It's real easy to understand. We evolved from apes. Christianity is man-made mythology with no proof. God does not exist.

Any questions?

>>17870589 (OP)
>Christianity is man-made mythology with no proof.
Evolution has no proof either. The term is evidence. And Christianity has a volume of evidence from textual to historical to people outright seeing God. It's just that you don't currently have any method to evaluate said evidence. So all your conclusions are apriori invalid.

>>17870601
ChatGPT, give me a list of the proofs of evolution.

>Fossils of transitional species – Example: Archaeopteryx shows traits of both dinosaurs and birds.
>Human and chimpanzee DNA is 98–99% the same – Strong evidence of common ancestry.
>Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics – Evolution happening in real time.

Yep, I'm gonna have to say you're a retard.

>>17870610
Please ask ChatGPT to explain to you the difference between proof and evidence. You have been filtered.

>>17870589 (OP)
>it's not real because i say so
Woah...

>>17870601
ChatGPT, debunk this retard's argument.

>This argument misrepresents both evolution and the nature of evidence. Evolution is supported by extensive empirical proof—from fossils, DNA, and observed speciation to lab experiments—meeting rigorous scientific standards. In contrast, religious claims, including those about Christianity, rely largely on faith-based texts, personal experiences, and historical interpretation, which aren't testable or falsifiable in the scientific sense. Saying others “have no method” to evaluate such claims assumes all knowledge requires the same kind of validation, ignoring the clear distinction between faith and science. Dismissing scientific conclusions as a priori invalid simply because they differ from one’s beliefs is not a rebuttal—it's a refusal to engage with the evidence.

Thanks again, ChatGPT.

>>17870620
You just proved both halves of my argument. Are you trolling or genuinely unaware?

>>17870616
ChatGPT, answer this retard and put him in his place.

>If evolution is true—which science supports through overwhelming evidence—then the need for a literal, interventionist God as described in the Bible diminishes. Evolution explains the diversity of life through natural processes like mutation and natural selection, without requiring divine creation or guidance. This directly contradicts the biblical account of life being created fully formed in six days and humans being specially made in God's image. From an atheistic and scientific standpoint, if natural processes can account for life’s complexity without supernatural input, then the God described in the Bible becomes unnecessary and unsupported by observable evidence—making His existence unlikely from that perspective.

>>17870627
Fossils are proof. DNA is proof. Seeing evolution take place in real time is proof. Fuck you Christcuck retard.

>>17870633
No. Fossils are evidence. "Proof" is mostly reserved for mathematics or niche uses. Not a single fossil is "proof".

>>17870639
ChatGPT, refute this.

>Fossils aren’t just vague “evidence”—they show transitional forms that directly confirm evolutionary predictions. For example, Tiktaalik is a 375-million-year-old fossil with both fish and tetrapod (land animal) features—exactly what evolution predicts for the water-to-land transition. Its discovery was not random; scientists predicted where and in what layer such a fossil should appear, and they found it there. That’s more than evidence—it’s confirmed, testable prediction, a hallmark of scientific proof. So while "proof" in science builds cumulatively, fossils like Tiktaalik demonstrate evolution happening across time in concrete, observable ways.

>>17870639
Earth is round
Space is real
Nukes exist
Evolution happened
The Bible is false
God is fake

>>17870645
I didn't say "vague" or "random". Try again. Use Plus.

>>17870647
>God is fake
Proof? Oh boy you're cooked.

>>17870649
>You're right that fossils are evidence, not "proof" in the mathematical sense—but in science, repeated, testable, and predictive evidence does build to reliable conclusions. Evolution isn’t based on one fossil—it's confirmed by thousands of transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik (fish to amphibian), Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), and Australopithecus (ape-like ancestor to human). These weren’t just found—they were predicted by evolutionary theory based on geology and genetics. That predictive success is exactly what separates strong science from unsupported claims. So while no single fossil is absolute “proof,” the totality of the fossil record functions as proof in the scientific sense: consistent, repeatable, and explanatory.

One of the most impressive patterns in history that I noticed is the pendulum swing in atheism.
The New Atheist movement in the 2010s schooled Christians on science, evidence, burden of proof, positivism etc... and 15 years later the exact opposite is happening. Atheists are yapping about "negative claims don't have a burden" despite entire papers being published about this not being true, atheists can't differentiate evidence from proof, empiricism from current scientific methods.... It's outstanding.

>>17870651
>God is fake because there's no verifiable, testable evidence for His existence—unlike natural explanations that consistently hold up under scientific scrutiny. Claims about God often rely on ancient texts, personal experiences, or miracles that cannot be independently verified or falsified. In contrast, the universe operates according to natural laws that don't require supernatural intervention. As science has advanced, gaps once filled by "God did it" have been explained naturally—suggesting that God is a human invention used to explain the unknown, rather than a real, observable being.

>>17870656
>it's not proof
>it just has 3 features proof also has
QED

>>17870663
Argument from silence fallacy. Try again.

>>17870660
This argument completely misrepresents atheism and the principles of logic. The burden of proof always rests on the person making a positive claim—whether that’s belief in God or anything else—and this isn’t a “new” atheist idea but a fundamental rule of rational debate. Claiming atheists confuse evidence with proof or reject empiricism ignores that science relies on testable, repeatable evidence, not faith or unsupported assertions. What the argument calls a “pendulum swing” is actually just a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of ongoing discussions in philosophy and science, not a collapse of atheist reasoning. In reality, atheism remains firmly grounded in critical thinking and demands evidence before belief, while theists often rely on unfalsifiable claims precisely because they lack it.

>>17870671
>"new" atheist idea
New Atheism is a movement.
Try again.

cont >>17870660
The fact OP is fumbling a thread even though he consults (or copies) most of his replies from a LLM is such a case in point. Materialists are the creationists of the online ecosphere now.

>>17870672
>>17870674
The concept of the God described in the Bible claims to be omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, yet the existence of unnecessary evil, suffering, and contradictions in the world conflicts directly with these attributes. For example, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God would not allow gratuitous suffering or evil to exist, yet such suffering is widespread and undeniable. This logical contradiction means the biblical God, as defined, cannot exist—because the attributes assigned to Him are mutually incompatible with the observable reality. Therefore, the God of the Bible is logically disproven by the presence of evil and suffering that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being could and would prevent.

>>17870673
>>17870673
>>17870673

>>17870676
>an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God would not allow gratuitous suffering or evil to exist
Non sequitur.
>God of the Bible
The goalpost is God.

Try again.

>>17870679
bot thread

Also, for anyone interested - "the POSITIVE claim has the burden" is a shorthand that expresses a conventional approach, not a logical law. Every single positive claim has an equivalent negative claim. Theism doesn't suddenly lose its burden by rephrasing its position into "there exists NO God-less universe". And "this paper is not blue" is still subject to empirical verification and to proof in the colloquial sense.

>>17870688
no one is interested

>>17870679
Consciousness is the direct result of physical processes in a brain or equivalent material structure; without such a structure, consciousness cannot exist. Since a disembodied mind lacks any physical substrate to produce or sustain awareness, it is impossible for it to have thoughts, intentions, or experiences. Therefore, the concept of a disembodied mind—such as an immaterial God—is logically impossible and cannot exist.

>>17870696
>Consciousness is the direct result of physical processes
Proof?

>>17870688
Theists are having a meltdown that no one wants to worship their dead jew on a stick with them anymore

>>17870702
he said, posting 10 more bot threads
captcha: GPT8W

>>17870698
Here’s the proof: Extensive scientific research shows that changes to the brain directly affect consciousness. For example, brain injuries can alter personality, memory, and awareness; anesthesia reliably suppresses conscious experience by affecting brain activity; and brain scans reveal that specific thoughts and feelings correspond to physical patterns of neural firing. If consciousness were independent of the brain, these physical changes wouldn’t impact awareness so consistently. The direct, repeatable link between brain states and conscious experience proves that consciousness arises from physical processes.

Proof Jesus was raised from the dead and the story isn't just a made up lie?

>>17870711
can you translate this to Chinese for the people who care?

>>17870711
>If consciousness were independent of the brain, these physical changes wouldn’t impact awareness so consistently.
Non-sequitur

Try again.

>>17870589 (OP)
Paranthropus Aethiopicus is the biggest chad in that lineup. We need to RETVRN

>>17870715
Not until you prove your magic Jew rose from the dead and flew into heaven

>>17870725
Oh snap. Even with ChatGPT you could not prove one of the most basic claims you made. Do you now see what I mean when I say "Materialists are the creationists of the online ecosphere now."? An average snarky youtuber in the 2010s would select a bible-thumper as his target and take them apart. Now we have threads where you're sweating blood trying to get ChatGPT to assist you in using fallacies.

>>17870736
I proved every claim, you just refuse to accept it because you want your magic jew to be real so bad.

>>17870746
>I proved every claim, you just refuse to accept Jesus into your heart and Satan tricked you
Whatever similarities I saw were purely accidental, I see it now.

>>17870751
You're saying materialists are wrong? What proof do you have of something supernatural beyond the material world?

>>17870763
Not only are they wrong, they are bottom feeders of the public discourse. The fact you had ChatGPT to guide your every step and you still ended up committing non-sequiturs and fallacies every step of the way should have made this clear enough.
>what proof
You mean evidence? See >>17870656 and >>17870664

>>17870751
Hey, good luck with your invisible Jew in the sky watching you masturbate!

>>17870773
I asked you for proof of something supernatural beyond the material world. You don't have it, you never will. Your tactic is to just call fallacy where there isn't one. Evolution happened, and you'll just have to seethe about it until you're dead.

>>17870785
>proof
Again.... you mean evidence? I literally linked you to your own post where GPT explained to you the difference.

>>17870792
No, I don't want evidence, you'll just claim you stubbed your toe and prayed and the pain went away and you'll count that as evidence. Fuck your evidence, Christcuck. I want the PROOF.

>>17870796
>I don't want evidence
Suit yourself.

>>17870601
Dog breeds are proof of evolution. And that it happens far quicker than scientists like to pretend.

>>17870797
Your evidence is:
The Bible

Yeah, fuck off and die in a car accident you piece of shit.

I live by the law of nature, I do the opposite of everything Jesus said. I hate my enemies and never turn the other cheek.

Girls, girls. You're both full of shit.

>>17870801
Somewhat but at the same time I disagree. For example Norway Maple is an infamous invasive tree species in North America. It was first introduced in the 18th century from Europe. After 250 years it is still an invasive species and native wildlife has not learned to make a food source of it.

>>17870660
To the extent that the average atheist is getting worse at supporting their position, (and I'm not sure this really is the case on the whole), I would suggest that this is just a sign of atheism gaining ground culturally, persuading more people who aren't as deeply invested in the reasoning and philosophy around the topic.

>>17870711
Extensive scientific research shows that by pressing buttons, turning knobs, and messing with the wiring on my radio, I can alter and distort the music stations and talk shows coming out. If the music stations and talk shows were independent of the radio, these physical changes wouldn't impact them so consistently. This direct, repeatable link proves that talk shows and music arise from the inner workings of my radio.

>>17870878
Radio stations and radio waves are material

>>17870882
Really? I had no idea.

>>17870891
So you're saying something material interacting with something material is like something supernatural.

No.

>>17870894
I'm suggesting that consciousness can't be reduced to physical processes, and I gave an analogy in terms of physical processes for why the reasoning given to conclude that it is doesn't work. Whether you want to call that supernatural or not is up to you. I think consciousness is just something fundamental alongside physical processes.

>>17870911
Why? You're just adding unneeded and unprovable complexity all because you want the magic flying jew to be real so you can live in his castle in the sky.

>>17870919
I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. I just genuinely think consciousness is not reducible to physics because it seems to be undeniably so to me. It's something very basic and I can't imagine how rearranging non-conscious atoms in just the right way would produce it out of thin air, at least unless you want to add a basic law of physics saying: "When you arrange atoms in roughly the following way, you get consciousness."

>>17870589 (OP)
Explanado?

>>17870919
>Why? You're just adding unneeded and unprovable complexity
No. He's being skeptical of your premises.

>>17870928
>"When you arrange atoms in roughly the following way, you get consciousness."
I guess more accurately it requires the atoms to be moving and interacting in a certain fairly consistent way, so the required arrangement or pattern extends through time as well as space. But still I think it's plainly inexplicable how you get consciousness out of that without adding an extra law treating consciousness as a basic thing that just does happen when certain requirements are met. That by itself seems like an unattractive view unless someone can phrase it in a way that doesn't seem really convoluted and arbitrary though. There's a guy named David Chalmers who seems to subscribe to something along those lines though, which he calls naturalistic dualism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
>Chalmers characterizes his view as "naturalistic dualism": naturalistic because he believes mental states supervene "naturally" on physical systems (such as brains); dualist because he believes mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible to physical systems.
>Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties, and that there may be lawlike rules which he terms "psychophysical laws" that determine which physical systems are associated with which types of qualia.