>There is no God and I don't believe that.

>There is no God and I don't believe that.
Did I get atheism right?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    >Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is no God in your worldview (which is one's belief about reality), right?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An atheist by definition doesn't belive god or gods exist; this is just a definition

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >How asking an atheist questions to get anywhere feels like.
          There is no God in your worldview (which is one's belief about reality), right?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay let's try this
            >an atheist by definition doesn't believe god exists
            >do atheists believe god exists?
            Take your time

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you lack the belief that God does not exist? Yes or No?
            No trannie answer allowed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            >Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

            See definition

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't answer the question.
            Is it a yes or no?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay let's try this
            >an atheist by definition doesn't believe god exists
            >do atheists believe god exists?
            Take your time

            Think this question over carefully and answer

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The question is asked birthed from your sophistry to begin with.
            Now could you answer the question? Please? I'm begging you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *The question asked is birthed from your sophistry to begin with.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It a simple task to see if you understand definitions; the answer is a direct logical consequence of the definition given

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then it wouldn't be so hard to answer, would it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but you haven't yet for some tlreason; but you can have all the time you need

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There clearly is no God in your worldview as you decided it so. I will let you weasel out of that one.
            Now let's move on to the next question.
            Isn't too wishful to believe in something we can't know to be true? That God does not exist?
            (Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that, you know?)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You did it finally.
            >Isn't too wishful to believe in something we can't know to be true?
            No I don't think so; but if it were the case it would also apply to theism

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No I don't think so
            Well it is. Meaning there will never be a more wishful belief than atheism.
            >but if it were the case it would also apply to theism
            What now?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What now?
            It is wishfull thinking to believe something exists without any proof
            >Well it is
            That is your opinion

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It is wishfull thinking to believe something exists
            >without any proof
            >Talks about opinions.
            Lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No argument
            >And yes, it is wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true.
            Exactly, theism is wishfull thinking

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it is wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true.
            >theism is wishfull thinking
            Non sequitur.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >be debating Christians here maybe a year ago
            >never see the word non-sequitur used here
            >find a good opportunity to break it out on a christcuck
            >a year or so later they’ve adopted the term and use it constantly use it but don’t fully understand when it’s appropriate
            >you know they just use it because it reads fancy even though they use it wrong constantly
            This is like a bad sitcom

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gobbledyasiatic
            Uh huh.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Atheists adopt the term GOD and use it constantly, but don’t fully understand what it means.
            >you know they just use it to sound edgy, even though they use it wrong constantly, and create self indulgent strawman arguments to feed their pride.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bro I do not care about your bullshit superstitions, I’m just laughing at you guys seeing the term “non-sequitur” wanting to use it, but not being able to quite figure out what it means and not knowing when it applies.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I’m just laughing at you
            This is my point. You and I are here for different reasons.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sitcom
            You are watching Telemundo. First you need to learn to speak Spanish, then you will have an opinion that is not suoerficial.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Theism is a mental framwork. It's the opposite of "a lack of proof".
            Atheism is the anarchy of a logical structure. It appears to work for sigmas in the short term, because they have no interest in the great assembly, and they do not need shared definition.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yes, it is wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wow there really only is like 1 Christian poster left going through manic episodes huh? This guy says the same catchphrases all the time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you hate it when the indefensible points keep coming up?
            And is it really catching on?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I do not lack the belief that God does not exist.

            I know that God doesn't exist

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not everyone shares your definition of the word "God". You might be right about your self defined concept of "God", but you might also be wrong about someone else's concept of God, if you dont listen to how they define the word "God".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God is God regardless of your rhetorical bullshit. If you go "Oh God is energy or mystery or the universal oneness of all things" its functionally the same as saying "God is an invisible person who intercedes on my behalf" because people treat it the exact same way.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >invisible person who intercedes on my behalf"
            Your mind fits this definition.
            Does your mind exist?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My mind is my brain

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My mind is a physical construct that generates chemicals and electricity that allows me to think, in stark contrast to you, so no, it's not an invisible person that intercedes on my behalf.

            The brain is a physical thing that can be touched and manipulated. You can turn off sections for real effects. If you turned God off all you would see is a marked improvement in the lives of millions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is so fricking dumb.
            Of course someone would be using their own understand of a word, when they use it.
            If there's some people out there who think "God" is the sun. That is not what *I* mean by the term.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That is not what *I* mean by the term

            The LORD (YHWH) is shared definition.

            The individual letters mean
            Acrion "behold" + "behold"
            It's the great assemble.
            Logos.
            It's a shared understanding.

            Where two or more are gathered in my name (definition) there am "I" with them.

            In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word WAS GOD.

            People who are hard of heart, refuse to share meaning. They argue in bad faith, and argue semantics, and use non sequiturs and strawman arguments.

            People of faith, share meaning.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not everyone shares your definition of the word "God".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have multiple definitions for "God", based on who I am talking to. The most well developed definitions I have found, are from talking to Christians. The least developed, and most superficial definitions I have found, are the ones developed among atheists. Atheists have very childish concepts of God. That's probably why I was an atheist when I was a child.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I have multiple definitions for "God",
            Multiplicity of definitions means an overloaded concept. Hence, fraud.

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

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have multiplicity of logic. I have multiplicity of definition. It's no different than language. People speak various languages.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's completely different, dumbass.

            You can postulate one definition in multiple languages and it will mean the same thing. Or you can postulate multiple definitions in one language that mean different things. Meaning that you have NOT defined the thing.

            Professing different "facts" depending on who you're talking to and what you think they'll accept is usually just called bullshitting

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not different facts. The facts don't change. It's the phonetic sound being used to describe facts.
            I already told you. The logic is the same. The phonetic sound "GOD" that an atheist uses, does not have the same meaning as the word "GOD" in the Bible. An atheist might be correct in saying that there is no floating man in the sky granting wishes, and they define this concept as GOD. They use this phonetic sound to talk about a floating man with a white beard granting wishes. They are speaking another language. It's just not what is being discussed in the Bible, and it does not match the definition of most people I talk to. You're not interested in understanding my definition. That's why you use ad hominems, non-sequitors, and straw man arguments. Your goal is not to find common understanding, but to boost your ego by feeling superior through rhetoric.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Spare me your painful, superficial semantic weaselholes. Which definition of God are you going to use here today? Talking to me/them/us?

            It's one thing to say we have different definitions of God. Damn near everybody seems to. (I posit that they are all moot.) It's another to say that you believe multiple different definitions of God. That indicates to me that if one of them gets taken down, you have set yourself up to retreat into another definition, and tomorrow you'll reload your quiver anyway as though nothing happened. If God is something you believe in you must know what it IS you believe in. That doesn't change depending on who you're talking to. Changing what you will SAY you believe depending on who you're talking to is nothing less than deception.

            If you're merely acknowledging multiple possible definitions of God, whatever those definitions have in common which do not, to you, conflict and which you actually believe -- that's your definition. Do you care to define the idea you would defend?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Which definition of God are you going to use here today
            How about logos.

            >believe multiple different definitions of God

            I don't know that I "Believe" multiple definitions of God. I listen, and try to understand the logic attached to these different definitions, as presented by various sources.

            >That indicates to me that if one of them gets taken down, you have set yourself up to retreat into another definition
            This is just the scientific method, testing a theory.

            >and tomorrow you'll reload your quiver anyway as though nothing happened.
            I don't look at it in terms of a war, or weapons. I look at it as a search for truth.

            >If God is something you believe in you must know what it IS you believe in.
            Yes. I have a mental framework. You can see it's structure, and analyze its code. It's in my DNA, and in the structure of my brain. I don't know (i can't recite) every sequence of code. Nor can I draw a picture of every neuron in my brain, but you are correct, it is there. Code is rewritten all the time. This isn't fantasy. It's just how we all function. The current manifestation is anointed by time. This is what has been saved. How or why? I don't have all the answers. But my code was saved, and here it is.

            >Changing what you will SAY you believe depending on who you're talking to is nothing less than deception.
            I'm not changing the logic, from one person to the next. I'm trying to understand their definition of the same logic that we are both analyzing.

            >Do you care to define the idea you would defend?
            I'm not looking to "defend" anything at the moment.
            That would imply some kind of conflict, which really doesn't need to be happening here.
            Im here to learn and share perspective.
            Are you looking to attack something?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's the "no thanks" of the week.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Logos is essentially The Universe, which is fundamentally an atheistic idea.

            There's no reason to say it's the Christian god or anything similar to it because it's just another word for the wellspring of creation, which is The Universe. It has no doctrine or will of its own. It just exists.

            >I look at it as a search for truth
            Then you're doing a pretty bad job of looking.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It just exists.
            And you judge it.

            >There's no reason to say
            The reason would be shared defintion.
            The reason not to would be bad fruit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you admit it's an atheistic vision of reality that is devoid of doctrine or dogma and therefore literally the worldview of an atheist?

            >shared definition
            Christians see Yaweh making pronouncements and dictating standards of behavior and punishing those who do not abide by scripture, which the Logos doesn't do, as it lacks will and consciousness.

            >bad fruit
            If I told you that this shiny red apple was actually a mango, would you call it a mango, even after you ate it and it tasted exactly like an apple?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So you admit it's an atheistic vision of reality that is devoid of doctrine or dogma and therefore literally the worldview of an atheist?

            This describes Genesis 1
            In the beginning of God pre-paring the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
            And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

            The cosmos was there. God creates through division, be defining this thing that is "devoid of doctrine and dogma" (spoken rules).

            I would not call it Atheism, I would call it A Theism. Or maybe, a Theos. Because it is a mental framework.

            Once we start defining the void, and it has a name, and a judgment, then its no longer formless. It is now mental framework that we can share with others.

            Language isn't needed by Sigmas.
            Only the great assembly has use of it.
            You could probably do all your thinking (data processing) subconsciously, if you didn't need to transmit your understanding to others. And you could just experience life without words.

            >dictating standards of behavior and punishing those who do not abide by scripture, which the Logos doesn't do.
            The Logos does do this. The laws of physics will punish you if you jump off a cliff. Therefore, there is a doctrine in your DNA, that tells you not to do it. There is also a spiritual code in the neurons of your brain that tell you not to do it.

            >would you call it a mango
            If we name it, "mango", it is a mango.

            Where two or more gather in my name, there am I with them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This describes Genesis 1
            lol
            Bible kind of a whole package deal

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This describes Genesis 1
            Not at all unless you completely discount what the book says
            >re interpreting dogma
            Not gonna play semantic games here pal
            >a theos
            Nope. Atheistic
            >define the void and give it a name
            We have a name, it's called the Universe

            >gravity happening is punishment for jumping
            No it isn't. It's nature acting as it always has. The logos prescribes nothing for good or ill
            >there is doctrine in your DNA telling you not to do it
            Children have DNA and fell off cliffs all the time. I saw adults do it too. Its not doctrinal unless you choose to completely disregard what doctrine means

            >it's a mango if I call it a mango
            Incorrect. It's a label and you chose to refer to it incorrectly because your search for truth has blinded you to anything approaching rationality.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not gonna play semantic games
            >We have a name, it's called ...
            >unless you choose to completely disregard what ... means
            >Incorrect. It's a label and you chose to refer to ... incorrectly
            Good Luck.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You disregarded the text itself for the sake of sophistry
            You choose to call an apple a mango because you subscribe to some brainrot that allows you to just mislabel something for rhetorical purposes and call it a search for truth, anon. The Greek masters would call you a moron homosexual and you would decide it means enlightened seeker lmao

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We chose to call the fruit a mango together.
            It was your idea, not mine. If you want to call it an apple, we can call it an apple.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anyone with eyes to see and a tongue to taste could see it was an apple but you chose to listen when it was purposefully called something else to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. You're no truth seeker.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know it's not a manzana?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I would not call it Atheism, I would call it A Theism. Or maybe, a Theos.
            It’s unreal how you fricking nerds don’t realize you are the fedoras now. This is the exact same energy of new atheists.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The individual letters mean
            Yahweh <- Yao <- Jove (Jupiter)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I base my understanding on the paleo pictographs. The reason I started doing this, was because it is said that you should not speak that name YHWH. This leads me to believe that the meaning is not phonetic, and that the individual characters have meaning is individual concepts. Ever sense I started doing this, YHWH made a lot more sense in The Bible as a type of egregore, or holy spirit, or great assembly of perceptive entities ( people ).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I know that God doesn't exist
            Did God tell you so?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, but I don't believe in Batman either so maybe I'm just moronic

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Could an invisible Batman be in your room?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's highly unlikely so I wouldn't base my life around the notion of an invisible Batman

            I do crime all the time so he would have kicked my ass by now

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't answer the question.
            I thought I'd just leave it out but it seems it's compulsory when questioning an atheist.
            Could an invisible Batman be in your room? Yes or No?
            No trannie answers allowed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's highly unlikely and he hasn't beaten me up for being a criminal yet so I would say there's no invisible Batman in my room.

            If he is here then he's not a very good Batman because he's not doing his job.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This dude seriously believes an invisible Batman exists in his room lmao

            Literally schizophrenic

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You believe in an invisible Batman delivering justice via fists lol

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Slimy weasel still hasn't answered the question.
            >His concession is accepted.
            >Retorts with "No U".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            .
            Yes.
            I believe it's logically possible there's an invisible batman under my bed.
            Go on, crush me with your rhetoric.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I didn't ask you if an invisible batman could exist logically, hypothetically, mathematically, probably, likely, or anything.
            I simply asked if you an invisible Batman could be in your room with a yes or no. A simple yes or no would suffice as I didn't ask you anything else.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I said 'yes'
            I'm giving you what you want

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, an invisible Batman could be in my room.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. With God, anything is possible.
            Atheists will never understand this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you are surely jesting, but just the other day we had christians here desperately claiming that there are things god is incapable of doing. of coure that was because the argument would not have gone their way otherwise.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Invisible Batman couldn't be in my room because _______ (fill in the blank)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already answered you and said no you blithering moron. You seem to lack basic comprehension of the English language

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already answered it , you're just too fricking stupid to understand it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            With God, anything is possible

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Getting these people to admit that this means they *believe* there is no God is like pulling teeth. Obviously atheists can see this is absurd too, but they can't openly say it, because their whole ideology depends on it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That definition admits agnostics.

        Imagine you see a gum ball machine about half full of gum balls.
        Here is a positive claim about it - there are 63 gum balls inside it. Group A affirms this.
        You can have an opposite positive claim, that there aren’t 63 gum balls in it, it’s certainly some other number. Group B affirms this.
        But it isn’t necessary to deny that there are exactly 63 gum balls in the machine to not affirm the positive claim. Someone might say that it is possible, but unlikely that there are exactly 63 gum balls in the machine. Someone might say that saying how many gum balls are in the machine is impossible, because the machine might be full of bouncy balls, with a layer of gum balls around them.
        Nor is it necessary to construct arguments for why there isn’t 63 gum balls in the machine, or to say there are 62 or 114 gum balls in the machine in order to be opposed to those who say there are 63 gum balls.
        The purpose of defining atheism negatively is to admit all people who don’t believe in God, like agnostics and people who have never even heard of this notion of ‘God’, like one might imagine is true of some people in isolated Buddhist or animist communities.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There must be a shorter way to formulate your point

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bashing your head in might ultimately be the more efficient option.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            p and ¬p are not all positions. Agnosticism and ignorance of p are possible and neither.

            I do admit agnostics, that's why atheists want to larp as them.
            [...]
            These people are natural obscurantists. Circumlocution is their primary mode of argument because they can't argue honestly, so they want to make things as confusing as possible. This is an entirely unconscious process for them.

            No, that definition, as in…
            >Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
            …admits agnostics. You can call my explanation verbose, but it isn’t obscure.
            Here’s a simpler one.
            Proposition: the first coin ever flipped came up heads.
            It isn’t necessary to believe that the first coin ever flipped came up tails to not be numbered among those who dogmatically assert that it certainly came up heads.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I do admit agnostics, that's why atheists want to larp as them.

          There must be a shorter way to formulate your point

          These people are natural obscurantists. Circumlocution is their primary mode of argument because they can't argue honestly, so they want to make things as confusing as possible. This is an entirely unconscious process for them.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Before the universe, there was an eternity of nothing
    Powerful stuff...
    Well maybe you wait REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY long nothing becomes something, then we can put a smart word on it like "ex nihilo", which mean nothing.

    Yes this is what Atheist actually believe, their God is "nothing".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and then god created everything from nothing

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Or.. He always was?
        We're choosing between 2 things
        FOREVER THERE WAS NOTHING THAT CREATED SOMETHING
        or
        FOREVER THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT CREATED SOMETHING.

        This is what it boils down to. You may laugh at me for believing in an eternal "someone" but I'll laugh at you for believing in an eternal "nothing" and at judgement day we'll find out who was right, but I hedge my bets at someone rather than no one.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So god that always existed created the universe from nothing; thanks for confirming it; also infinite past is illofical

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He created us, using himself, his essence is that of creation, among other things.

            In fact he created us in his image, that's why we like to create things also.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What about the possibility, espoused by hundreds of millions, that you will receive everlasting torture for not affirming the correct (Islamic, Christian other than your own Christianity, etc.) confession? Surely you credit this as a real possibility?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah based on simply Greek philosophy and a general overview of the nature of Christianity I am 100% confident in that if any religion is true on earth it's Christianity.

            Islam is a poor fanfic
            Judaism didn't listen to the most obvious prophet in the world.
            No other religion works as good with basic logic as Christianity, even if that logic is absurd, extreme, scary, humbling it is pure logic, in the areas where it matters anyhow. There is 1 creator, with a very complex structure but logical.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible says Pi is 3.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're dodging the question. What if your denomination of Christianity is wrong? What if the Calvinists are right? Or Orthodox?

            >Christianity is the only logical answer
            Why does the creator of the universe and architect of all things need to conform to your human and flawed notion of logic?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He created it from his imagination. He imagined it and then spoke it into existence. You were designed, you were not a fish that turned into a beaver that turned into a monkey and then into your dad.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >god created everything from nothing
          >nonono, god actually imagined everything from nothing and then created it from nothing anyway. It's totally different.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I don't believe God created the universe from TO BEGIN WITH.
            He created it and that's about it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, so? Where's the weird part?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Put your mind in a blank, what's in it? Nothing. Now imagine an apple. Where did the apple came from? Nowhere, you just imagined it. Now If you were as powerful as The Almighty God then you could manifest that apple into physical existence. But you're not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >something came from nothing with extra steps

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The imagined apple is just composition of apples retrieved from memory. How would a colourblind man imagine colours without ever seeing colours before?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How would a colourblind man imagine colours without ever seeing colours before?
            Parables.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He created everything. He just made it all up. Things are red because he imagined red and then red happened.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Our imagination are just recreations of what we are already familiar with. Even creatives like writers and artists just shuffle around what they already know or experienced into new and novel forms and patterns. A man in a vacuum could not imagine anything.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >He created it from his imagination. He imagined it and then spoke it into existence
          How does he do that? How imagining something cause it to exist

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God got a superpower to always get what he wants

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In the beginning, before you define reality, when you first open your eyes, you will see undefined chaos. When you see a tree, you use pattern recognition to define it, and you give it. Name. "tree". You have now formed the concept of a "tree" in your mined, and given it a name. Before doing this, it was just a mass of color that was indistinguishable from the rest of reality.

            This mental framework is God.
            In greek, the word is "Theos".
            It's the root word of Theory.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I just tried this, and it didn't cause a tree to exist

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The tree is part of the cosmos (world).

            According to Genesis, the infinite formless void was there in the beginning. Elohim ( a plural word that is translated as God) creates through division of what already exists. He seperates/defines the cosmos.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Yes this is what Atheist actually believe, their God is "nothing".

      [...]

      >Whilst zero is certainly alien to the Father, there is no differentiation from zero.
      >This is why capital production is the consummating phase of nihilism, the liquidation of theological irreligion, the twilight of the idols. Modernity is virtual thanocracy guided insidiously by zero; the epoch of the death of God. There is no God but (only) zero—indifferentiation without unity—and *nihil* is true religion."

      Problems, officer?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >americlap education

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ESL Christisraelite made another thread with a screenshot of a post that was moronic when he wrote it, despite not being able to understand his Anglophone interlocutors
    Did I get that right?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no atheism, without theism

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A true Atheist lacks all form of communication, and exists in a vacuum. It's like anarchy. It's an unstable concept that does not exist in reality. It can be used to protest against theology, but the protest itself is a theology.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There are no people lack of belief in god without people who believe in god

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's meaningless to say anyone "lacks a belief in God", unless there's someone who believes in God
        I can name an infinite amount of words that you lack a belief in, but they are meaningless gibberish without people who beliefs in them

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: anon learns about double negatives

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no. atheism is just "you haven't convinced me about your story".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody in interested in your conviction or what you think is real or not though.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then why are you obsessing over it?

        Why are believers always seething so hard that someone else somewhere doesn't have the same brainworms as them?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't believe in miracles until I saw my dog turn into a snake

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism is a stance regarding a claim, "God exist", that it's false

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the same thing as claiming that God doesn't exist.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't even know what a God is supposed to be

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >sly
    You got utterly BTFO like the slimy weasel you are.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's true. I was a theist until my theistic arguments were btfo. Now I am an atheist.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Honest question: Do you legitimately think that talking to each other will ever help anyone speak your language.
    Yes. Language changes all the time, and when two cultures come together, they develope new slang, and new ideas together. It happens all the time. But it takes two to form a relationship.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    more like
    >I don't believe in any Deity

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're crossing a vast desert. You're following the birds and all the other signs your people have learned to follow when traveling in the desert. For hundreds of years they'd plied the sands, surviving by getting water from oases that dot the expanse. Today it has been too long since you had anything to drink, and you have resigned that the desert signs have led you to your death. But then just as your legs seem about to fail you, you come to a welcome oasis, and you rejoice. You think,
    >Someone has put this oasis here for me, because they knew I would be thirsty when I arrived. I am so grateful to that benevolent spirit! If it had been anywhere else but here, I surely would have died by nightfall.
    ...But you're just (forgivably) delirious. The oasis has been there for hundreds of years before you arrived. It wasn't placed there, it formed because of a channel of groundwater that formed thousands of years before that. In fact this place used to be green and all-giving, but it turned to sand even before your people showed up. Your people only made their home in this area because there was water to be had. Other clans who tried to settle waterless lands either died or moved on. Your people over time learned the signs that pointed to water, through experience and observation, and taught them to you. And that's how you came upon an oasis today and saved your life. But reeling from dehydration, it strikes you as some sort of miracle that exactly what you need happens to be where you need it to be.

    The next day as you're crossing the sands, you see a bleached skeleton still bearing some rags of foreign clothes. Some fool who -- apparently -- wasn't favored by the spirit that provides for your people. Unless there's some other explanation. One thing's for sure, what he needed wasn't where he needed it to be.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Your people over time learned the signs that pointed to water, through experience and observation, and taught them to you.
      >I am so grateful to that benevolent spirit.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Before the universe, there was an eternity of God
    Powerful stuff...
    Well maybe you wait REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY long timeless time, God decides to create something from nothing, for no reason, then we can put a smart word on it like "ex nihilo", which mean nothing.

    Yes this is what Christian actually believe

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