Thread 512963039

The atheist movement in the US will not go away, as it is here to stay

>>512963039 (OP)
Didn’t notice.

>>512963039 (OP)
>kek

>>512963115
Alrighty

25% of the US population is atheist, as atheism is more mainstream than ever

Christianity has been on the decline in the US for decades

Atheism is the future

>>512963310
A true atheist doesn't have a label. You're a troll.

>>512963039 (OP)
Of course atheism is just embracing reality, never trust fiction worshipers they hate truth

>>512963039 (OP)
That's fine.
Their muslim pets are dead though.

>>512963039 (OP)
Bowel movement

>>512963039 (OP)
Atheism is staying. Movements come and go. I guess we'll see.

All gods are fake and gay.

>>512964061
I never said that atheism had a label, dumbo

>>512964278
>atheism is just embracing reality
It’s the assumption that all gaps of knowledge will be filled with evidence that disproves the existence of an intelligent design. This isn’t reality if the universe was designed.

>>512965048
How many times has scientific investigation uncovered a supernatural agent?

>>512963039 (OP)
We are not a movement, and making it one is a mistake.

We have an opinion on one subject unless we're using an asshole plugin.

>>512963299
UU churches are now ironically the whitetest clubs in the US

>>512963310
>25% of the US population is atheist

lol, no it's not. You just trying to lump agnostics and 'nothing in particulars' into your faggy atheist umbrella. Actual people that call themselves 'atheists' are a single-digit percentage.

>>512965463
To be fair some atheists are activists for atheism (e.g. Ed Raby). So atheism isn't a movement, but there is an atheist movement.

>>512963310
That must be why America is smarter and more rational.

>>512965236
Over 9000 times

>>512965463
>not a movement
Explain why it keeps becoming one. Reddit, Athiesm +, Marxism, etc.

>>512965852
Ok, do those people believe in a god? If not, they are atheist, regardless of what they call themselves.

>>512965960
>That must be why America is smarter and more rational.

Must be why America's heyday is in the rearview mirror.

>>512965048
Incorrect. It's just the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods

>>512965960
[X] doubt

>>512963039 (OP)
Mlady meme absolutely destroyed the atheists movement.

>>512963039 (OP)
K.
>>512963310
>>512963618
And?
>>512963908
We're in the atheist future *now,* is it everything you ever wanted?

>>512965960
The only commonality all atheist have is disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods

>>512963039 (OP)
But are they straight?

>>512966192
>We're in the atheist future *now,* is it everything you ever wanted?
This is the best time to be alive other than anytime before IMO

>>512965236
There’s been a concerted effort to suppress truths about the nature of reality by political and religious authorities since the beginning of human history. That mainstream academia still insists in 2025 that it’s a mystery how the human body produces endogenous DMT should be enough to wake anyone up. Then there’s fine tuning, the UAP phenomena, genocide of the Gnostic Cathars, the crucifixion of Christ and his disciples, the origin of life etc etc. It just goes on and on. It’s astonishing that people think mainstream academia has any credibility after they promoted super silly string theory, cultural Marxism, anthropogenic global warming, and Keynesian economics for decades. All complete nonsense.

>>512966153
you can't destroy reality

>>512966075
Belief or faith in God is a construct of organized Christianity. By that definition, atheism is just anti-Christianity. The Gnostic tradition, starting with Plato, has always made it clear that the existence of God is a knowable truth.

>>512966617
>Belief or faith in God is a construct of organized Christianity. By that definition, atheism is just anti-Christianity
Incredible strawman you built there.

I'm not anti Christianity for you. Beleive what you like my friend

>>512966617
>has always made it clear that the existence of God is a knowable truth.
But "knowable truth" is just personal feelings and opinions. Again, cool for you

>>512966795
The existence of God isn’t a personal feeling or opinion, it’s the objective truth about the fundamental nature of reality.

>>512966075
the claim that atheism is merely "disbelief or lack of belief in gods" suffers from a superficiality that fails to engage with its deeper epistemic and metaphysical commitments.
properly understood, atheism is not a passive absence but an active rejection of theism's central claims, claims which, if true, entail a radically different ontology.
to disbelieve in God is to affirm a naturalistic worldview wherein intentional, moral realism, and even rationality itself must be reconfigured as contingent products of unguided processes.
but such a position is far from neutral, it carries its own burden of proof, particularly in accounting for the existence of objective truths, the reliability of cognitive faculties and the very possibility of meaning.
a mere "lack of belief" cannot sustain these weighty implications.
moreover, if theism provides a better explanation for the grounding of necessary truths and the fine-tuning of the cosmos, then atheism's dismissal of God is not a default stance but a substantive and arguably insufficient philosophical position.
to reduce atheism to a passive disbelief is to ignore its active philosophical contest with theism's explanatory power.

>>512966957
>The existence of God isn’t a personal feeling or opinion
100% it is.
>>512966957
>it’s the objective truth about the fundamental nature of reality.
To you

>>512966962
>the claim that atheism is merely "disbelief or lack of belief in gods" suffers from a superficiality that fails to engage with its deeper epistemic and metaphysical commitments
Atheism doesn't have epistemic or metaphysical commitments

>>512966962
>atheism is not a passive absence but an active rejection of theism's central claims
It's both. Which breaks down into agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, see pic

>>512966795
the epistemological dialectical reasoning, metaphysical inquiry and systematic doubt anon is referring to is not "personal feelings"
plato's theory of forms, plotinus' hierarchy of being, or even the rigorous skepticism of descartes (who arrived at cogito ergo sum as a foundation for God's existence) aren't "opinions," they're frameworks for distinguishing subjective perception from objective truth.
if you're conflating personal feelings with the noetic capacity of the mind (a distinction central to classical philosophy), then you're not just disagreeing, you're demonstrating an unfamiliarity with the terms of the debate itself.

>>512967369
>the epistemological dialectical reasoning, metaphysical inquiry and systematic doubt anon is referring to is not "personal feelings"
I disagree. Everyone has their own subjective opinions on exactly is "metaphysical"

>>512963039 (OP)
Atheism is so fucking gay and cringe, it’s laughable
“Bro, I, like, totally don’t believe in any god, I am my own god, so, like, there you go, bro.”
Fucking gay ass edgy teens and fat greasy fucks, those are all who it appeals to.

>>512967632
>I am my own god
I don't believe that lol

>>512967165
the assertion that atheism lacks epistemic or metaphysical commitments is demonstrably false.
any worldview, including atheism, must account for the preconditions of knowledge, meaning and rationality itself.
if one denies God's existence, they implicitly affirm naturalistic ontology wherein human cognition arises from unguided processes.
but this raises the "evolutionary argument against naturalism."
if our cognitive faculties emerged via blind selection for survival rather than truth, we have no grounds to trust them, including our belief in atheism.
thus atheism does carry metaphysical baggage, it must either
1: bite the bullet and accept radical skepticism
2: posit an unjustified faith in the reliability of reason.

meanwhile, the sagan-esque taxonomy you posted merely lexicalizes belief-states without addressing their warrant. to claim atheism is "just a lack of belief" is like claiming skepticism is "just a lack of conviction," both stances collapse under their own epistemic weight when pressed to justify their conditions of possibility.

>>512967739
>the assertion that atheism lacks epistemic or metaphysical commitments is demonstrably false
Then demonstrate it.

>>512967739
>must account for the preconditions of knowledge, meaning and rationality itself.
And those are independent to each atheist as to why they lack belief
>goes onto a giant strawman
You aren't as smart as you're trying to sound

>>512967739
>survival rather than truth
You assume they aren't one in the same

>>512967519
your conflation of "metaphysics" with "subjective opinion" reveals a fundamental misunderstand of philosophy itself. metaphysics isn't a matter of personal taste, it's the study of the fundamental nature of reality, employing logical consistency, empirical coherence, and rational argumentation.
if you gentuinely belief that all metaphysical claims are merely subjective, then you must also reject:
>the laws of logic (since they are metaphysical principles, not physical objects)
>causality (since you cannot "see" causation, only its effects)
>your own claim (since its truth would require an objective framework to validate it)
by your logic, science itself is just "subjective opinion" because it relies on metaphysical assumptions (the uniformity of nature, the reliability of observation) so unless you're prepared to dismiss all structured knowledge as arbitrary, your objection collapses under its own weight.

>>512967704
Either way, still gay as fuck.
Having to announce you “believe in nothing” is child shit.

>>512966351
Why do you spend so much money on tin foil?

>>512968032
such a boring strawman.

>>512967739
Atheism isn't a worldview.
>Yes it is!
Nope.

>>512968000
>your conflation of "metaphysics" with "subjective opinion" reveals a fundamental misunderstand of philosophy itself.
Not really. It jist means I don't understand your personal feelings on what is or isn't metaphysical

>>512968000
>if you gentuinely belief that all metaphysical claims are merely subjective
Depends on the claim. God, for example is one of those subjective metaphysical claims

>>512968000
>by your logic, science itself is just "subjective opinion
Nope.

>>512968008
>Having to announce you “believe in nothing” is child shit.
Context matters but sure

>>512963039 (OP)
Lmfao it's already gone. It'll be illegal to believe in materialism in like a decade. I'm already building a local group to hunt you down and kill you in your mom's basements.

>>512963618
Now we just need to get rid of the leftover guilt.

>>512963039 (OP)
>movement
there is no movement m8. atheists already won in the 2000s.

>inb4 muh third worlders
Even they're rapidly becoming secular nowadays. Islam will start declining this century at some point.

>>512968032
Most atheists in the west are exchristian.
Christianity is the biggest and most familiar religion in the west.
Western atheists are simply focusing on what they're familiar with.
Atheist critiques of other religions exist.
How many times do I have to explain this?

>>512968456
This anon gets it
>>512968456
>How many times do I have to explain this?
These people aren't honest so it will never end unfortunately

>>512968281
Kek, if you think your replies in this thread are going to creat more fedorafags, I think youll find otherwise, but good luck, oh godless one, I’m sure you’ll figure it out one day.

>>512965960
Those are the assholes I was talking about.

The term 'noticing' has become popular lately. It's a neat shorthand for all sorts of people, from all parts of society these days who point out truths that the establishment considers inconvenient.

Atheists are just people who notice there are no _good_ reasons to believe in gods.

>>512967893
>>512967984
here you're conflating psychological justification (why individual atheists disbelieve) with epistemic justification (whether atheism can ground rational discourse at all),
the former is irrelevant to the metaphysical critique when pressed to demonstrate atheism’s commitments, observe:
1: if atheism is true, human cognition reduces to adaptive behavior, yet survival and truth cannot be conflated (false beliefs often enhance fitness)
2: without a theistic framework, there exists no necessary reason why logic or induction should correspond to reality, only contingent neurochemistry.
your appeal to “each atheist’s reasons” evades the core issue,
can atheism, as a worldview, sustain its own preconditions for knowledge? the answer is no.
naturalism’s brute facts cannot account for intentionality, abstract truths, or the very norms of reasoning you employ to debate this, dismissing this as a “strawman” merely begs the question, the burden remains, how does your ontology explain rationality’s existence without borrowing from theism’s explanatory resources?
>>512968281
>>512968244
>nope
>not really
>nope
>nuh uh
yeah, i'm done with you.

>>512965048
Atheism is not an assumption about anything. Its simply the rejection of clearly made up nonsense.

Also, you have got the need for proof backwards, things need to be proven not disproven. There are an infinite number of things that you could make up on the spot with zero evidence, imagine if you had to disprove everything that anyone just made up.

>>512968543
>if you think your replies in this thread are going to creat more fedorafags, I
I don't care about that. When there is theism there will also be arheism. Besides, Christians make more atheists then I can imagine lol

>>512968586
I accept your surrender.

>>512968586
Atheism is lack of belief in a god, an atheist could believe we live in a simulation where the natural rules are variables put in by higher order intelligence.
An atheist could belive the universe was created by fairies and magic folk and the laws of physics aren't real.
What arent you understanding?w

>>512963039 (OP)
Atheism logo is jew star. No way.
Why are they so comically, predictably evil? Do you even need pattern recognition at this stage?

You atheists better leave those commandments up this time. And you'd better be willing to be obedient to them. That's the bare minimum in having civic trust.
Take guard against your raw individualism and resentment towards Christianity and use its' application on society. I'm saying this because I don't want things to get worse.

>>512963039 (OP)
> The atheist movement in the US will not go away, as it is here to stay

No kidding.
It says in Revelation that they’ll be shaking their fists at God as they meet their end.

>>512965236
Never, not even possible. Anything which could be shown to exist would not be supernatural anymore. The supernatural has the intrinsic property of non-existence.

>>512963618
> Christianity has been on the decline in the US for decades

And it shows.

>>512968586
>1: if atheism is true
False premise. It being "true" is irrelevant its an opinion about a position.

Which means each atheist has their own reason for not believing.

You won't understand this either, wether it's on purpose or because you are low IQ remains a mystery but I think it's a bit of both

>>512968586
>why logic or induction should correspond to reality
theism doesn't account for this either

>>512965852
There is no such thing as "agnostic". Unless you explicitly believe in a man in the sky you are atheist.

>>512968669
>Atheism is not an assumption about anything. It’s simply the rejection of clearly made up nonsense.

If you keep reducing the definition of atheism you’re eventually going to be left with it not meaning anything.

>>512969039
If you keep ascribing everything to atheism you're eventually going to be left with a straw man religion you can attack for being as silly as your chosen religion.

>>512968586
>without a theistic framework, there exists no necessary reason why logic or induction should correspond to reality
To you.

>>512969017
>Unless you explicitly believe in a man in the sky you are atheist.
Pathetic straw man argument. People like you are the reason Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

>>512968586
>can atheism, as a worldview, sustain its own preconditions for knowledge?
Such as?

>>512969039
My understanding of atheism is the disbelief/rejection of clearly fictional sky wizards.

>>512965236
Atheists right of supernatural event with “millions of years of evolution did that”.
If we’re constantly evolving how come we’re haven’t evolved past getting a cold?

>>512969153
You just can’t accept the truth that atheism is a retarded religion.

>>512963039 (OP)
Yes. We are atheist and we are putting our foot on ground aint going nowhere

>>512969188
>China
If China does become more religious, why do you expect them to adopt your dumb jewish cult instead of going back to their actual native religions.

>>512964278
Christian scientist debunks evolution and only mentions Gof or Jesus only to inform you he’s not using God or Jesus as an explanation.

https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg?si=IkwAi84NuqgBh-fR

>>512969188
Someone really needs to inform xi jinping about the existential threat of Christianity, and how not banning it will lead to the eventually enslavement and genocide of the Chinese people by Jews. Assuming xi jinping is not already allied to the Jews. If he is humanity is over.

>>512969238
>If we’re constantly evolving how come we’re haven’t evolved past getting a cold?
The flu, like other viruses also evolve.

>>512968834
your attempted counterexamples unwittingly prove my central claim, if an atheist believes in simulation architects or magical universe creators, they've merely substituted god-like entities while retaining the metaphysical structure of theism (intentional creation, supernatural causation, and transcendent rulemaking)
this demonstrates
1: atheism cannot escape metaphysical commitments, even your "lack of belief" examples smuggled in quasi-theistic premises
2: your examples are self-refuting, as they concede the need for precisely the explanatory frameworks (intentionality, necessary truths, cosmic order) that robust theism provides. a "lack of belief" that immediately requires belief in higher intelligences or magical creators isn't atheism, it's unrecognized theism in disguise.
>>512968917
this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of divine conceptualism. theism UNIQUELY accounts for logic's correspondence to reality by grounding abstract truths in God's necessary nature.
1: lgoical principles reflect God's eternal, self-consistent mind
2: our cognitive faculties were designed by God to apprehend these truths
3: the uniformity of nature stems from divine sovereignty.
naturalism lacks any such account, it cannot explain why quantum fluctuations should produce minds that grasp necessary truths. your objection conflates stating that "God grounds logic" (which theism does explicitly) with failing to account for logic (which is precisely naturalism's fatal flaw.
>>512968916
nope, nuh uh.

>>512969495
>nope, nuh uh.
Like I said too
>>512968916
>You won't understand this either, wether it's on purpose or because you are low IQ remains a mystery but I think it's a bit of both
:^)

>>512969348
The world will always embrace Jesus because he and his disciples were crucified for telling the truth. They know the world is filled with liars because they interact with atheists like you. It is done is right, atheist.

>>512969495
>lgoical principles reflect God's eternal, self-consistent mind
This is something you literally just made up. Nothing about theism requires this to be true nor the rest of your random blabbering.

>>512969555
not really.
>>512969217
nope, nuh uh.

>>512969249
There it is, you're embarassed you have to hold an a ridiculous dogmatic worldview so you have to paint others to be the same.
Youre the one in a cult mate I just dont believe theres a god.

>>512969495
>this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of divine conceptualism.
Not really. It reveals you gave a personal opion on divine conceptualism

>>512969597
And again
>>512968916
>You won't understand this either, wether it's on purpose or because you are low IQ remains a mystery but I think it's a bit of both
Lol

>i think everything came from nothing!
>fuck you dad

>>512969495
>1: lgoical principles reflect God's eternal, self-consistent mind
Give an example that can't be correlated to your personal feelings.

>>512964278
Atheism is in itself irrational.

>>512969690
What did your dad do to you?

>>512969744
How exactly?

>>512969594
>presup
TOAST
>>512969451
Beat me to it.

Like the Gutenberg Bible, the internet has introduced Christians to the parts of the Bible that the clergy don't want their laymen to know about. Thus, the rise of Lutheranism with Gutenberg's press and Atheism with the Internet.

>>512969495
>atheism cannot escape metaphysical commitments
Such as?

>>512969591
You lost. Billions of people in the world have zero cultural connection or care to your jewish fables (e.g. most of Asia). The last population of educated intelligent people that care for it (i.e. European Whites) spent the last few decades leaving the religion in droves. Almost nobody that is white, young, and has a 3 digit IQ is Christian. But I guess you guys are still competitive with those niggers in Africa. Congratulations?

>>512969495
I think hes just retarded.
I give you two contrary non theistic beliefs that atheists are capable of holding, its not an exhaustive list of all potential beliefs its literally demonstrating that the only thing uniting atheism is a lack of belief in a god.
Atheists can be neo nazis, atheists can be black supremacists.
The only thing that makes you an atheist is when asked do you believe a god exists you answer no.

>>512969690
>>512968164

>>512969744
>it's irrational to not be convinced of a claim that hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated.

>>512969594
the claim is not an ad hoc invention but arises from the unavoidable problems inherent in any alternative account of abstract realities.
if logcial and mathematic truths are not to float as platonic forms (which raises the question of how contingent minds access necessary truths)
or collapse into mere human convention (which cannot explain their universal and binding nature)
then their existence must be anchored in a mind whose nature is itself necessarily coherent and eternal.
this is not special pleading for theism, but a recognition that only a necessary omnipotent intellect can satisfy the explanatory demands of logic's universality.
naturalism, by contrast, offers no plausible ontology for these truths at all. it cannot explain why physical systems should conform to logical laws, nor how evolutionary processes could produce minds capable of discerning necessary truths rather than merely adaptive falsehoods.

your dismissal amounts to assertion without an argument, while the theistic account remains the only metaphysically coherent framework that resoleves the problem without circularity or infinite regress. until you provide a superior explanation for why logic corresponds to reality, one that does not smuggle in unacknowledged theistic assumptions, your objection collapses into mere handwaving.
>>512969625
not really.
>>512969725
nope.
>>512969878
nuh uh.

>>512969881
It is finished. The man said so himself. What has been done cannot be changed. There is no escape from Christianity, just as there is no escape from God. You’re here forever, it’s just a question of how long you want to torture yourself.

>>512969495
Nobody really believes in simulation architects. Not in the same way a theist believes very specifically in a god. We could be living in a simulation of some sort, maybe there is a god of some sort who knows. The real issue is when you start making up random shit. If an atheist starts preaching about the great and mighty steve, the man who created our simulation, then he has stumbled into theist territory.

>>512970044
I'm still going to keep replying. All you're doing is demonstrating how much of a moron you are.

>>512967739
>Lexicalizes
>Epistemic naturalistic oncology
>Sagan-esque taxonomy
How many mg of addies you on?

>>512969940
please provide the mechanism by which literally nothing is a creative force for something.
>Inb4 Muh Vacuum Quantum fields muh brane collisions
That by definition is not nothing.

>>512970044
>the claim is not an ad hoc invention
100% it is
>>512970044
>but arises from the unavoidable problems inherent in any alternative account of abstract realities.
Such as?

>>512970044
>logcial and mathematic
Is demonstrable independent your favorite flavor of God.

All you've done is presuppose your God is needed..but can never actually demonstrate why without invoking your personal feelings and opinions

>>512970044
>your assertions amounts to personal feelings without an argumen
Which is all you're doing

>>512969819
It presupposes an irrational universe. That everything is existence is a mere chance. That there is no order, no truth, no rationality, and of course, no purpose. It doesn't explain anything. At its best, it's simply a negative claim statement.

>>512970039
We base our entire lives off of partial knowledge on every topic of life. From the sciences, to history, to politics, and even to relationships. No one has full knowledge of any given topic. We exercise faith in every aspect of our daily lives whether we're conscious of it or not, and not talking in an exclusively religious context. To say that one must have an absolute degree of certainty or else the claim is false is absurd and irrational.

>>512970133
category error.
the issue isn't whether people literally believe in simulation architects or fairy creators, it's that any coherent alternative to theism must still account for the same metaphysical necessities that theism explains.
when you say "maybe there is a god of some sort" you concede the very point at issue, that reality's fundamental nature requires explanation.
the simulation hypothesis simply recreates the same explanatory demands as theism (who created the simulators? why these particular rules? how does consciousness interface with the simulation?) while adding unnecessary layers of conjecture.

this isn't about making up random shit, it's about recognizing that any worldview must answer for logic, intentionality and cosmic order.
theism provides a parsimonious solution (one necessary, omnipotent ground of being)
atheism either borrows these explanatory frameworks while denying their source (as in your simulation example) or collapses into metaphysical nihilism.

your distinction between "maybe" and "belief" is epistemically vacuous.
serious philosophy deals with justification, not just subjective credence. until you can explain how your position accounts for reality's most basic features with either invoking god-like entities or abandoning rationality itself, you haven't engaged the argument at its proper depth.
>>512970338
lots of caffiene
wrists hurt from typing now

>>512970044
>ad hoc invention
Thanks for naming it for me, but yes uh that's literally exactly what you're doing. Even if I 100% accept all of your claims about the problems of truth, your prescription of theism to solve this "problem" is both completely arbitrary and also not a necessary competent of any theistic belief.

>why logic corresponds to reality
Protip: "we don't know" is a valid answer. Making up bullshit isn't.

>>512970530
>It presupposes an irrational universe
Irrational to you.

>>512970530
>That there is no order, no truth, no rationality, and of course, no purpose.
Incorrect. That's your personal opinion. I find all of those things absent the need of God or gods.

>>512970530
>It doesn't explain anything
Correct. Because it's an opinion about a question.

>>512970633
>that reality's fundamental nature requires explanation.
Why? And why should anyone believe it's your favorite flavor of god?

>>512970633
>this isn't about making up random shit
That's all you're doing though

>>512970347
I don't claim that everything came from nothing. That's a strawman.

>>512970530
I didn't say absolute degree. I said demonstrated. Stop being dishonest.

>>512965852
>Actual people that call themselves 'atheists' are a single-digit percentage.
It wasn't but a few hundred years ago the Abrahamic religions were murdering men women and children for being atheists, heretics, witches, sorcerers, etc. Even today the Muslims are still throwing infidels off rooftops and shooting them in the face. All because the most gullible retards on the planet refuse to recognize that they fell for lies.

>>512970338
You can tell he doesn't know what these words mean because he can never demonstrate them beyond "I say so"

>>512970646
the theistic account isn't "made up" but is the inevitable conclusion of rigorous metaphysical reasoning:
abstract truths require a grounding beyond physical particulars (as even atheist philosophers like quine conceded)
only a necessary mind can satisfy the conditions of universality and necessity these truths demand
your "we don't know" fails to explain why we can know anything at all.
this isn't arbitrary, it's following the chain of explanation to its necessary terminus.
your objection is like claiming the laws of physics are "made up" because we infer them from their effects. hte difference is that theism provides actual explanatory power for reason's existence, while your position can't even justify why your own arguments should be considered rational rather than adaptive noise.

>>512970633
I don't think a god explains anything. I don't think existence can be explained by anything. All explanations end with facts that just are. Also god itself, the word is not well defined. If we take god in the abstract sense, I don't even understand what that is, and nobody else understand it either. As for the skydaddy kind of god, these gods are clearly fictional and unfounded.

>>512971125
>the theistic account isn't "made up" but is the inevitable conclusion of rigorous metaphysical reasoning:
>metaphysical reasoning
Such as?
>>512971125
>abstract truths
Such as?
>>512971125
>only a necessary mind can satisfy the conditions of universality and necessity these truths demand
You haven't demonstrated such truths. Just made another baseless claim

>>512963310
How many are antisemitic? At least twenty five percent, I would hope.

>>512971125
Laws of physics are prescribed from confirmed, observable phenomenon. There are many things that happen that we can't explain in physics. Physicists say "we don't know" in that case. They don't come up with some whackjob weirdo argument that ties two completely unrelated subjects (like theism and reason) together and insist their interpretation must be right as a post-hoc justification. In case it's not clear, the whackjob weirdo argument is what you're doing.

>>512963039 (OP)
"You can't prove a negative" (James Randi) is one of the stupidest claims ever made. We have been able to prove negatives through the argument form known as "modus tollens" for 20+ centuries. Scientists find evidence for nrgative hypotheses every damn day.

"Fan death is bullshit" is a negative claim you can prove through logic and science. Boom, I just destroyed Randi's idiotic claim. Come on then, on with the bad arguments, let's hear them. Or maybe you'll just point out my typographical mistakes.

>>512967165
Religions are based on beliefs. Beliefs are not rational.

Knowledge is rational, based on facts, evidence reasoning, logic, math, etc.

Theists pretend their irrational beliefs are somehow ((( knowledge ))), but that's just a feeble rationalization. They can't possibly know what they claim to "know".

Rather than be tortured and maimed by the Inquisitions, atheists probably claimed they were "agnostic" to dodge a gruesome death.

>>512971468
Contraposition is not "proving a negative".

>>512971151
when you claim "all explanations end with facts that just are" you're asserting the very principle that theism challenges.
it's not an argument, it's an article of faith in brute contingency.
the problem is that necessary truths (like logic) cannot "just be," their universal and binding nature requires explanation.
your position collapses into special pleading, why can physical reality "just be" but God cannot? the theistic claim is precisely that God is the necessary terminus of explanation that avoids this arbitrariness.

complaining about God's definition while offering no alternative grounding for reality is intellectually dishonest. classical theism defines God as "the necessary, omnipotent ground of being" a coherent metaphysical concept recognized from augustine to plantinga. if you find this unclear, the burden is on you to engage with millennia of philosophical theology rather than retreating to simplistic skydaddy caricatures.

your admissions that "i don't think existence can be explained" is a philosophical surrender, not a position. theism doesn't just "explain" existence, it provides the only framework where explanation is ultimately possible. without a necessary ground, logical truths become cosmic accidents, intentionality reduces to electrochemical noise, your very objection has no claim to rational force.
you can either
a: provide a non-theistic account of necessity and intentionality, or
b: justify why brute contingency is preferable to necessary divine grounding
you're not offering a counterargument, just displaying the very explanatory void theism fills.

>>512970672
You can't arrive at an ordered universe without first conceding that there is truth and order in the first place. In order to have truth and order, you need a way to define such concepts. The only way to do that is with God. A being outside time and space that defines truth, sets forth order, and set the first object into motion (the big bang). Otherwise, it's all relative. Truth is relative. Morality is relative. And there is no order. Thus, it's all irrational, and we're here by mere chance. But even then, you run into the issue of the immovable mover. Something had to set our universe into motion that beginning of time with the big bang.

>>512970922
Regardless. The existence of God has been demonstrated sufficiently.

>>512971580
Prove your claim that it isn't.

>>512971580
You can’t disprove a negative, dipshit.

>>512971444
>They don't come up with some whackjob weirdo argument that ties two completely unrelated subjects (like theism and reason) together and insist their interpretation must be right as a post-hoc justification.

>what is the big bang
>what is unified field theory
>what is string theory
>what is the ether vs quantum foam

You're out of your element. You know nothing about how physicists and the science of physics operates.

>>512970530
No wonder you're so easily sucked in by carnival barkers and religious hucksters. And you're not the least bit ashamed of yourself, are you?

>>512971125
>metaphysical
>reasoning
You can only pick one

why do christfags hate atheists more than any other religious group?
my strong suspicion is:
>okay you believe in another god than i do but at least i know you are also a retard who believes in made up bs (even if its not my version of kike worship) but at least i know you are also a retarded faggot that that believes horseshit so we cool
>atheists? you dont play the jew hindu pagan retard game? reeeeeeeee satan kike
why? an atheist fedora faggot will jerk off to degenerate porn at home and die alone, while muzzies will slice your head off yet christcucks only seem to have problems with atheistic fedora faggots? why is that?

>>512963039 (OP)
/pol/ represents probably the entire world's supply of conservative atheists, and it's such a constant joy to dunk on them since atheists overwhelmingly represent as trans, gay, communist and women.

>>512971524
>Beliefs are not rational.
They can be based on context but I agree with you on the rest

>>512971524
>They can't possibly know what they claim to "know".
Because some people can’t know things other people don’t? You’re assuming that every person who ever claimed to experience the existence of the holy spirit is mentally ill or a liar. That’s a ridiculous assumption.

>>512971803
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about since you're mixing up a mathematical theory (string theory) with actual physics theories.

>>512971805
See >>503281217

>>512971674
>You can't arrive at an ordered universe without first conceding that there is truth and order in the first place
>truth and order
Based on who's perception?

>>512970806
then lay out your beliefs on the something that created everything otherwise you will accuse me of strawmanning no matter what I argue.

>>512972052
Exactly my point.

>>512971757
Respectfully, I disagree. To give an example for why I disagree:

>Smoking does not increase the risk of lung cancer
That is a negative claim, and you can disprove it woth empirical evidence and logic.
The real world is so complex, but the "New Atheist" movement of 20 years ago sought to simplify it in an intellectually dishonest way. Who knows what is out there? We can just touch knowledge through science and reason, but science and reason are nowhere close to disproving God.

>>512971913
You have it exactly backwards. Atheists hate Christians and only Christians. Everyone else is completely ignored by atheists.

>>512971444
physical laws describe HOW nature behaves, while metaphysical inquiry asks WHY nature is such that it can be described by laws at all.
when physicists say "we don't know" about quantum phenomena, they're acknowledging empirical gaps, not asserting that brute contingency explain the very possibility of physical law.
your naalogy would only hold if physicists claimed the laws of physics "just exist" without any underlying mathematical necessity, a position no serious physicist would endorse.

by dismissing the conneciton between theism and reason as "whackjob," you're employing the very faculty of reason whose existence your worldview cannot account for.
if human cognition is merely adaptive noise (as naturalism implies) then your objection carries no more weight that random neuron firings. theism doesn't "tie unreality subjects together" it recognizes that intentionality, logic and physical law all demand the same grounding in a necessary mind.

science operates within a framework of contingent operation, metaphysics deal with necessary preconditions.
when you demaned "confirmed observable phenomenon" for metaphysical claims, you're making the same error as demanding to see a mathematicians observable evidence for euler's identity.
different domains require different epistemic approaches, your scientism itself is an unprovable metaphysical assumption.

the heart of the matter remains, you've offered no alternative account of why
1: physical laws exist rather than chaos
2: mathematical truths are necessarily true
3: your own reasoning should be trusted.
until you can address these questions without either borrowing theistic assumptions (like the reliability of reason) or retreating into brute contingency (which explains jack shit) your position reduces to shouting "whackjob" at problems you can't solve.

>>512963039 (OP)
>6 pointed star

>>512971654
>the problem is that necessary truths (like logic) cannot "just be,"
Why?
>their universal and binding nature requires explanation.
Which is what happens when they're demonstrable
>>512971654
>your position collapses into special pleading,
Which is what you do when you presuppose your favorite flavor of god.

>>512971654
>the theistic claim is precisely that God is the necessary terminus of explanation that avoids this arbitrariness.
This is special pleading

>>512971913
Because the atheists are the fucktards inviting the Muslims in, while accusing Christianity of being everything Islam actually is.

>>512972194
>while metaphysical inquiry asks WHY nature is such that it can be described by laws at all
Yes and the honest answer is that "we don't know". Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

>by dismissing the conneciton between theism and reason as "whackjob,"
There literally is none. It's your personal opinion and that's great. But nothing more.

>>512971674
If it was, I would be convinced.

>>512971654
>theism doesn't just "explain" existence, it provides the only framework where explanation is ultimately possible
Not really. It just puts God in the gaps.

>>512971955
You're big dumb if you think string theory is not being used to described the physical world.

"Quantum mechanics is just statistics so it's not an actual physics theory" --this is you. This is how dumb you sound.

>>512972087
And I see no reason to believe yours

>>512971913
There's a certain respect Christians can hold for Muslims. They're our enemies and they're evil, but they at least don't allow faggot degeneracy or empowered women. You can understand a Muslim, even if you don't agree with him.

Atheists aren't just nonbelievers, they adopt every opposite of Christianity that they can. If it's a sin to sodomize, your average atheist will have a prolapse longer than a dog tail hanging behind him. If gluttony is a sin, your average atheist will begin consuming bananas and other sweet fruit up his ass just to be able to eat more.

>>512972183
Plenty of European atheists are anti-Muslim. It's very common.

>>512972194
>the heart of the matter remains, you've offered no alternative account of why
>1: physical laws exist rather than chaos
>2: mathematical truths are necessarily true
>3: your own reasoning should be trusted.
>until you can address these questions
Your position doesn't address these either

>>512966245
How can a belief that there are no gods be a lack?

>>512968244
Worldview where there are no gods.
Why do atheists have such a hard time admitting what they believe?

>>512969690
Interesting how daddy issues turn women into sluts and men into fedora tippers.
Though many of them turn into troons.

>>512963618
The consequences are obvious

>>512972086
Nope, not falling for that. You claim that a god created everything. You have to demonstrate it.

>>512972522
>Atheists aren't just nonbelievers, they adopt every opposite of Christianity that they can
I don't.

>>512972183
>>512968456

>>512972565
>How can a belief that there are no gods be a lack?
You are still describing a lack if belief. If I say I believe no God or gods exist, that still is a lack of belief in them.

Why are you people this dumb?

>>512972612
>this man only has one hand therefore human beings aren't two-handed
Something can be true in principal even if you can find a fringe example where it's not. You know good and well what the ideological, political, and social values of atheists broadly are.

>>512972453
>string theory is not being used to described the physical world
It literally isn't. I don't know if you've overdosed on some pop sci or something but string theory has had basically zero predictive power. Some theoretical guys might think it's right but there's no evidence. And again, it's literally not a scientific theory: it's a mathematical one. There's a difference.

>>512972565
That's not a worldview. It's being unconvinced of a godclaim.

>>512972726
Reply again with less strawman

i'm glad. atheism leads to conversion a lot of the time and in either case it's an identifier. i don't have to engage with atheists.

>>512972792
Fine.

"Something can be true in principal even if you can find a fringe example where it's not. You know good and well what the ideological, political, and social values of atheists broadly are."

Now argue the point instead of bitch-crying about the way in which it was presented.

>>512963039 (OP)
>will not go away
Check the birth rates my dude. Atheists only reproduce by listening to kike brainwashing, and that’s on the way out.

>>512972369
your persistent retreat to "we don't know" isn't the humble concession you imagine, it's an epistemological dead end that fails to engage the actual argument.
the issue isn't about pretending to have answers, but recognizing that some answers are metaphysically necessary if reason is to have any validity at all.
when you say "we don't know why nature is lawful," you're not being honest, you're ignoring that this very admission presupposes the intelligibility you claim to doubt.
your skepticism is self-undermining, your objection assumes logic and reason are trustworthy, but this trustworthiness cannot be accounted for if the universe is fundamentally unintelligible.
theism provides the only framework where this presumption makes sense, a rational mind grounding rational order.
your position borrows this premise while denying its foundation, saying "we don't know" explains nothing, it's not an alternative to theism, but a cowardly avoidance of the question.
if you insist nature's lawfulness has no possible explanation, you've adopted a metaphysical claim far more radical and unjustified than theism's appeal to necessary mind.
you accuse theism of dishonesty while asserting your own agnosticism as virtuous, but this is a sleight of hand.
you reject a necessary explanation while offering nothing in its place, not even a coherent account of why your own reasoning should be trusted.
the connection between theism and reason isn't "personal opinion," it's the conclusion of centuries of philosophical inquiry into the preconditions of knowledge.
until you engage why nature is intelligible at all, rather than repeating "we don't know" as if it were an answer, you're not participating in the debate but dodging it.

i'm out, repent of your stupidity, rebbit gaytheists.

>>512972889
>You know good and well what the ideological, political, and social values of atheists broadly are."
Not really. The only commonality atheist share is a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods..anything outside of that isn't atheism
>>512972889
>Now argue the point instead of bitch-crying about the way in which it was presented.
It's so easy to dunk on you dummies

>>512972994
>i'm out, repent of your stupidity, rebbit gaytheists
The death rattle of a defeated loser

>>512972994
>it's an epistemological dead end that fails to engage the actual argument
Not really. It just means you can't strawman it any further

>>512972889
>Something can be true in principal even if you can find a fringe example where it's not
Then it's just a heuristic and not ab absolute, and therefore should be treated as a heuristic and not an absolute. We are advanced enough as 21st century men to make that distinction and make more precise decisions accordingly, right?

>>512973010
E.g. there are leftwing, centrist and rightwing atheists.

>>512973209
Exactly

>>512972718
To lack belief would mean you're brain isn't functioning. A table lacks belief.
Atheists have belief. You've spent this thread showing your beliefs

>>512972522
my point still stands
atheists are loser faggots who are only able to to hurt themselves with their degenerate faggotry like banana atheist in your pic rel
while muzzies will torture fuck you to death for not kneeling 5 times a day for some desert pedo
so again... why are fedora atheist banana fetishists worse than the brownoids who actually want to fucking murder you?
>well they hate gays too
not enough

>>512963039 (OP)
It's not anything to be concerned about. You are part of a faithless group that believes in nothing, so nothing you will be.

>>512973295
>To lack belief would mean you're brain isn't functioning
Or that I remain unconvinced until evidence convinces me otherwise.

Again, this is how stupid you are. >>512973295
>Atheists have belief
Correct, many of them. God or gods isn't one of them.

>>512972589
Nothing can't create anything
Therefore something created creation.
This something has some known attributes, it must exist outside of time, space and matter, because those things are result of creation itself.
Which means the creative force is eternal and without dimension or mass.

So now the only question is whether this eternal creative force is personal(has a will) or impersonal (mechanical)

Since we know the creative force is eternal, if mechanical the creation must be either spontaneous or necessary.
If necessary then creation would be automatic and eternal as well, yet reality is not co-eternal which contradicts this.
And spontaneous creation without agency entails an uncaused contingent event, which is incoherent because no sufficient condition exists to distinguish the moment of creation from an infinite prior non-creation.

This means the creator MUST have agency because it's the only reasonable option left, creation must have volitional causation.
Which means the Creator is personal and has a will. Therefore "God" exists.

>>512973476
>Nothing can't create anything
And no one makes that argument

>>512973476
>Therefore something created creation
Sure..the honest answer is "I don't know"
>>512973476
>This something has some known attributes, it must exist outside of time, space and matter, because those things are result of creation itself
Which anyone can make up such a being or beings.

>>512972759
>there are no gods.
>this isn't a worldview
Atheists sure get sensitive when certain words are used.
Is there a list of approved words for atheism? Up to date list because it keeps changing.

>>512973476
>Which means the Creator is personal and has a will. Therefore "God" exists.
That's your personal opinion which you arrived at with a bias presupposition. Cool man but I see no reason to believe in your personal feelings

>>512973683
>>this isn't a worldview
>Atheists sure get sensitive when certain words are used.
He's right. Atheism is just an opinion about a question or claim. My world doesn't revolve around me.being an atheist

>>512973625
>No one makes that argument
The big bang is that argument
>The answer is "I don't know"
You are an agnostic

>>512972994
It's not about being "humble". It's about being honest and internally consistent.

>your objection assumes logic and reason are trustworthy
Yes obviously those are axioms we all just have to accept as we exist on this planet. I fully understand it's not an explanation if you care deeply about metaphysics but it is what it is. Anyone is free to come up with their own ideas and opinions on why it is the way it is, which is great, but all of these claims ultimately boil down to nothing more than personal opinion. That includes your insistence that god exists and is the source of all reason (paraphrasing don't get autistic on me if I got some detail wrong). You can't prove this. Nothing about our existence necessitates this to be true. Nothing about theism either even requires this to be true. This is just your opinion.

>>512973849
>The big bang is that argument
It sure isn't
>>512973849
>>The answer is "I don't know"
>You are an agnostic
Agnostic atheist

>>512973010
>the fact that atheism is the single most monolithic voting bloc even more than race, gender or age is totally irrelevent
>the only thing we share is our gay disbelief
>anything beyond that is:
(((pure coincidence)))

>>512973168
>NOOOO we have to assume all 0.01% of atheists that share my worldview are just as heckin' valid as the 99.99% who are degenerate faggots!

>>512973849
The big bang is not a creation theory. It's an explanation for the cosmic microwave background. God you guys are always so dumb.

>>512974004
>>the fact that atheism is the single most monolithic voting bloc
This isn't a fact

Thanks for conceding with moronic strawmanning

>>512973849
You can tell atheism is a mental illness because of how bent out of shape they get over being called agnostic.
The user responding to you has now acknowledged his belief is a matter of faith and not reason, he won’t be happy when you point that out.

>>512973683
Strawman. You are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Stop being dishonest.

>>512973417
>replies twice to the same post in one post
You new here? Summerfag looking to get xer last kicks before school starts. Lurk more.
Hey if you want to say you've got the thinking power of a table you can do that.

>>512973823
>My world doesn't revolve around me.being an atheist
>spends whole thread promoting atheism and trying to dunk on theism.

I was once an Atheist.
Then came to the epiphany that it is much more likely that the universe came about through malice than by sheer accident.
Now I'm Gnostic.

>>512974114
>how bent out of shape they get over being called agnostic.
I'm not bent out-of shape. He's half right lol

>>512974114
>The user responding to you has now acknowledged his belief is a matter of faith and not reason, he won’t be happy when you point that out.
Another baseless claim you clowns make

>>512974235
What's more likely: an evil god or an evil alien?

>>512974076
>you've conceded because I disagreed with your assertion and provided no evidence because of how you're wrong
Couldn't have created a more perfect microcosm of atheism itself.

>>512974235
Living gnostics don’t exist.

>>512974179
>>spends whole thread promoting atheism
To who? I've said the opposite actually. Lurk more clown shoe

>>512974126
>every argument I don't like is a strawman
Is this the power of atheism?

>>512974323
>>you've conceded because I disagreed with your assertion and provided no evidence because of how you're wrong
Nice projection

>>512973625
>And no one makes that argument
That's inaccurate many atheists do make that claim which is why I asserted it . Nonetheless you seem to not contest it.
>Sure..the honest answer is "I don't know
No, that is a dishonest answer because it requires rejecting my conclusion without offering a counterexplanation. You would need to show either my premise or reasoning is false to honestly maintain "I don't know".
>Which anyone can make up such a being or beings
It's not arbitrary which is what you are implying. So burden on you is to SHOW why my reasoning and premises are fallacious or unneeded.

>>512974301
>im not bent out of shape
Moments later…
>ad hominem attack
Kek

Okay, if my claim is baseless, that would make you a gnostic atheist.
Which is it?

>>512963039 (OP)
if atheism was true, you wouldnt need to convince me, since its reality

hence idealism is real, atheism needs me to believe in it, it needs me to be an atheist, otherwise it cannot hold

and I am simply not lol, and no amount of your pseudointellectual arguments can convince me, hence, the power remains with me

did you get it? I have the power, thats why you need to convince me of atheism, if you dont convince me, atheism simply become another dumb cult

cope and seethe morons, you cannot control God

>>512974378
It's apparently the power of theist here..it's common thing you morons do

>>512963039 (OP)
atheism (noun)
athe·ism (ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm)
1. a religion that creates their god in the exact image created by the true believer but castrates and makes impotent their version.
2. the lamest yet most destructive religion of extremist collectivists of otherwise powerless and typically unlovable morons.
Related: atheist
1. an extremely religious zealot that worships an impotent and castrated god
2. a weak minded redditor-tier moron that pretends they are smart to cope with their failures to secure the desire from the opposite sex.

>>512974365
>did opposite
So where's all your promotions of theism?

atheism is a creation of the mind, hence the mind rules supreme

we are in a mental universe, not a physical one

>>512974114
Their egos are tied up in their Christian parents being wrong. They’d rather die than face the truth.

>>512974432
>That's inaccurate many atheists do make that claim which is why I asserted it
I don't believe you
>>512974432
>>Sure..the honest answer is "I don't know
>No, that is a dishonest
Incorrect. I don't make any claims to knowledge. I am.open to where the evidence leads if I am convinced enough

>>512974432
>>Which anyone can make up such a being or beings
>It's not arbitrary which is what you are implying
It's 100% a presupposition that anyone can male up because you always fail to demonstrate past it

>>512974432
>So burden on you is to SHOW why my reasoning and premises are fallacious or unneeded.
You never demonstrated past your presupposition

>>512974439
>Moments later…
>>ad hominem attack
Thanks for showing you don't know what that means lol

>>512974439
>Okay, if my claim is baseless
I still see no proof

>>512974466
>Nuh-Huh
Maybe in school they'll teach you how to have a debate

>>512974588
Dumb take. You can say you are in a mental universe, you can say I am in one as well.
You can not say we are in one, because we do not share a brain.

>>512974512
Here you go friend
>>512966795
>I'm not anti Christianity for you. Beleive what you like my friend

>>512974361
Not only do living Gnostics exist, but there are Gnostic churches too. Knowing that you are trapped in a prison that will try to pull you back when you die through reincarnation, does not mean that dying as fast as possible (suicide) is a good idea.

or to put it this way

I am the mind, I make reality

you atheists are product of me, and you are trying to convince me that I am not real, because you want my power

>>512974669
Clearly you missed that day

and I wont give it to you, never

JAJAJAJ cope and seethe atheist faggots

>>512974406
You still haven't shown how I'm wrong other than you disagreeing with me.

Here are the hard facts:
Protestants 59% Rep
Catholics 52% Rep
Mormons 75% Rep
Jews 69% Dem
Muslims 66% Dem
Atheists 84% Dem
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/

So in terms of religion/areligious groups, they're monolithic. But hey, let's look at other blocs. How about gender?

Men 52% Rep
Women 51% Dem
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-gender-sexual-orientation-marital-and-parental-status/

Even women aren't as degenerate leftist as atheists. But let's look at race. We know nigs love dem gibs, right?

Whites 55% Rep
Blacks 76% Dem
Hispanic 63% Dem
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/04/16/the-2020-election-and-congress/

And so there we have it. No one is as leftist tranny-loving ammoral communist faggot as your average atheists. Even jews and niggers are more conservative than you banana-fucking tranny 40%ers.

>>512974700
>You can not say we are in one, because we do not share a brain.
But you just shared your brain with his

>>512974711
>Said not anti-Christian
>this is promotion
Kek

>>512974804
>You still haven't shown how I'm wrong other than you disagreeing with me.
Demonstrate these things atheist voted on are exclusive to only atheist.

You won't be able to because they aren't. And just like the other anon said
>>512973209
>there are leftwing, centrist and rightwing atheists.

>>512974658
yeah you are totally dishonest, just claiming "nuh uh" instead of providing reasoning on why my claims are wrong or providing an explanation for causation without volition. Full of shit like all atheists, liars at heart.

>>512974921
Reading comprehension is hard for you I can tell

>>512974940
>provide evidence
>besides a stream of links and numbers
>pew research? more like P.U. research!
>I only respond to data collection sites that heckin validate my worldview
I wish the next time you go to dilate that you stab too deep and end up 40%ing yourself.

>>512970633
You had me at
>Epistemically vacuous
Another favorite
>Parsimonious solution
Wtf does this one mean
>Metaphysical nihilism
Lol you're my favorite poster honk honk

>>512974971
>yeah you are totally dishonest
About?
>>512974971
>instead of providing reasoning on why my claims are wrong
Again, reading comprehension is hard for you lot
>>512974971
>or providing an explanation for causation without volition
I don't need too. You need to demonstrate why i should believe your claims

>>512974648
I don’t think that’s true. I used to be an atheist and that want the case for me.

At its core, I think most atheists have the same story as me:
They were lied to about God. Maybe by their parents or church first, and when they went looking for different answers, they were lied to by atheists.

They, in a sense, believe in a silly god. Not that it’s real, but the same way they understand the lore of Santa Claus. They don’t think Santa is real, but they have a prescriptive definition of what Santa is. They have zero capability to discuss the topic outside of their very narrow and very silly conception of god.

Try some time to bring up deism and see how they deal with it. Unlike their caricature of god, deism is an unfalsifiable position; they don’t have the wherewithal to discuss it and it causes them distress.

>>512974940
>Demonstrate these things atheist voted on are exclusive to only atheist.
>You won't be able to
>>512975054
Seems I'm right yet again

>>512969598
>>512969249
It's funny how theists can never keep their cool or act normal in a discussion about atheism, they will always end up angry.

>>512974768
>Nuh-Huh
Kek

>>512974987
Promotion would be saying Christianity is true.
Or does the word promotion get redefined in atheism?

>>512974971
Reddit is a hell of a drug

>>512963039 (OP)
Star of Remphan logo

>>512975116
>I don't need too. You need to demonstrate why i should believe your claims
I already did you dog.

>>512975236
>Promotion would be saying Christianity is true
I disagree. I promoted that anon to believe whatever he likes

>>512974378
I keep telling you it's the lack of a belief in a god, and you keep changing it to a positive belief there are no gods. You're either stupid or dishonest. Which is it?

>>512975288
>I already did you dog.
Not really

>>512963039 (OP)
Not gonna lie, I miss the New Atheism days when midwits were segregated away from matters of perennial tradition and left to play with spaghetti monster Kekistan action figures in their safe little casuist playpens. I'll take that over the said midwits engaging in religious larping on X any day.

>>512975165
Disprove my data.

>>512975276
Makes sense consider (((who))) have been the leaders of the group

>>512971654
>Brute contingency
Bro your verbose nomenclature hodge podge reminds me of black militants in the 90s

>>512974658
Are you having some trouble there buddy? Calling someone a clown as a means to dismiss their argument is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack. I even attempted to show you how my claim was not baseless and you deflected instead of contending with it. Let’s try again:

To be agnostic is to say you do not know. To say you are an agnostic atheist is to say you do not know, but have made a decision anyways. That decision is not based on reason, evidence, or knowledge, it is based on faith.

Your options are:
>accept your belief system is faith-based
>claim to be a gnostic atheist (don’t do this) in an attempt to defend your title of “atheism”
>accept that you are an agnostic and change nothing about how you think other than using the appropriate terminology to describe it

If you would like to offer an alternative, please do. Otherwise you are going to have to pick one of these.

>>512975388
Again,
>>512974940
>Demonstrate these things atheist voted on are exclusive to only atheist.
>You won't be able to because they aren't

>>512968244
Atheism is a worldview in the same sense as being blind is a worldview. The question should be what causes that lack of belief: It's the inherent inability to experience and understand belief as such. Atheism is a mental disability. The atheist uses the only tool available to him: He tries to reason his way to god. He fails, of course. And copes with his failure by telling himself that the grapes don't exist anyway.

>>512975276
>This logo is symmetrical, it must be jewish.

>>512974971
not a fan of jewish gods desu

>>512964061
>Has to use the label in order to denounce labels
It must suck going through life as a midwit

>>512975460
>Calling someone a clown as a means to dismiss their argument is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.
But I addressed your argument and called you a name. Not an ad hom buddy

>>512975460
>To say you are an agnostic atheist is to say you do not know, but have made a decision anyways.
Until evidence convinces me otherwise

>>512975460
>That decision is not based on reason, evidence, or knowledge
It's based on the lack of that for the theists claims

Hope that helps duder :^)

>>512974725
Then is your argument that gnostics are evil? They are cooperating with the big bad of their belief system, as their suffering is the product desired.
Achieving gnosis should be synonymous with suicide. Nothing in the prison will teach you how to escape it, and the only chance to actually escape is between cycles.

One should immediately kill themselves upon gnosis every cycle to attempt to escape. More attempts = more chance at success.

>>512975477
>Atheists are too rational to believe in god.
Hell of an admission there, Hans.

>>512975359
The new atheist movement was an anti creationist movement that quickly shifted towards Islam all creationist nonsense was seemingly btfo.
Thing is the religious fundamentalists just rehashed their creationists beliefs into "intelligent design", and accepting ideas like the universe is god, and the bible isnt literal anymore, and then shifting their focus on "cultural (insert religionism)". Atheists haven't changed their stance, and yet, keep winning by doing nothing.

>>512975149
>Unlike their caricature of god, deism is an unfalsifiable position; they don’t have the wherewithal to discuss it and it causes them distress.

The source of the distress is their emotional investment in atheism, often tied to the way they perceived they were treated by their Christian parents. Most without that baggage take the only logical position which is agnostic.

>>512975462
I proved their liberal voting trends. The onus is now on you to prove that somehow their vote is not indicative of agreeing with the policies of that party. I'm waiting.

>>512973849
> The big bang is that argument
The big bang makes no claims about how existence came to be, it describes how the universe developed from a hot dense state, it says nothing about how that initial state came to be.
>>512974114
There is no such thing as "agnostic".
You can be an agnostic atheist, and agnostic theist. An agnostic believer in elves. But just agnostic is not anything.

>>512975714
>I proved their liberal voting trends
Again, see
>>512973209
>there are leftwing, centrist and rightwing atheists

>>512974839
Not true actually. In his mind he has created a simulation of me in order to interpret my words. Our conversation in my mind is different than it is in his.

The communication itself however, disproves his theory if he assumes a me that is not in his head exists (the “we” from before). There is something that is not mind that we communicate through.

>>512975317
Only one who said to me the "lack of" was >>512966075.
You've outed yourself. What is the next part of your master plan?

>>512975699
Agnosticism is not logical, it is just not irrational.

>>512975799
>Not true actually
And here is your conscious mind, via your brain, replying to me. Thanks for sharing!

Why do religious people twist themselves into a pretzel playing word games when all they gotta do is to whip up some magic that cant be recreated trough scientific methods. Are they stupid.

>>512975477
If atheism is a “worldview” like blindness, then theism is like insisting you can see an invisible city in the clouds that vanishes whenever someone tries to verify it. The cause of a lack of belief isn’t an “inherent inability to experience” belief, it’s the refusal to treat belief without evidence as a virtue. Atheism isn’t a mental disability; it’s the absence of an intellectual handicap, namely, the compulsion to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof.

Believers often act as if doubt is a defect, but doubt is what stops people from drinking poison just because someone swears it’s wine. The atheist isn’t coping; he’s declining to pretend.

>>512975790
Except statistically they are almost entirely leftwing. They are more left-leaning than jews, blacks, mexicans and women.

So again, you claiming that some fringe minority of atheists don't hold leftist worldviews is immaterial if the data disagrees with you. So, you can assert that maybe they SECRETLY hold non tranny worldviews, but I put it to you that you have not shown any evidence of that. The only evidence presented so far is that they are the MOST faggot-loving group based on their voting trends.

Do you not have anything that refutes that? No tiny scrap of evidence?

>>512975636
It did help, it is clear that you operate in a faith-based worldview.

Because, again, you do not have reason, evidence, or knowledge to support your position. Disagreeing with someone else is not reason, evidence, or knowledge, it is a child saying
>nuh uh

>>512975802
we just had a big discussion about this but god doesn't solve this either

>>512975957
>Except statistically they are almost entirely leftwing
Yeah, the left wing atheist sure are lol

>>512975864
Agnosticism is perfectly logical. The material world presents us with uncertainty of whether it was designed or random, by design.

>>512975804
My master plan is to keep pointing out what an idiot you are, and watch you keep putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala!"

>>512975957
Atheists tend to hold classic liberal views. Because atheism at its core promotes free thought and expression.

>>512963039 (OP)
>atheist
Whatever, your life
>movement
Point to ONE time where the concerted, focused efforts of staunch open atheists mattered or made any headway concerning the Jews or White prosperity. Cuz all I see is fag enablers and daddy-issue Funko Pop consoomers. And no, token anti-Islam opinions by those fags Dawkins and Hitchens don't count.
>inb4 posting a pozzed photo op at a rented church with a "priest" who has never actually held service
Give me proof you're a movement and not a loose onlone-only collective of smug shitheads.

>>512976000
>it is clear that you operate in a faith-based worldview.
Define "faith" in this context. I think what you mean is reasonable expectations. I don't operate on religious faith

>>512976000
>Because, again, you do not have reason, evidence, or knowledge to support your position
What's my position exactly?

>>512976050
I accept your concession, xir. :)

>>512975957
>b-but more of them are left!
So?

>>512963039 (OP)
get a life

>>512975930
>Atheist TDS Kamala supporter is back to shill against Trump's Christian voter base and defend groypers
Aww Rajesh you are still mad you can't come in my country?

>>512976086
>t. has never met an atheist offline

>>512976144
Whatever cope helps you get by ma'am

>>512975681
Lolno, New Atheism was just a response to Iraq fatigue where midwits can proudly claim "Bush Evangelicalism and radical Islam both le heckin' bad" without taking up any responsibility to introspect. It did its job of lazy intellectualization by the time Bush left office and promptly cast aside for Tumblr social justice activism right after Occupy Wall Street. You "won" the same way a pool cleaner "wins" every time he scrubs the filters.

>>512976216
If you don't have an argument, just say so.

>>512976216
I want my fucking magic show.

I consider myself more of an agnostic.

>>512975736
You think that someone who is unsure about the existence of God is impossible? That’s pretty silly.
You actually can’t be an agnostic atheist, without faith. You admit uncertainty with the term agnostic, then claim deities do not exist with atheist. This must be a faith-based worldview unless:
>you believe it is indeed possible there is a deity or deities
Do you think it is possible there is a deity or deities?

>>512975957
Yeah they are politically the most jewish demographic
Imagine being subverted and pissed but being a fanatical cultist about it
American atheists support child grooming and mutilation, and LGBT in schools and classrooms

There is no reasoning with these demons-trators

>>512975666
My name is not Hans. My name is unknowable to you. That insight requires no help from the gods, even a spiritual cripple like you should have been able to figure it out. You failed. Never talk to me again. You're lower than a monkey.

>>512976440
>You actually can’t be an agnostic atheist, without fait
You've still yet to define faith in this context nor explained how

>>512976455
None of this has to do with the existance of a god.

>>512963039 (OP)
Better gaytheism than jew worship

>>512976323
Nu atheism came from the early days of YouTube, I know I remember it. Fucking Ken ham and Kent hovind sent like an army of idiots to spew a bunch of bullshit on there.
The lines between the Christian creationists and Islam hating got rather blurred because of big names like Hitchens and Dawkins.

>>512976482
Uh oh! Somebody needs a nap!

>>512976455
>American atheists support child grooming and mutilation, and LGBT in schools and classroom
I don't

>>512976612
It's a bunch of red herrings they use when they don't have a legitimate argument

>>512963310
Gay!

>>512976675
Meant for.>>512976562

>>512976697
We got a captain obvious over here lol

>>512976697
Oh, it's you again.
>fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fsg fag! God said I can troll kike shills and and anyone I don't like is a kike shill! Fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag fag!

>>512968032
The talmud is jewish bullshit. Christianity is jewish bullshit too. Imagine unironically believing some mutilated dead jew rabbi from 2000 years ago who was born, lived, got sick, ate, shat, pissed, farted and died like all homo sapiens is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenelovent supreme being who created everything. No wonder the jews control you.

>>512976611
Hitchens started this whole shit even before YouTube existed to obfuscate his support for the Iraq war.

>>512976440
Anything that is logically possible could potentially exist. There could be an invisible unicorn standing behind me right now. I don't think there is, but I cannot prove there is not. So I am an agnostic aunicornist.

>>512976562
It has to do with which demographic should be treated rightfully as shabbos traitors the most.
I don't care to discuss my religion with some out group mystery meat literally who such as yourself.
Beliefs are for in group discussions
I would no more bother to explain a thing to you than an Amish man to some blue haired psycho libshit tranny.

You are the out-group
You have no interest in European or white American identity or lives, you come here to play word games and try stirring trouble.
You might as well be a jew because all you bring here is jewish poison trying to fight with white christians and also demand they stop being antisemitic and trying to arbitrarily cherry pick which parts of the Bible mean what while pretending you control or gatekeep interpretation
You get emotionally hostile to any christian who openly doesn't like jews and the worst part is by some missing brains or being dropped out of the 15th story on your heads by your mother's you think this obvious disruptive hostility and attempts to alienate ANYONE from being against jewry passes unnoticed.

Just like the groypers you have been spamming this garbage and it's obviously forced
Kyselves trannies

>>512976612
>Please give me attention, I can be the class clown if you want!
sad

>>512975877
Incorrect, it is your imagination of what my words mean.

Imagine you are reading an exchange between fictional characters by a world renowned author. In doing so you create two fictional people in your own head to have the conversation. Because of the authors renown, you imagine a deeper meaning is at play and it isn’t just a boring conversation with no meaning. you don’t just create the two characters, you create a third, “the audience”. The audience is not you, it’s an “you” you create to understand the other two characters. The audience infers and creates associations between the characters that may not be explicitly said. In a sense, you created these characters yourself, and the author was just kind of helping things along.

If you were to critically analyze the piece, you would create a fourth fictional character, the author. The author does exist, but he doesn’t live in your head; you created the author in your head, and he is not the same as the author who wrote the piece. You then make inferences and assumptions based on the relationship between these four characters. This highlights the difference between you and “the audience” you created to enjoy the story in the first place.

This can go even layers deeper, but it’s pretty convoluted and most people don’t care. It’s done mostly subconsciously anyways.

>>512976059
if its logical, you could express it to me symbolically.
Can you do that?

>>512970530
>It presupposes an irrational universe. That everything is existence is a mere chance.
This isn't true though, Atheism is just the claim that there is not yet enough evidence to justify following any religious doctrine or worshipping their deity, there may be a God but to believe in something like the Christian God is irrational. I think there is a metaphysical realm and a force behind the creation of the rules of the universe but to believe in some man made religion just shows you are an easy mark. I look to the rules that underly of nature and metaphysics for how God would want us to live, not men.

>>512977196
Here you are. Sharing more of your brain with me. Thank you anon

>>512977115
I didn't order all this straw.

>>512977251
>can you jump through more arbitrary hoops so I can get a gotcha
Kek

>>512976134
You have faith that god does not exist.

Otherwise, you would have answered my question:
> Do you think it is possible there is a deity or deities?
Would you like to answer this question now?

>>512976948
You think it’s logically possible for unicorns to be invisible behind you without you knowing?

>>512977367
Fuck off little kike.
You even now try to antagonize
You have no interest in unity against jews because like American atheists, you fight for them
Nothing you say can convince me otherwise, I don't even believe you are white.

>>512977320
Well, I’m glad I truncated that explanation. That was a good call by me.

>>512977373
Then I do not accept your assertion that it is logical.

>>512977501
You call me names because you have no arguement.

>>512977407
>You have faith that god does not exist.
Again
>>512976134
>Define "faith" in this context
>>512977407
>Otherwise, you would have answered my question:
>> Do you think it is possible there is a deity or deities?
You never asked me this question.
Depends on context surrounding the said dieties and who is defining them.

The short answer is maybe

>>512975149
>They, in a sense, believe in a silly god.
Most of the world unfortunately believes in Yahweh (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which is definitely a silly god. So in that regard, even the childish silly redditor style of atheist is still thinking more than most of the world when it comes to religious matters.

>>512977511
Thanks for sharing
>>512977540
I don't require you to accept anything lol

>>512977574
I made my argument and you failed to refute it >>512977196
Because as I already stated, you are some mystery meat non white out group.
I am not obligated to explain my beliefs or culture to you.
That's for in group

>>512977599
I very literally posted with a page from the dictionary and highlighted the relevant definition.

> Depends on context surrounding the said dieties and who is defining them.
Why would it depend on that? This is a superset. There are infinite deities in the superset.
Do you think it is possible that one or more of them is real?
A simple yes or no is how you answer this question.

>>512977679
>Because as I already stated, you are some mystery meat non white out group.
This anon speaks from personal experience

>>512977603
Just couldn’t hold back the seething. Very sad.

>>512977757
>Ask any anti christian to post their hand next to bacon
>They fail every single time
Pattern recognition is a helluva thing.

>>512977737
>I very literally posted with a page from the dictionary and highlighted the relevant definition.
Where?
>>512977737
>> Depends on context surrounding the said dieties and who is defining them.
>Why would it depend on that?
Because I can tell a lot about the product by who is selling it. It also depends in the merit of their claims
>>512977737
>Do you think it is possible that one or more of them is real?
>A simple yes or no is how you answer this question.
If you would have read further then you'd see I answered this

>>512977679
Refute what? Your namecalling? If you had an arguement buried in your spergpost, I missed it.

>>512977781
God (hah) forbid we talk about religion in a thread about religion. I'm just pointing out that most of the world, including the believers, has the very narrow and very silly conception of god you describe. The most popular religions in the world very specifically prescribe such a narrow god.

>>512977872
>Pattern recognition is a helluva thing
I don't see your hand. Kek

Atheists ITT, don't you think that figuring out a way to convince Elon to artificially boost atheism on the algorithm like in your late 2000's Reddit glory days is a better way to spend your time and effort than whatever this is? Not an insult btw, I just want you to keep the counter-initiatory larpers on X at bay like your caste is created to do.

>>512977872
Why would anyone troll themselves by going through the trouble of getting bacon out of the fridge and uploading a picture next to it just so you can pivot to another attack?

>>512977989
No because we already won like 20 years ago. This thread is just fun to dunk on /pol/-style christians since they are legitimately some of the dumbest people you can encounter on the internet.

>>512977889
>American atheists fight for and politically protest against banning child mutilation surgeries and grooming
>They overwhelmingly support immigration
>They come to /pol/ and pretend its the Christians and totally not them doing these things
I'm just informing you that you will get the first bullet.

>>512977956
>The pedo from Jersey
Lol

>>512975736
>>512976440

Gnostic/agnostic only exists in the realm of what is knowable.
Gnostic - what is known
Agnostic - what is unknown

Beliefs are irrational. Supernatural beings are irrational. Beliefs in supernatural beings are irrational squared. Gods are supernatural beings that can only be believed in or not believed in. Beliefs in supernatural beings, like demons, witches, gods, sorcerers, angels, leprechauns, abominable snowmen, devils, elves, ghosts, fairies, mummies, mermaids, vampires, werewolves, goblins, Ishtar bunnies, ghouls, zombies and other such beliefs are irrational. We suspend our disbelief in them for entertainment.

The Abrahamic religions fabricated the RATIONALIZATION that beliefs are somehow ((( knowable ))). It's time to reject this weak logical fallacy.

>>512977877
In the response to the question
Are you pretending to be incompetent?
>I already answered
You said maybe.
Am I correct in interpreting this as a “yes”? Because “no” makes for a very poor “maybe”

Feel free to at any point answer one of my yes or no questions with an actual yes or no. Doing otherwise seems evasive, which is a weird posture to take.

>>512977469
Logically speaking yes. Logically impossibility refers to things like paradoxes.

>>512977989
>Atheists ITT, don't you think that figuring out a way to convince Elon to artificially boost atheism on the algorithm like in your late 2000's Reddit glory days is a better way to spend your time and effort than whatever this is?
No lol

>>512978137
You are?

>>512978140
That's the ghost of mesa namefag pedo

>>512978139
Okay?

>>512978081
Some of them do but it is not an organized group like the Christian sects who also protest against banning child mutilation surgeries in regards to circumcision in America, and who often groom young kids into their cult through mindfucking them with lies, fear and punishment.

>>512978140
>>I already answered
>You said maybe
There's your answer duder

>>512978140
>Feel free to at any point answer one of my yes or no questions with an actual yes or no
I don't need to though

>>512978148
Great, so then you would agree it is logically possible God exists and he loves you.

Me saying “God exists and he loves you” is not an illogical position for me to take, correct?

>>512976697
Once again, a dimwitted believer who cannot grasp the distinction between ACCEPT (what the survey measured) and SUPPORT (what the believer falsely claimed)

>>512978414
I’m just going to accept your evasiveness as a concession. I don’t know how else to interpret it, and any time I ask you to help me better understand your position better, you refuse.

>>512978489
It depends on how you define god. For example, Yahweh is defined in a way that has built in paradoxes so it would not be logically possible for that one to exist.

"agnostics" are liars and don't exist, the second they engage in debate against theists but do not engage the reasoning/arguments of the theist to disprove them, they are then implying the theist's argument is wrong, which is a claim aligned with atheism. They should be honest and call themselves "soft atheists". But they call themselves agnostics for the same exact reason the biggest dumbfuck normies call themselves "independents" politically. Never trust an agnostic.

>>512978562
>I’m just going to accept your evasiveness
I'm not evading anything. You don't like that you can't pigeon hole me to fish for a gotcha or a strawman

>>512978562
>and any time I ask you to help me better understand your position better, you refuse
I don't understand what you're not understanding.

Where's the disconnect with you my friend?

>>512978390
>Christian sects who also protest against banning child mutilation surgeries
Proofs?
Yeah kys you whataboutism lying kike, you are going into the oven

>>512978072
>>512978167
Sad, sad cope over the fact that Taylor Marshall and Jay Dyer have greater global clout than even the biggest atheist influencer there is right now. Well I can intellectually pummel both of them to the ground with my left hand, but you always relied on the algocracy for your shred of clout, so when algocracy no longer favors you, you have nothing to stand on. Sad!

>>512978620
Could you give me an example of such a paradox?

>>512978081
Some athists do. I don't. And that has nothing to do with atheism. A lot of white people support immigration, why don't you call out whites? A lot of christians support it, do they get the bullet? Why are only atheists bring collectivised like this?
>I'm just informing you that you will get the first bullet
No hate like christian love.
And this still has nothing to do with the question of a god existing.

>>512978489
It's illogical to claim this is 100% true and you know it, it is logical to claim that it is logically possible and so you live your life based on it because it benefits you to do so. This wouldn't grant you any moral authority to try to push the rules of the Christian church on others though.

>>512978685
If you are afraid of being “gotcha’d” I already “gotcha”
If not, you would answer my questions then BTFO me when I spring the trap.

That’s how I know your evasiveness is a concession.

>>512978704
>Proofs
Transmission Ministry Collective is a Christian organization founded in March 2020 that explicitly supports transgender and gender-expansive individuals within a faith context, affirming all gender identities as sacred and viewing gender transition as a holy act of co-creation with God

>>512978781
I love how you guys have to hallucinate different questions to answer because you won’t answer very simple questions.

I wouldn’t call it endearing, but it is entertaining.

>>512978724
Yahweh is prescribed to be simultaneously omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. This is a paradox. You can play word games to try and solve it if you want, but if you're being intellectually honest, this contradiction can't be resolved. And yes, I'm aware it's a very old problem but theists that believe in narrow gods like this have never given a good answer.

>>512978721
>Well I can intellectually pummel both of them to the ground with my left hand
(X)doubt

>>512978784
Again
>>512978685
>I don't understand what you're not understanding.
>Where's the disconnect with you my friend?
Well?

>>512978721
>Taylor Marshall and Jay Dyer
literally who?

>>512978725
>Some athists do. I
See the percentages?
That's not high enough numbers in the opposition to spare you on a "maybe"
Your kind can not be trusted, Period.

>>512978906
>(X)doubt
Cope

>>512978898
> Yahweh is prescribed to be simultaneously omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent
No he isn’t, the Bible is clear he is none of those things.

Do you have another paradox to offer?

>>512978948
About?

>>512978620
God = An eternal personal and powerful mind that is the ultimate cause of all contingent reality.

>>512978952
The vast majority of Christians believe all of those. If you don't, congratulations on being some fringe sect.

>>512978906
If you go back through our discussions, everything that ends in a. Question mark is somewhere I am unclear on your position.

If you would like to go back and answer the questions, we can continue. Otherwise I see no point in discussion with you because you won’t even tell me what you think

>>512978952
>No he isn’t, the Bible is clear he is none of those things
Yes it is

>In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.

>>512965852

>"nothing in particular" can't even make up its mind on the question

>>512978936
>>512978987
No wonder the algorithm dropped atheism into the bin lmfao

>>512978941
Then you'll have innocent blood on your hands.

>>512979042
>Question mark is somewhere I am unclear on your position.
Should be easy for you simply then no?

Otherwise it's just a personal problem on your end

>>512979028
Okay? Is your argument that the majority of Christians are correct? Because that really doesn’t serve your position well.

>>512979067
>bragging about being a slave to some corporate algorithm
not sure why you think this is a flex

>>512979067
What algorithm would that be?

It is what it is
No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to be pro fag, pro grooming, anti Christian tranny immigrant lovers who vote jew

>>512979047
Okay, what don you think your chosen verse is exhibiting here? Which Omni-x are you trying to illustrate?

>>512979108
Is it?

>>512979113
My argument is that the vast majority of Christians (and Jews and Muslims for that matter) believe in a God that is logically impossible (AKA Yahweh). Apparently you don't and are in some weird 1% fringe category. Congrats. It was an example of a logically impossible god nothing more.

>>512979167
Both. God also handed the heart of the Pharoah and claims to the the alpha amd omega, beginning and end..it's poetry for omnipotent and omniscient

>>512979201
Clearly

>(ID: zx+gTChi
>22 Posts
>(ID: /WrI7sX9)
>30 posts
> (ID: WdduokIP)
>37 Posts
>(ID: ACfCL7vG(
>93 posts


So more than 1/3 of this thread is jus four dickhead arguing with each other

>>512979226
Okay well would you like to have a discussion with me, or would you like to have a discussion with the vast majority of Christians that live rent free in your head?

Because if it’s the latter, I’m not needed for it and we can both stop filling out captchas.

>>512979127
>>512979144
I hear Peter Thiel is looking to boost some controlled opposition. Suck his dick or something, he's open-minded.

>>512979315
We are having a discussion. You asked for an example of such a paradox and I named one. What is your problem.

>>512979167
Just call him a pedo jew from Jersey(he is)
It triggers him and if you say it and post his photo he will cry to the mods and have you banned
He already did it again today when another anon recognized him
Pedojew completely lost his shit and cried all over thread

>>512979298
So… beginning means omnipotent and end means omniscient?
That’s really neat stuff. It seems you are willing to believe just about anything. Except one, thing of course.

>>512979226
>Apparently you don't
He does, he's just being vague about it because he knows it's also illogical

>>512979320
>Suck his dick or something
They always leap to protected homosex

>>512979165
You are a sick, dangerous fanatic and a threat to those around you.

>>512978489
Its logically possible. But its obviously not real. Just like the infinite other things that could exist but don't. God is just as likely as being real as the ramblings of schizo in an insane asylum being real.