe that some creator popped the universe into being on day (or whatever time-like dimension this being experiences, assuming it can experience). Christians take it a step further by believing that not only does this being, on a scale dwarfing the entire universe, not only can perceive you as anything other than a bunch of numbers, variables, vague shapes, or whatever, but also gives so much of a shit about your day to day goings about that he devised a list of rules for you to follow in order to appease him enough to keep you around in some soul archive with all your family and mates. You want to talk about absurdities, how the frick do you rationalize all this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you know that every time you die, infinite time passes and you are reformed to do it all over again, albeit with a chance of different variations.
            Because an infinite amount of time is infinite. Do fedoras seriously not even understand what an infinite regress entails? Lol
            >It's just as logically absurd as believe that some creator popped the universe
            Not quite but at least you recognize what you said above as absurd.
            >standard why would God care nihilism argument that apes the idea he can dictate the priorities of an omnipotent being
            If he created humanity it follows from that it "cares." However, even bringing up the idea of "care" as we understand it is silly on your part (i.e. inb4 "no you pretend to be able to engage with omnipotence").

            >Again, you're not understanding why that's a bad argument.
            This is directly caused by you being completely unable to sufficiently explain why it's a bad argument.
            >The problem of infinite regress applies to things inside the universe.
            Says fricking who? And is the universe itself inside the universe? On that note, is anything inside god? If he is outside of time, then does he experience? Can even even create if he has no time to do it?
            >Even if you don't want to accept the idea of God it demonstrates that materialism is limited.
            I can accept the idea of God. But that's all I see God as. An idea.

            >This is directly caused by you
            Yeah, anon. It's totally my fault you guys are morons parroting fedora nonsense that was played out a decade ago.
            >Says fricking who?
            By definition. I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing to you repeatedly but I'll point you back to the example of an infinite amount of time having to pass before any existence comes to be. This means an infinite amount of time has already passed which logically means you could never arrive at the moment in which you now find yourself in the first place. That's what the prime mover argument gets at and why the argument "who created God" represents a fundemental misunderstanding of it. Also, I've told you that it need not necessitate the belief in a particular God but it does represent the fact you're speaking about a metaphysical problem that displays the poverty of materialism.
            >On that note, is anything inside god? If he is outside of time, then does he experience?
            Read Job.

            Christian theology is stuff like "how many persons can we fit into 'thou shall have no gods before me'" or "which are the super duper sins that result in being banned from heaven" or "does Jesus fulfill israeli prophecies"? And then there's the lifting of Plato and Aristotle to make the generic argument for God if more than the scripture is needed. It's lore. You are demanding the atheist check your work for internal consistency as if he were a Christian looking to contribute to the rabbinical discourse. Most don't care to prove you are wrong about your own conclusions when they can just reject your premises. Some Roman authors like Julian Augustus and Celsus bothered to do the work, so later Christians spited them by only preserving fragments of their books within Christiam apologetics.

            >sperg about why theology is worthless
            Cool story, bro.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no God
            >there is no afterlife
            >you will die
            >you will cease to exist

            The only reason you cling to this nonsense is because you are terrified of death.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, you're so edgy. Careful not to cut yourself.

            >sperg about why theology is worthless
            so far the defense of it has been "it makes me feel euphoric when atheists argue against evangelical christianity but ignore augustine," so I am curious, can our armchair theologians make the case for their discipline or not?

            You're taking this too personally, anon. The fact is that Dawkins goes after low hanging fruit and it shows. The fedora fad encouraged midwits to confuse being strongly opinionated with being knowledgeable and that's why it played itself out into cringe. There's also a whole superiority complex aspect to it so the fact hardcore internet atheists turned out to be morons will never not be funny.

            >Because an infinite amount of time is infinite. Do fedoras seriously not even understand what an infinite regress entails?
            The assumption of God requires belief in infinite power. If you don't accept infinite regress, then God is off the table to begin with
            >If he created humanity it follows from that it "cares."
            Who says he created humanity? Could have just set physics in motion and let it all play out.
            >even bringing up the idea of "care" as we understand it is silly on your part
            If you outright dismiss that a God cares, then what the frick is Christianity based upon?
            >Yeah, anon. It's totally my fault you guys are morons parroting fedora nonsense that was played out a decade ago.
            Literally all you've done is dismiss with minimal engagement. It's sloppy that all you have is ad-hom and dismissals.
            >By definition.
            Impossibility isn't part of the definition of infinite regression.
            >This means an infinite amount of time has already passed which logically means you could never arrive at the moment in which you now find yourself in the first place
            If something is possible, then it will be inevitable, regardless of how improbable, with infinite time.
            >Read Job
            Job says nothing on the subject and you are deflecting because you have absolutely no argument. Job is a puppet show with God and Satan bickering over whether or not Job will stay faithful if his life was suddenly made shittier.

            >The assumption of God requires belief in infinite power
            This is a rather vulgar way to allude to what's entailed by the idea of omnipotency, sure. However, this isn't the same thing as confusing the infinite regress the prime move argument deals with by saying dumb shit like "who created God." You're a dummy.
            >Who says he created humanity?
            You're sliding away from the fact you tried to argue an omnipotent being has no reason to care about humanity. My response was that if a creator God created humanity it therefore follows he "cares" about it by definition.
            >If you outright dismiss that a God cares, then what the frick is Christianity based upon?
            Frick you're dumb. I was mocking the fact you had the pretense to dictate what an omnipotent being should or shouldn't care about. I also pointed out your argument bent towards nihilism and made fun of you for it.
            >Literally all you've done is dismiss with minimal engagement.
            You've been continuously filtered at every turn. Again, it's not my fault you're a moronic fedora tipper trying to maintain the illusion that your halfbaked beliefs make you superior to others, lol.
            >Impossibility isn't part of the definition of infinite regression.
            Frick you're dumb. Why can't you actually engage with the idea that it's logically absurd for an infinite amount of time to come before your phenomenological experience as it is here and now? Does it just filter through your brain untouched by whatever qualifies as thought for a moron like yourself? Lol.
            >If something is possible, then it will be inevitable, regardless of how improbable, with infinite time
            Polly want a cracker?
            >Job says nothing on the subject
            It says nothing can be said on the subject of which you were parroting moron gotcha questions. Frick you're dumb, lol. I don't think I'm going to give you anymore (You)s. We'll see.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >fad encouraged midwits to confuse being strongly opinionated with being knowledgeable and that's why it played itself out into cringe. There's also a whole superiority complex aspect to it
            yeah our resident tradlarpers are doing the exact same thing the fedoras did all those eons ago
            the only thing easier to have fake expertise in than atheism is theism

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/rzzIzIT.gif

            [...]
            >NO YOU
            Typical fedoras.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is a rather vulgar way to allude to what's entailed by the idea of omnipotency, sure
            Elaborate what you mean by this. I haven't had my brain pickled for decades by religion, so you're going to have to give me something more explicit rather than complaining that the argument offends you. Tell me WHY it offends you. Are you afraid to talk about the idea of omnipotency? Do you fear questioning the power of your deity?
            >You're sliding away from the fact you tried to argue an omnipotent being has no reason to care about humanity
            My argument is a lot wider than just having no reason. I accept the possibility of an omnipotent being, transcendent from our own system of time and space, having a special interest in us. However, I don't see how it's likely. You ever just look at the scale of it all? Pic related is a good example. I know it's a silly meme, but the point still stands valid. There is a lot out there. Once life has gone extinct, there's still gonna be a lot more time out there. It's gonna be mundane and boring and dead. Sure it's gonna keep popping up all around the universe. We already have the proof of concept of molecular replicators. It's inevitable. But eventually, the energy to run the machinery of life is gonna run out. It's gonna get cold. Entropy comes for us all. Most of the universe's run is gonna be dead and empty. Our existence is not even a billionth of a blip on the timescale of the universe, and that's just the dimension of time. Have you seen how much space is out there? And don't get me started on scale and layers of abstraction. Even with a perfect capture of all the data and events occurring in the universe (I'm talking every damn Planck unit of space and time and possibly deeper), how likely do you think such a being's focus is gonna be on us? There is absolutely no reason to believe he can even perceive us as anything resembling how we see ourselves. We could just be a bit of replicating chemistry on the thin surface of a tiny ball of matter hurtling through space.
            >I was mocking the fact you had the pretense to dictate what an omnipotent being should or shouldn't care about
            Christianity seems to have a lot on this subject. They even wrote a whole book on what this being supposedly said to do or not do with your life.
            >Polly want a cracker?
            You have nothing. You know that statement is irrefutable and all you can do is act childish.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >rather than complaining that the argument offends you
            Stopped reading there. Your stupidity isn't offensive, anon. It's funny.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm disappointed. I'd say you could do better, but I know you're out of options. Your religion is a dying meme.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >tips fedora
            Lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See. Literally all you have left is ad-hom. You're backed into a corner. You're embarrassed to even continue because you'd have to confront how ridiculous your beliefs are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nta but you're talking about ad hominems and have literally been saying
            >y-you're offended
            >pickled brains from religion
            >actually, you're wrong and no, I will not elaborate further
            Fedoras really are funny like that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can't seperate tone from content and cries about ad homs after making ad homs
            Behold, the self-awareness and social skills of the fedora tipper.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How does one become unafraid?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have to be wired a certain way, you can't choose to be unafraid. And even if you could, you'd still die anyway, so what difference would it make in the end?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So why don't you just have a nice day then?
            It would be all meaningless, so just do it now, no point in delaying the inevitable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe because I'm scared of death?
            Kek, you religious nutters are something else. Isn't suicide supposed to be the ultimate sin? and here you are encouraging it!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Seems rather hypocritical on your part.
            I like ideological consistency. and if nothing matters you should just have a nice day.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hard to imagine Jesus saying that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not super religious, so why do I have to act in a moral manner if there is no God anyway?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You lack imagination. Meeting an omnipotent creator being is more intimidating than simply not existing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >sperg about why theology is worthless
            so far the defense of it has been "it makes me feel euphoric when atheists argue against evangelical christianity but ignore augustine," so I am curious, can our armchair theologians make the case for their discipline or not?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because an infinite amount of time is infinite. Do fedoras seriously not even understand what an infinite regress entails?
            The assumption of God requires belief in infinite power. If you don't accept infinite regress, then God is off the table to begin with
            >If he created humanity it follows from that it "cares."
            Who says he created humanity? Could have just set physics in motion and let it all play out.
            >even bringing up the idea of "care" as we understand it is silly on your part
            If you outright dismiss that a God cares, then what the frick is Christianity based upon?
            >Yeah, anon. It's totally my fault you guys are morons parroting fedora nonsense that was played out a decade ago.
            Literally all you've done is dismiss with minimal engagement. It's sloppy that all you have is ad-hom and dismissals.
            >By definition.
            Impossibility isn't part of the definition of infinite regression.
            >This means an infinite amount of time has already passed which logically means you could never arrive at the moment in which you now find yourself in the first place
            If something is possible, then it will be inevitable, regardless of how improbable, with infinite time.
            >Read Job
            Job says nothing on the subject and you are deflecting because you have absolutely no argument. Job is a puppet show with God and Satan bickering over whether or not Job will stay faithful if his life was suddenly made shittier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And what would a deep dive into theology actually tell us? You want an atheist rebuttal of neo-thomism instead of a shrug?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Dawkins encouraged midwits to confuse being strongly opinionated with being educated. This is why the fedora fad was cringe from the getgo and eventually became a meme.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Being educated in what? If theologians want to treat the unserious tall tale god of the bible as an allegory for the 2deep4u "arguments" they have for the philosophers' God they've already served their heads on a platter to the atheist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't have be knowledgeable about a subject in order to be strongly opinionated about it
            Again, this is why the fedora fad was always cringe and eventually become a meme ideology people make fun of.
            >inb4 false equivocation slide of "I don't have to understand x in order to make fun of it"
            You guys are boring.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, knowledge about what? Being knowledgeable about the opinions of theologians is irrelevant to arguing against theism categorically. The only people who care to study theology for more than an hour are rival theists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't have be knowledgeable about a subject in order to be strongly opinionated about it
            If you want to be taken seriously you do. Otherwise you're just a fedora tipper telling everyone you're "euphoric because you're enlightened by your own intelligence", lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i am really smart because i know theology
            sounds euphoric to me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you have a pokemon battle tier understanding of the concepts you've selected

            >NO YOU
            Typical fedoras.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            pretending you've read Aquinas doesn't make you any more intelligent than anyone else

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >NO YOU THO! (re:

            https://i.imgur.com/AXJzjtr.jpeg

            I've actually read that book. He doesn't say that the universe came from nothing (i.e. he admits in the intro that he can't make an argument relating to ex nihilo).

            Also, it's pretty fricking hilarious that Dawkins calls the book "on par with Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle" when it's a fricking popsci book, not even a good one, that will randomly sperg about God.

            And then there's pic-related, lol. These are the types of argument this moron makes.)
            I accept your concession. Come back better read next time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >being educated
            Being educated in something useless like Chiropractic or Homeopathy doesn't make you smart. I see Christianity (and most other forms of religion) much the same way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >inb4 false equivocation slide of "I don't have to understand x in order to make fun of it" (

            >I don't have be knowledgeable about a subject in order to be strongly opinionated about it


            Again, this is why the fedora fad was always cringe and eventually become a meme ideology people make fun of.
            >inb4 false equivocation slide of "I don't have to understand x in order to make fun of it"
            You guys are boring.)
            Called it. You guys are predictable morons, lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christian theology is stuff like "how many persons can we fit into 'thou shall have no gods before me'" or "which are the super duper sins that result in being banned from heaven" or "does Jesus fulfill israeli prophecies"? And then there's the lifting of Plato and Aristotle to make the generic argument for God if more than the scripture is needed. It's lore. You are demanding the atheist check your work for internal consistency as if he were a Christian looking to contribute to the rabbinical discourse. Most don't care to prove you are wrong about your own conclusions when they can just reject your premises. Some Roman authors like Julian Augustus and Celsus bothered to do the work, so later Christians spited them by only preserving fragments of their books within Christiam apologetics.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Same thread again, same homosexual OP

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why waste time refuting an argument that I know is correct?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No need. Who else writes a book in which you spent the vast majority of the time criticizing the dumbest version of your opponent? Serious atheists like Graham Oppy get serious refutations. Dawkins doesn't deserve the ink of a rebuttal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As a Christian. This. If you're an atheist and still sighting Dawkins. You're a clown. Notice how that loser has nothing to say about current social issues? The best accurate representation of his mental capacity, is the south park episode he was in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's shocking to me. i've really kind of dug my feet into it over the past 6 years and tried to find the best. i've read and listened to so much content from baggini, dawkins, hitchens, atkins, erhman and even some from that moron sam harris and their arguments are just so fricking dull and boring. you apply a bit of common sense to what they say, or read the usual cherry picked line from the bible they cite, apply a bit of common sense and their arguments just fall apart as completely midwit level garbage.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >*still hasn't been refuted*
    Cringe.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was refuted before its author was even born. The refutation still stands.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >blocks OP's path

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's an infinite amount of shit you can't disprove. Doesn't mean any of them are true. I just go off probability.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >strawman arguments that are glaringly cheap/vulgar to anyone with even a beginner's understanding of the subject
    Got an example?
    >there is an obvious resentment towards the subject
    No shit. The guy is pretty open about his bias on the subject.
    >the more emotional Dawkins becomes the worse are his arguments
    That's everybody. He could try picking apart these arguments instead of just handwaving.
    This whole article is just a bunch of ad-hom and a complete failure to point out the difference between Dawkins's caricatures of faith and the actual thing.
    The guy's main argument is that God can't be understood nor is meant to be understood by man, but is completely lost on the fact that he's following a whole ass religion around such a being.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      his entire section of st thomas' proofs are strawmans.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Catholics are not real christians, they don't even have same commandments.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Skip the "New Atheists." Even when they're right they have no style

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      can we get more stuff like this? The New Atheists were mcdonald's philosophy. I'd like some actual thought

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I'd like some actual thought
        Sigmund Freud's swing at pseudohistory and Nietzsche's tsundere gay crush on Wagner are a pretty low bar for "actual thought."

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >using incel as insult
    You are either feral subhuman driven by instincts instead of logic and reason or you are conformity cultist and in that case are godless theist and bad as people you hate.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >makes thread claiming victory
    >when pressed gives common easily-refutable argument
    >gets refuted
    >seethes and posts wojaks until the thread either dies or gets deleted for being offtopic shit
    >makes the same exact thread the next week
    What's his endgame?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're dogmatic in their beliefs. In the end, everything the lob at fundementalists ironically applies to them.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    heres the end all be all argument for all atheist virgins.

    what came first the chicken or the egg? the answer is god.

    t. ex hard core atheist now master race agnostic

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't want to be debated. It's like an online shit fligging contest. Has anyone ever actually changed their mind? No you just keep flinging shit till someone has to leave.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The "central argument" of my book... isn't even an argument, just a fantasy of the gaps
    Yeah this is just the simulation making fun of us

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    isn't it an easy and trite critique to make in the twenty first century?

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    these books are exactly the kind of schlock that you see on best seller lists anywhere. quick paychecks for well-connected pseudoacademics.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I assume you have a way of proving your dogmatic position is correct?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The kind of people who like it are a refutation of it, lol

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God isn't necessary to explain the universe, but it's convenient when you're talking to people that aren't particularly curious about the finer details. Most people want a simple and comfortable answer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Most people want a simple and comfortable answer.
      and what's wrong about it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Most people want a simple and comfortable answer.
      Implying God implies "simple and comfortable". Just how long would evolution have to go on for for a living being to be omnipotent? What are the conditions necessary for that? How in the world can you fall to the conclusion that something like God could be simple?
      In fact, somebody in the multiverse creating a big bang in a lab and then creating our universe would be 1000x more simple than God

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Implying God implies "simple and comfortable"
        You're right on this. It's simple if you don't think about it too much, but once you start trying to rationalize the nitty gritty of it, it's a bottomless well of complexity.
        >Just how long would evolution have to go on for for a living being to be omnipotent?
        Who knows? Took us about a billion years of replication to even bother putting our genetic material in a central nucleus. It could be never unless some being manages to find an ACE exploit in the laws of physics.

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