Anonymous
6/21/2025, 9:13:54 AM No.936055334
KNEEL BEFORE YOUR KING
Replies:
Thread 936055334 - /b/ [Archived: 837 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 9:14:35 AM No.936055349
The atheist position ultimately collapses under its own weight because it lacks a sufficient foundation for the very concepts it relies on, such as logic, morality, and reason. Without God, there is no ultimate standard by which truth, ethics, or rationality can be objectively grounded. The atheist is left appealing to consensus, whether it be the authority of experts or the majority opinion of a culture, but these are contingent and mutable. What is considered "rational" or "moral" today may be overturned tomorrow, and without a transcendent source, there is no fixed reference point to judge between competing systems, nor the possibility of authoritative claims.
If the laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging, then they cannot arise from a purely material, time-bound, and subjective universe. If reason is a valid pathway to truth, then it must be anchored in something greater than human brains that evolved through random processes for survival, not truth. If moral obligations are real and not merely preferences, they require a moral lawgiver whose nature defines goodness.
In denying God, the atheist still borrows from the Christian worldview to make arguments, trusting in the a priori existence of reason, logic, and objective morality, even while rejecting the only foundation that makes those concepts meaningful. Thus, atheism is internally incoherent. It presupposes the very things that only the existence of God can account for, and in doing so, it affirms what it seeks to deny. Without God, the possibility of intelligible experience itself collapses. Atheism is self-refuting
If the laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging, then they cannot arise from a purely material, time-bound, and subjective universe. If reason is a valid pathway to truth, then it must be anchored in something greater than human brains that evolved through random processes for survival, not truth. If moral obligations are real and not merely preferences, they require a moral lawgiver whose nature defines goodness.
In denying God, the atheist still borrows from the Christian worldview to make arguments, trusting in the a priori existence of reason, logic, and objective morality, even while rejecting the only foundation that makes those concepts meaningful. Thus, atheism is internally incoherent. It presupposes the very things that only the existence of God can account for, and in doing so, it affirms what it seeks to deny. Without God, the possibility of intelligible experience itself collapses. Atheism is self-refuting
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 9:14:43 AM No.936055355
He's gonna free Iran bless him
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 10:42:06 AM No.936057052
Scariest part is that i cannot be 100% sure some retarded murician rightoid boomer doesn't have an image/poster like this hanged in his room.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 10:47:40 AM No.936057138
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 10:51:26 AM No.936057185
>im a dumb white fag
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:08:14 AM No.936057477
>>936055349
>The atheist position ultimately collapses under its own weight-
This is a strawman on it's face because the "position" is that a god hasn't come down and proven themself to be a deity, much less a deity that is backing a particular hierarchical order vying for political dominance.
>- because it lacks a sufficient foundation for the very concepts it relies on-
It's not designed as a foundation. It's an acknowledgement that people fucking lie. They often lie for their own advantage.
>- such as logic, morality, and reason.
Atheism doesn't rely on logic, morality, nor reason.
>Without God, there is no ultimate standard by which truth, ethics, or rationality can be objectively grounded.
Even if so, that doesn't fix the problem that god has not shown themselves nor provided us with objective ethical standards. People have stepped forth and claimed to be prophets or divinely inspired. Odds are they were all charlatans.
1/4
>The atheist position ultimately collapses under its own weight-
This is a strawman on it's face because the "position" is that a god hasn't come down and proven themself to be a deity, much less a deity that is backing a particular hierarchical order vying for political dominance.
>- because it lacks a sufficient foundation for the very concepts it relies on-
It's not designed as a foundation. It's an acknowledgement that people fucking lie. They often lie for their own advantage.
>- such as logic, morality, and reason.
Atheism doesn't rely on logic, morality, nor reason.
>Without God, there is no ultimate standard by which truth, ethics, or rationality can be objectively grounded.
Even if so, that doesn't fix the problem that god has not shown themselves nor provided us with objective ethical standards. People have stepped forth and claimed to be prophets or divinely inspired. Odds are they were all charlatans.
1/4
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:08:45 AM No.936057486
>>936055349
>The atheist is left appealing to consensus-
False. The general consensus of humanity is a god exists.
>- whether it be the authority of experts-
No, that's just occam's razor--flawed as it may be.
>- or the majority opinion of a culture-
No. Atheists are free to buck opinion and dominate culture.
>- but these are contingent and mutable.
Sure.
>What is considered "rational" or "moral" today may be overturned tomorrow-
Sure. Happens in religions too. Hence schisms and sects.
>- and without a transcendent source-
Oh no. Evidently even with transcendence you still get overturn.
>- there is no fixed reference point to judge between competing systems-
Oh no. Evidently even with (a) fixed reference point(s) you still get inability to decisively judge. Doubly so if one is leaving all judgments for god.
>- nor the possibility of authoritative claims.
Atheism isn't making an argument from authority.
>If the laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging-
Which they very well may not be. We've only experienced what these things might be here on Earth. We have not gone to Mars, let alone left this solar system, let alone gone to the other side of this galaxy, let alone to the other side of the universe to see what might be different.
2/4
>The atheist is left appealing to consensus-
False. The general consensus of humanity is a god exists.
>- whether it be the authority of experts-
No, that's just occam's razor--flawed as it may be.
>- or the majority opinion of a culture-
No. Atheists are free to buck opinion and dominate culture.
>- but these are contingent and mutable.
Sure.
>What is considered "rational" or "moral" today may be overturned tomorrow-
Sure. Happens in religions too. Hence schisms and sects.
>- and without a transcendent source-
Oh no. Evidently even with transcendence you still get overturn.
>- there is no fixed reference point to judge between competing systems-
Oh no. Evidently even with (a) fixed reference point(s) you still get inability to decisively judge. Doubly so if one is leaving all judgments for god.
>- nor the possibility of authoritative claims.
Atheism isn't making an argument from authority.
>If the laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging-
Which they very well may not be. We've only experienced what these things might be here on Earth. We have not gone to Mars, let alone left this solar system, let alone gone to the other side of this galaxy, let alone to the other side of the universe to see what might be different.
2/4
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:09:15 AM No.936057494
>>936055349
>- then they cannot arise from a purely material, time-bound, and subjective universe.
Sure they can. The electrical impulses firing through your synapses are material phenomenon.
>If reason is a valid pathway to truth-
It can be.
>- then it must be anchored in something greater than human brains that evolved through random processes for survival, not truth.
100% non-sequitur.
>If moral obligations are real and not merely preferences-
Morals are proto-laws. If enough people like a thing or hate a thing that coalesces into an ought and if even more people like a thing or hate a thing that crystalizes and codifies into a law.
These are not "merely preferences," people get killed for crossing laws and even crossing morals, depending.
>- they require a moral lawgiver whose nature defines goodness.
And yet there has never been an instance of a deity coming down to give laws and still laws exist.
3/4
>- then they cannot arise from a purely material, time-bound, and subjective universe.
Sure they can. The electrical impulses firing through your synapses are material phenomenon.
>If reason is a valid pathway to truth-
It can be.
>- then it must be anchored in something greater than human brains that evolved through random processes for survival, not truth.
100% non-sequitur.
>If moral obligations are real and not merely preferences-
Morals are proto-laws. If enough people like a thing or hate a thing that coalesces into an ought and if even more people like a thing or hate a thing that crystalizes and codifies into a law.
These are not "merely preferences," people get killed for crossing laws and even crossing morals, depending.
>- they require a moral lawgiver whose nature defines goodness.
And yet there has never been an instance of a deity coming down to give laws and still laws exist.
3/4
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:09:56 AM No.936057508
>>936055349
>In denying God-
That is not what they're doing. They're saying *you* are full of shit. Not god, *you*. And *you* will stop being full of shit once you summon forth god to manifest in this material universe to vouch and back up these objective ethical standards you attribute to it.
We're not going to just take your word for it. Fucking prove it, summon the deity forth. Let the deity speak for itself.
>- the atheist still borrows from the Christian worldview to make arguments-
That's a complete lie. Arguments have predated christianity.
>- trusting in the a priori existence of reason, logic, and objective morality, even while rejecting the only foundation that makes those concepts meaningful.
More like trusting that we each only get 5 senses, maximum, and some people bare false witness in the use of theirs. Moreover, who cares if you only see meaning in those pursuits only if it venerates your god?
>Thus, atheism is internally incoherent.
Do people lie? Yes they do.
Coherent.
>It presupposes the very things that only the existence of God can account for, and in doing so, it affirms what it seeks to deny.
I think, therefore I am is the only affirmation necessary.
>Without God, the possibility of intelligible experience itself collapses. Atheism is self-refuting
0/10. Lame argument based on strawmen.
4/4
>In denying God-
That is not what they're doing. They're saying *you* are full of shit. Not god, *you*. And *you* will stop being full of shit once you summon forth god to manifest in this material universe to vouch and back up these objective ethical standards you attribute to it.
We're not going to just take your word for it. Fucking prove it, summon the deity forth. Let the deity speak for itself.
>- the atheist still borrows from the Christian worldview to make arguments-
That's a complete lie. Arguments have predated christianity.
>- trusting in the a priori existence of reason, logic, and objective morality, even while rejecting the only foundation that makes those concepts meaningful.
More like trusting that we each only get 5 senses, maximum, and some people bare false witness in the use of theirs. Moreover, who cares if you only see meaning in those pursuits only if it venerates your god?
>Thus, atheism is internally incoherent.
Do people lie? Yes they do.
Coherent.
>It presupposes the very things that only the existence of God can account for, and in doing so, it affirms what it seeks to deny.
I think, therefore I am is the only affirmation necessary.
>Without God, the possibility of intelligible experience itself collapses. Atheism is self-refuting
0/10. Lame argument based on strawmen.
4/4
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:14:50 AM No.936057594
>>936055349
>words
This is what it takes to explain why you wake up early every Sunday to give money to the local pedophile
>words
This is what it takes to explain why you wake up early every Sunday to give money to the local pedophile
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:24:26 AM No.936057737
>>936057594
You forgot to mention that you are also going to be getting your face bashed in when you come to kneel before your king
You forgot to mention that you are also going to be getting your face bashed in when you come to kneel before your king
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:15:39 PM No.936059585
Cody Rhodes, is that you?
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:18:22 PM No.936059640
>>936055334 (OP)
homoerotic cult leader art is not welcome here. read the room before posting, anon.
homoerotic cult leader art is not welcome here. read the room before posting, anon.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:35:24 PM No.936059955
>>936055334 (OP)
homoerotic trump cultists
homoerotic trump cultists