Anti-Theist takes on Theist

tldr: god is real

File: Orthodox.jpg (104KB, 735x490px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 735x490px

>>35742452
With Christianity alone, there are over 5000 FUCKING DENOMATIONS!
>http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/DENOMS.php
What makes you think your particular religion is correct? You're shooting for fish on dry land, it's going to take a miracle to aim your potential in the right area.
Also, I'd like to take the time to state that most Christians don't even fucking know the 10 commandments, the most important guidelines for humans, dictated by the Judeo-christian God Yahweh to Moses, etched into stone tablets, and referred to as the 10 commandments.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw
>http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/realten.htm
>http://stage.i2net.com/joe/kr/real-10-commandments.php
>http://sbpoley.home.xs4all.nl/essays/tencommandments.html
1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

>>35742761
>With Christianity alone, there are over 5000 FUCKING DENOMATIONS!
the denomations is about interpretation of the bible. Thus they are all Christian.

File: SoCalm.jpg (93KB, 300x309px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 300x309px

>>35742761
Religion isn't only a sham, but is harmful to society.
In the bible, no matter what version, there were two first beings brought about into this world, that ate fruit from the tree of forbidden knowledge.
Think about that for a second...Forbidden knowledge. The enemy of religion is knowledge. The enemy of religion is enlightened people who question the crumbling answers put forth for their consumption by their holy man. In the early 13th century, Christian monks took THE OLDEST BOOK OF FUCKING CALCULUS, AND USED IT FOR SCRATCH PAPER
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest
Do you know how fucking far we would be right now if we had calculus several hundred years before Isaac Newton? Fuck, Christians have set us back literally centuries!
Those aren't the only books, but probably the most important. During the crusades and dark ages of Europe, hundreds of thousands of books were burned, knowledge lost to the fires.
All religions do this, and it's fucking sad. Religion is literally impeding society by centuries.

Arabic/semitic fucked everything

File: HereItComes.jpg (25KB, 268x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 268x300px

>>35742452
If God is responsible for all wrongs in this world, then if and when God honestly reveals itself onto the world, then I will spit in its face, and tell it to beg for our forgiveness. For if God is responsible for everything wrong in this world, then I reject any "paradise" made in the ideals of such a masochist, infanticidal, genocidal, pro rape, pro starvation, pro AIDS, pro war creature.
>Debate me Theists, I haven't seen anyone argue even one of my points in three posts full of texts yet. What's wrong? Are you beginning to question your factless faithbased belief that your ONE religion is correct. I would be, if I had to choose 1 religion in 100,000

God as anyone on Earth has described is a baseless claim of knowledge no human can have.

>>35742452
>this wall of text

>>35742452
>There's a fundamental problem with god, and this is the issue of infinite regression, meaning who created god, who created the thing that created god, who created the thing that created the thing that created god, and so on and so forth, there's no finite stopping point, kind of like infinity.

>mfw someone tried to apply the laws of the created to the creator near me
>mfw someone tried to apply the laws of this universe to a being not of this universe near me
>mfw someone tried to apply natural laws to a supernatural being near me


>If god(s) exists, then God created the existence, which means it created the universe, which means one way or another, through what ever method, whether life spawned on Earth, or if an asteroid with microbial life or proteins fell to Earth and inseminated it doesn't matter, we eventually came to exist by that process started by God, which fundamentally means he created us.
>If God then did create us, he created imperfect beings. Whether your argument for is that God put the tree of forbidden knowledge in the garden of Eden knowing we were imperfect, or God just did that as a test of faith is a load of horse shit.

>I don't like your answer so I'm not going to listen to it
k


>If God did this, that means he knew we would do wrong in this world.
If you put a small child in a room with a bowl full of candy and tell the child "don't eat the candy" is it your fault when he does? No, the child still choses to eat the candy


(1/2)
OP is a massive faggot for making his post too long to reply to

File: image.jpg (51KB, 403x300px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 403x300px

>>35743892 (You)
>>35742452
>God knew 30,000 humans would starve to death worldwide daily. God knew Middle Easterners would rape and kill women by stoning for fun. God knew that some North Koreans would never know the light of day, think everyone is either born a prisoner or guard, and die in a chemical weapons testing chamber.
All these evils exist because of man OP

>If God couldn't foresee this, then God isn't omniscient.
No one claimed he couldn't

>If God isn't omniscient, then God's power is limited.
No one claimed it was

>If God's power is limited, then obviously God exists in a realm where laws exist.
No one claimed the creator of the universe existed within the universe

>If God knew this, then God is cruel.
Non sequitur

>If God is cruel, then God is imperfect.
Once again a non sequitur unless from a Christian perspective you would be right but nothing you've stated above is correct

>>35742452
how can you prove that my god doesn't exist?

Gotta respect those who still have the patience to debate with religious people.
Both sides must be masochists. The atheists because they willingly go and subject themselves to this nonsense time after time again and the religious idiots because time after time they get BTFO and always want seconds.

File: PeaceAndTolerance.jpg (94KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 720x720px

>>35743599
If I wanted to devote my life to show every wrong claim in a holy book, list every person killed in the name of religion, list every fallacy, crazy law, so on and so forth, I wouldn't even be able to get 1/4th the way through by the end of my life.
This "wall of text" is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.........fraction^-32 of everything wrong with religion. Be glad I could condense some key ideas into 3 full 4chan posts.
>WHERE ARE YOUR ARGUMENTS THEISTS? I'LL SHOW YOU MY NAME SO YOU CAN EVEN KNOW WHO THE FUCK TO FOCUS ON!

>>35744047
>mfw high school atheists are really this retarded

>I'm going to lump every religion in with every other religion because of reasons

I thank God I was born without severe autism

>>35744148
>b-but my religion is different!
Says everyone who follows one of the tens of thousands of religious flavors out there.

They're all the same, don't fool yourself mate.

>>35743941
>>If God knew this, then God is cruel.
>Non sequitur
I apologize it is very rude of me to say it is a non sequitur without explaining why

It is a non sequitur because we, as humans, cannot see all ends

We do not know the outcome of every action

It is holy possible that the horrible brutal death of an entire family of 5, killed in a minivan when they were hit by drunk driver, will serve a greater good than them being alive because there is no way for us, as normal men, to know what would've happened if they had been alive

>>35744404
Would you shut the fuck up you stupid knownothing highschooler

To lump every religion together is completely without justification

http://youtu.be/9kHL-Wo5-Dw

File: ForSerious.jpg (14KB, 300x315px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x315px

>>35743892
>mfw someone tried to apply the laws of the created to the creator near me
>mfw someone tried to apply the laws of this universe to a being not of this universe near me
>mfw someone tried to apply natural laws to a supernatural being near me

So you're saying it's a being outside of Space Time, outside of our ability to measure any quantum reality, and you still haven't said what God you're referring to?
Yeah, that sounds like something that doesn't exist.

>>I don't like your answer so I'm not going to listen to it
>k

I didn't say that, and I put forth a logical argument as to why it's a load of shit.

>>If God did this, that means he knew we would do wrong in this world.
>If you put a small child in a room with a bowl full of candy and tell the child "don't eat the candy" is it your fault when he does? No, the child still choses to eat the
You're comparing a parent with a baby to a claim of a supernatural being, responsible for the laws of physics, and everything that governs life as we know it? Nigger, you're retarded. God gave us free will, and is thus responsible for creating fallible beings that would do wrong, and God fucking knew it! God should've created perfect beings in a perfect world.
When an artist paints, an artist doesn't just fucking shit on the canvas, they try to convey something in as best a fashion as possible. God definitely took a shit on this world, just look at any place in Africa.

>>35743941
>All these evils exist because of man OP

Oh yeah, why is that? God created man, therefore God is the reason for evil. Use some fucking logic.

>Once again a non sequitur unless from a Christian perspective you would be right but nothing you've stated above is correct

Holy fucking shit, everything I said is relevant. Saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it so. God in the eyes of every religion that says God created this world, is infact fallible and imperfect, because God created us. We're cruel too.

It's pretty funny people dedicate their lives to one specific version of one specific religion when you can trace back how the fiction grew and even the individuals who wrote that version of their holy book to appease some king thousands of years ago. It's almost as sad as scientologists who have on record their founder saying a good way to make money would be to invent a religion.

File: ThisIsYouRightNow.jpg (78KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 650x650px

>>35744148
What do you want me to do, go through every religion, piece by piece, and dismantle each crumbling foundation?
There's over 5,000 denominations of Christianity alone! It would take several dozen life times to do this, far more than a full thread of my posts could ever even scratch.
>Try harder faggot.
>>35744423
What greater good did the 50% infant death rate upon birth serve in this world before the first use of medicine?
Tell me, what purpose does the goat fucking in the Middle East serve?
If you think any of those things serves a greater purpose between the Big-Bang and the eventual heat death of the universe, besides providing great suffering to those who live now, then you sir, are without a doubt, the most immoral, stupid human being I've ever met.
..
..
..
..
May your "God" have mercy on your "soul."

File: Great.jpg (143KB, 804x787px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 804x787px

>>35743983
You can't disprove a negative retard.
That's a logical fallacy.
Try harder, and take a basic debating class.
Prove to me there aren't 7 massless, energyless pixie dicks in your mouth in any given moment. You can't....

What I can do, is show your everything wrong with any religion I'm aware of, that makes a claim that can be tested.
For instance, any claim of Noah's Arc, or the precursors that were ripped off by the bible to make that story are all mathematically wrong. Even if you could pack that many animals into this world, which you obviously couldn't, the boat would rip in half under its own massive frame.

>>35744500
>Yeah, that sounds like something that doesn't exist.
What makes you say that Johan?

>I didn't say that, and I put forth a logical argument as to why it's a load of shit.
Johan, you didn't make any connection as to why mankind being imperfect is relevant in anyway.

>You're comparing a parent with a baby to a claim of a supernatural being, responsible for the laws of physics, and everything that governs life as we know it? Nigger, you're retarded.
I know I could hardly believe it myself you'd think grown men would learn to control themselves better than small children

>God gave us free will, and is thus responsible for the actions of beings with free will
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>God should've created perfect beings in a perfect world.
Johan, you sound like you want heaven on earth.

> God definitely took a shit on this world, just look at any place in Africa.
According to you

>Oh yeah, why is that? God created man, therefore God is the reason for evil. Use some fucking logic.
We have free will
We are responsible for our own actions and lack of action

>>35744743
>What greater good did the 50% infant death rate upon birth serve in this world before the first use of medicine?
I don't know Johan
I could speculate if you really want

>Tell me, what purpose does the goat fucking in the Middle East serve?
I don't know Johan
I could speculate if you really want

>If you think any of those things serves a greater purpose between the Big-Bang and the eventual heat death of the universe, besides providing great suffering to those who live now, then you sir, are without a doubt, the most immoral, stupid human being I've ever met.
I assume some of them have a purpose
Though I would say for majority of then it is merely random chance

I don't know why you're so sure there is no purpose
Can you prove this assertion Johan?

>>35744743
>What do you want me to do, go through every religion, piece by piece, and dismantle each crumbling foundation?
>WAAAAAHHHHH
>THESE EVIL ROTTEN THEISTS ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY EXPECT ME TO NOT TREAT THEM ALL THE SAME BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT
>ITS TOO HARD
>WAAAAAHHHH
>There's over 5,000 denominations of Christianity alone!
>he doesn't realize that every Christian worship Christ and the divisions between the denominations are most minor and aesthetic

>It would take several dozen life times to do this, far more than a full thread of my posts could ever even scratch.
>ITS TOO HARD
>WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

>>35742452
>There's a fundamental problem with god, and this is the issue of infinite regression

No such thing for eternal beings.

0/10 don't ever come back and this will be added to your file

>>35742452
1. 1 Timothy 6:20

2. Fuck you.

>>35742452
>If God knew this, then God is cruel.

Was God the one doing it?

>tfw not sure if this entire post is satire or if this entire post is serious with OP just being very sarcastic or OP is actually retarded and believes of this

>>35742761
>With Christianity

Case closed, he came to attack christianity, obviously he has some issues against the Lord and comes to combat Him

>>35744743
>What greater good did the 50% infant death rate upon birth serve in this world before the first use of medicine?
Maybe they'll suffer even more if they managed to live?

>Tell me, what purpose does the goat fucking in the Middle East serve?
Same purpose bestiality has all over the world.

Did r/atheism leak into here somehow?

>>35745122
11/10

>>35743497
>If God is responsible for all wrongs in this world

God wasn't the one doing it, mind if I spit on YOUR FACE?

Go to r/debatereligion. Your knowledge of religion is reddit tier.
If you wanted to know you could just use Google. Every question you made have already been answered m8

>>35744971
>What makes you say that Johan?
Something that is immeasurable in at least one way or another, might as well not exist. Even dark matter can be observed by its gravitational facts.

>Johan, you didn't make any connection as to why mankind being imperfect is relevant in anyway.
If God is perfect, then its creations should be perfect. If God created imperfect beings in an imperfect world, then God is cruel, thus imperfect, and thus isn't really a perfect being. So why call it God?

>I know I could hardly believe it myself you'd think grown men would learn to control themselves better than small children
What? That came out of left field, wtf are you talking about? You're not attacking my arguments, you're merely insulting me at this point. Where is the meat to your argument?

>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
See above.

>Johan, you sound like you want heaven on earth.
Of course I want heaven on Earth, who the fuck wants such an impoverished world full of starving babies? Maybe your god does, or at least your claims seem to imply your God wanted this, because God by your claims is omniscient and created us.

>According to you
According to any atheist on the theism spectrum. We don't believe in your claims of God, because your God is so shitty, and your claims have no evidence.

>We have free will
We are responsible for our own actions and lack of action
God created free will > We use free will to do wrong > God is responsible for the tools God gave us, therefore God is responsible for every wrong > God is cruel > God is imperfect > Why call them God?

>I don't know Johan
>I could speculate if you really want
Please do, I'd like to see you try to defend such a high infant mortality rate, and keep your morale high ground and logic at the same time.

>I assume some of them have a purpose
Though I would say for majority of then it is merely random chance

>I don't know why you're so sure there is no purpose
Can you prove this assertion Johan?

Word limit

>>35743217
>tree of knowledge
>not the tree of knowledge of good and evil

Get the fuck out you fucking faggot

Intentionally taking things out of context and missquoting them are truly the two staples of atheistic arguments

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest
>people accidentally used an important piece of paper as scratch paper
>therefore religion is evil and anti-science
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>35744951
oh so you're arguing against other peoples religions, not my particular faith.
Help yourself to the pixie-dicks, arschloch, just don't choke on them.

Aus.

>>35742452

Who is to say that this world is not perfect?

Who are you to judge what is good and what is bad?

>checkmate, atheists.

File: GTFO.gif (418KB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 500x270px

>>35744971
cont from >>35745421
I don't believe there's a purpose, because you havent proven there to be any yet.
Unlike anti-theism, where we can't disprove a negative, you can prove your positive claims of something existing.... i.e. your claims of God and a purpose. Prove it.

>>35745055
No argument, just trying to smear my image. Try harder theist.What I said was logical, it would take several dozen years to dismantle every religion.
>>35745076
If God exists somewhere, then God has to have a beginning. If God had a beginning, then God had to create itself. Even if God lives forever, God has to have a beginning. You haven't demonstrated anything inside or outside this universe is eternal, so there's no such thing as far as we know.

>>35745122
>1 Timothy 6:20
OMFG THAT'S HILARIOUS, knowledge really is the enemy of religion!
HERES THE PASSAGE FOR THOSE TO LAZY TO CHECK IT OUT!
>20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge

>>35745174
Fuck anyone's God(s). Pure 100% serious.

>>35745180
Case closed, he came to attack christianity, obviously he has some issues against the Lord and comes to combat Him
I attack Christianity because I'm most familiar with that particular piece of human created filth, than the other tens of thousands of similiar pieces of shit.

>>35745421
Your post is so full of logical fallacies I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll start with #1. There is no empirical evidence for dark matter as there is no empirical evidence for a particulate structure of gravity. Therefore, you ascribe a double standard to what you will and will not accept as proof, manipulating the results.

> 1 Timothy 6:20

Have a nice day OP, your incoherent babble hasn't swayed anyone.

>>35745421
>Something that is immeasurable in at least one way or another, might as well not exist.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>Even dark matter can be observed by its gravitational facts.
Oh look everybody, he mentioned dark matter, that means you must be smart

>If God is perfect, then its creations should be perfect.
Non sequitur
Prove it

>What? That came out of left field, wtf are you talking about? You're not attacking my arguments, you're merely insulting me at this point. Where is the meat to your argument?
m8......

>See above.
You didn't read my post, right?

>Maybe your god does, or at least your claims seem to imply your God wanted this, because God by your claims is omniscient and created us.
I, in no way shape or form, see how God creating us implies any of that

>God is responsible for the tools God gave us,
Yes
>therefore God is responsible for every wrong
No
We have free will
It is our decision to do evil
I fail to see why God has any responsibility for our actions

>Please do, I'd like to see you try to defend such a high infant mortality rate, and keep your morale high ground and logic at the same time.
Evolution has resulted in an imperfect method of birth

File: 1234561246471.jpg (7KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 224x225px

>>35745778
>I attack Christianity because I'm most familiar with that particular piece of human created filth
>familiar
>has never read the bible

kek

>>35745778
>If God exists somewhere, then God has to have a beginning
Prove it

File: image.jpg (19KB, 165x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 165x300px

>>35745778
>it would take several dozen years to dismantle every religion.
>I attack Christianity because I'm most familiar with that particular piece of human created filth, than the other tens of thousands of similiar pieces of shit.

File: JustGiveUp.gif (961KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 500x361px

>>35745213
It's better to have lived and lost to have never lived at all.

>>35745213
What purpose would that be sir? The purpose to goat fucking would be?...

>>35745249
So far you claim God created everything, so God is responsible for everything, including free will, life, and is responsible for having been omniscient and not stopping such incredulous beings.

>>35745456
Out of context huh? Let's see me take this out of context
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
Pro slavery, wow how fucking archaic.

>>35745488
I'm arguing against every religion, because NO RELIGION HAS MADE REAL FUCKING EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, TO THEIR EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS!
Prove your God exists, then I shall believe.
Then I'll spit in your God's being, tell it to beg for my forgiveness, and take my own path.

>>35745521
This world is imperfect, because it's chaotic. A perfect world would be uniform.
My morales of good and bad decide what good and bad is for me. I can't decide that for you.
Try harder faggot.
..
..

..
..
..
..
Still none of you have proven the existence of your god, claimed your $1,000,000 reward
>http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html
It's right there theists, go on and take it if your God exists.

>>35742452
> ITT: Anti-Theist gets buttblasted when his logic is dismantled by God fearing theists.

>>35746200
>Still none of you have proven the existence of your god, claimed your $1,000,000 reward
>cherry picking what evidence you will and will not accept.

Yeah, no thanks. Maybe if you understood what rational knowledge is. Have you ever read Aristotle, OP? Or are you really as retarded as you sound?

File: choke a bitch.jpg (48KB, 500x439px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x439px

>>35746200
>Prove your God exists, then I shall believe

>wants proof of something entirely faith-based

mfw

File: Lier.gif (284KB, 460x244px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 460x244px

>>35745798
There's evidence for gravity, what the fuck are you talking about.

If you think our knowledge of gravity is so shit, then how the fuck do our engineers make models and actual working pieces that follow the laws of gravity so well? Dark matter does exist, we just haven't found out what it is.Holy shit you're fucking retarded and making outright lies.
>1 Timothy 6:20
Again, knowledge is the enemy of religion. You've proven my point, religion is for retards and the willfully ignorant.
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I know you can't disprove a negative, that's why I used the example of pixie dicks.
That's also why I said "MIGHT AS WELL NOT EXIST"
>MIGHT
Fuck, use your head.

>Oh look everybody, he mentioned dark matter, that means you must be smart
My point of dark matter is it's something so incredibly difficult to understand, but it's at least fucking measurable in ONE FUCKING WAY, your God(s) immeasurable. Therefore it might as well not fucking exist.

....

...
...
...
If your God is real, why doesn't it show itself to the world right now, and end all this debate? You know why, because it's either a cruel, imperfect being that wants more arguments, and in which case why call them God, or it doesn't exist.

>>35746200
>“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
You must take the scripture written in the context of the times the men that wrote them lived in

Slavery existed in the Roman empire
It is very foolish and very silly to not expect philosophers of the time not to write on slavery

And this isn't it explicitly a proslavery passage
It's simply telling slaves and servants how they should act in their masters homes
Because,
slavery existed in this time

>>35746200
>NO RELIGION HAS MADE REAL FUCKING EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, TO THEIR EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS!
>I can dismiss any evidence I want as not EXTRAORDINARY enough if I want to
>and I always want to

>>35746539
>If your God is real, why doesn't it show itself to the world right now, and end all this debate
>mfw literally did this 2000 years ago
>mfw if where to appear now in 2000 years atheists would say the exact same thing

File: HintIt'sYou.gif (472KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 500x361px

>>35746302
>Cherry picking what evidence you will and will not accept.
I'm not cherry picking shit, give me one way to measure your God. Just one, and claim your $1,000,000.
>Have you ever read Aristotle, OP? Or are you really as retarded as you sound?
So anyone who hasn't read aristotle is irrational? Nice try jackass. That would mean everyone before Aristotle was irrational. You're as stupid as your claims to God with no evidence.

>Prove your God exists, then I shall believe

>wants proof of something entirely faith-based
Yes I want proof, where the fuck is it? Something entirely faith based is pointless, you havent provided evidence. I believe in evidence. JUST ONE FUCKING WAY TO MEASURE YOUR GOD, JUST ONE!

>>35746539
>knowledge is the enemy of religion
>Catholicism single handedly brought Europe out of the Dark Ages
uwotm8

>>35746728
>give me one way to measure your God.
>I think the study of the natural will ever prove or disapprove the supernatural

File: image.jpg (67KB, 590x518px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 590x518px

>>35746728
>So anyone who hasn't read aristotle is irrational? Nice try jackass. That would mean everyone before Aristotle was irrational. You're as stupid as your claims to God with no evidence.

File: I'mDyingM8.jpg.jpg (16KB, 204x220px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 204x220px

>>35746570
>You must take the scripture written in the context of the times the men that wrote them lived in

You're saying the world couldn't exist without slavery? God you religious people are the most immoral, illogical faggots on the face of the planet.
>And this isn't it explicitly a proslavery passage
It's 100% a pro slavery passage, lmfao, how dense can you be?
>>35746636
I haven't dismissed any extraordinary evidence, BECAUSE NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED, just more religious rhetoric that's been gasped in futile efforts billions of times before it. Provided just ONE way to measure your god. ONE!
>>35746727
If God could do it 2,000 years ago, God could do it again. It's not like God has already set forth a self regulating shit hole of a universe already. Also it's not like a being that's omniscient, omnipotent, and all powerful couldn't multitask every at every point for the rest of eternity, it wouldn't even bother God to reveal himself.
There's not even solid evidence that Yeshua even existed as a human, much less a man. We've never found his tomb, or anything else, where the fuck is ONE PIECE OF FUCKING SOLID EVIDENCE HE EVEN EXISTED AS A PERSON, MUCH LESS A FUCKING GOD!

>>35747006
>You're saying the world couldn't exist without slavery?
What the fuck are you talking about?

File: 32905264.jpg (91KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 400x400px

>>35746728
You're a flaming retard, OP. You disregard all the rational evidence out there for God, and only want empirical evidence. When in fact, empirical evidence doesn't exist for half of the science based theories. In fact, modern day science is mostly faith based, but you are too stupid to realize that.

No, you are a fucking mongrel. If you haven't read Aristotle, then it is painfully obvious that you are too ignorant or to young to be able to understand that knowledge comes from other avenues besides empirical.

Do you know what a priori knowledge is? No? Good, then shut the fuck up because you have no authority on the subject you preach, and therefore no one will take your ignorant 18 year old self seriously.

tl;dr- Kill yourself OP, you are a plague to mankind.

File: god is real.png (13KB, 547x349px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 547x349px

>>35746728

>Yes I want proof, where the fuck is it?

the whole point of your relationship with God is faith in the absence of evidence, tard

>Something entirely faith based is pointless
>you havent provided evidence
>faith
>wants evidence
>faith
>wants evidence

I have honestly never met such a retard

>>35747006
>If God could do it 2,000 years ago, God could do it again.
Defeats the purpose. Why must God go out of his way AGAIN simply because you trolls are just hurr durr no pics didn't happen

File: HAHAHAHAFAGGOT.KPG.jpg (17KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x256px

>>35746831
So give me a study of the supernatural. Any one way to fucking measure your God, lmfao, not even 1 hint of evidence.

>>35746747
How the fuck did Catholicism bring Europe out of the Dark Ages? Catholics killed those who tried to prove the Earth revolved around the sun, tried to silence those who claimed evolution was real and we're descended from animals. They killed literally millions of people, more than Stalin could've ever hoped for. Religion is single handedly slowing down human progression by centuries, and will increase with time.

>>35747006
>God should be my cosmic gumball machine and spit out miracles and signs every time I deem it convenient for me

God was not made for man, man was made for God

File: 1393405204702.jpg (44KB, 450x418px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 450x418px

>>35746728
>So anyone who hasn't read aristotle is irrational? Nice try jackass. That would mean everyone before Aristotle was irrational. You're as stupid as your claims to God with no evidence.

Holy shit you are so stupid that you don't even know the difference between empirical and rational knowledge.

topkek

I'm not sure whether I pity or envy your stupidity. But it must sure feel nice to be so oblivious to the world.

>>35747164

>study of the supernatural
>not even 1 hint of evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

>supernatural
>evidence

File: download (9).jpg (7KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 197x256px

>>35747049
>You're a flaming retard, OP. You disregard all the rational evidence out there for God, and only want empirical evidence. When in fact, empirical evidence doesn't exist for half of the science based theories. In fact, modern day science is mostly faith based, but you are too stupid to realize that.
>I don't fucking even

Let me guess, you're a philosophy major.

File: image.jpg (151KB, 736x1209px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 736x1209px

>>35747164
I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution.

That is all

Continue on

>>35742452
>and this is the issue of infinite regression, meaning who created god, who created the thing that created god, who created the thing that created the thing that created god, and so on and so forth, there's no finite stopping point, kind of like infinity.

You started good OP, but this is where I stopped reading. Clearly you yourself are no better than the christians that you accuse of throwing retarded claims.

Congrats dipshit

>>35747164
You have 5 seconds to disprove Gödel's ontological proof of God.

Protip: you can't

>>35747164
http://youtu.be/KF8mgwgIKGE?t=4m50s

Educate yourself

>>35742452
>Using logical arguments against people of faith.
They will just be ignored, it's not worth wasting your time.

>>35747259
No, I just read books, and don't suck on Chris Hitchen's dead cock or Dawkins live, flaccid one.

File: bait for the bait god.jpg (73KB, 960x916px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x916px

guys I think this is bait

>>35747253

>supernatural

You mean unfalsifiable

>>35747308

You don't sound like someone who read a whole lot of books

>>35747049
>You're a flaming retard, OP. You disregard all the rational evidence out there for God, and only want empirical evidence. When in fact, empirical evidence doesn't exist for half of the science based theories. In fact, modern day science is mostly faith based, but you are too stupid to realize that.

hello operative, gr8 b8

>>35747164
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Lectures_old.php?Mode=Add&ItemID=Item_Multimedia_50&width=720&height=460
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

Dark Ages started by the fall of Rome.

File: Retard.gif (169KB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 267x199px

>>35747049
Scientific based theories all have evidence, or they wouldn't be theories. Theory is different in the scientific community from the colloquial term you throw around so casually. A theory is a refined hypothesis that has been tested time and time again, without even ONE failure.
>No, you are a fucking mongrel. If you haven't read Aristotle, then it is painfully obvious that you are too ignorant or to young to be able to understand that knowledge comes from other avenues besides empirical.
That's the same as claiming everyone before Aristotles' birth was ignorant, holy fuck that logic is so flawed. Kill yourself.
>Priori knowledge isn't that fucking hard to understand dumbass.....
>>35747053
Now I know you're a troll if you think an ID created by a computer proves the existence of God.
>>35747122
Again, an all powerful ethereal sky God doesn't have to go out of his way to do anything. God should be able to do everything perfectly, at all times, every moment of existence because God is all powerful. If God is infinite, then you can't apply finite limits on the being. That's just more reason to not believe in God.
Where is one, ONE FUCKING PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD!

File: heretics.jpg (64KB, 461x403px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 461x403px

>>35747505

so you're completely ignoring my argument and focusing on the pic used for humour?

Ahh, another hilarious anti-theist thread.
>Claims religious beliefs are illogical
>Tries to use logic to persuade the religious.

You really need your beliefs affirmed that badly? I feel sorry for someone so insecure.

>>35747505
A theory means it hasn't been proven you idiot.

>OP confirmed for being two braincells short of a pair.

>>35742452

Don't worry anon God loves you and will forgive you.

I'll pray for you as well.

>>35747505
>unable to explain a priori knowledge.
>doesn't know there is a difference between a prior and priori.
>deflects question

Shouldn't you be back in school, youngfag?

>>35747266

If you even understood it you would see OP already did.

Godel's proof is based on a perfect god.

You have failed before you even started.

>>35745778
>knowledge really is the enemy of religion!
>what is falsely called knowledge

You fail at reading.

>>35747505
>Where is one, ONE FUCKING PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD!

Right here you faggot

Gödel's ontological proof
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

Its already been posted in this thread before, but you conveniently glossed over it.

>>35747815

You mean you conveniently ignored OP.

Take apart OP's logic if you want to suggest Godel was correct.

>>35747757
>Gofdel's proof based on perfect god

No it isn't you retard. It's based on the distinction of necessary truths vs contingent truths.

File: AutismIsStrong.jpg (43KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 277x296px

>>35747179
It's not a question if God should do anything. Faith is pointless, if God can prove itself without even using a fraction of its infinite power, then why doesn't God? Infinity divided by even Grahams number is still infinity you retard. God should be able to do everything, always, at any given moment without lifting his little pinky.
>>35747208
Throwing around buzzwords like there's no tomorrow. Please, tell me how your logic doesn't imply heavily that everyone before Aristotle is illogical, because you're implying that anyone who hasn't read Aristotle's teachings is illogical.
Also prove your God is anyway. What's one way I can measure your God?

>>35747253
Exactly, might as well not exist, MIGHT AS WELL, MIGHT.

>>35747263
Explain faggot. ;)

> "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."
If God exists, then we should be able to measure it. You just shoved your foot and everyone's foot in your mouth. Holy fuck can you be this retarded, providing more evidence for the opposing side?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0
I can link videos too.
Prove your God exists in ONE MEASURABLE WAY. OOOOOOOOOOONE
HOLY FUCK THEISTS, PROVIDE EVEN ONE WAY TO MEASURE YOUR GOD, EVEN ONE!
HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE IS? THE BIBLE AND YOUR PASTORS AREN'T THE EVIDENCE, THEY'RE THE GOD DAMNED CLAIM!

>>35747907
>No it isn't you retard.

Confirmed for not understanding the ontological argument.

>>35747873
OP has no logical point to take apart in the first place.

Also please feel free to tell me where Godel got it wrong. He wasn't basing his thesis off of a perfect God either, moron. Just a God with certain attributed that had to be positive, as in exist.

>>35747505
>God should be able to do everything perfectly, at all times, every moment of existence because God is all powerful.
He does. You think solving temporal suffering is the cure? Have you considered that perhaps good and evil existing implies they produce more value than not having them? Men are created through their suffering and faith, not their oblivious complacence.
>If God is infinite, then you can't apply finite limits on the being.
God is infinite but it's against His nature to commit evil. What is considered evil is defined by Him, problem?
>That's just more reason to not believe in God.
Kek

>>35747991
>Confirmed for not understanding the ontological argument.
If you're so smart refute it then. I posted a counter argument to your post and instead of posting something of substance you result to character attacks.

Typical atheist.

File: 1410195635827.jpg (42KB, 431x415px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 431x415px

>>35742452
>not understanding the necessity of religion
tip your fedora sir and move along, careful about edges you created though

>>35747967
>It's not a question if God should do anything. Faith is pointless, if God can prove itself without even using a fraction of its infinite power, then why doesn't God? Infinity divided by even Grahams number is still infinity you retard. God should be able to do everything, always, at any given moment without lifting his little pinky.
should be able to?
sure

want to or need to
no

>>35747967
>Throwing around buzzwords like there's no tomorrow. Please, tell me how your logic doesn't imply heavily that everyone before Aristotle is illogical, because you're implying that anyone who hasn't read Aristotle's teachings is illogical.
>more straw-manning

Okay you are an obvious troll at this point. I didn't say everyone was illogical before Aristotle you idiot. I just said that there is a difference between how rational and empirical knowledge is attained.

Care to prove me wrong?

>OP proven for ignorant 13 year old faggot who deflects any logical arguments against him instead of refuting them

>>35748072

I already told you. It is outlined in OP's post see>>35742452

Godel's proof is based on perfect God, as are all ontological arguments.

If you don't even understand it why are you asking for a refutation? You clearly don't understand the refutation either.

>>35747967
>we should be able to naturally measure the supernatural

>>35747967
>Prove your God exists in ONE MEASURABLE WAY. OOOOOOOOOOONE
>HOLY FUCK THEISTS, PROVIDE EVEN ONE WAY TO MEASURE YOUR GOD, EVEN ONE!
>HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE IS? THE BIBLE AND YOUR PASTORS AREN'T THE EVIDENCE, THEY'RE THE GOD DAMNED CLAIM!

>Avoids refuting Godel's ontological proof of God because he can't

Top kek, faggot.

File: YOUIDIOT.jpg (51KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x528px

>>35747590
>so you're completely ignoring my argument and focusing on the pic used for humour?
Ignoring your argument? I'm tackling your wet one ply tissue paper of an argument head on, how the fuck am I ignoring anything?
I'm pumping out logical walls of texts, while you're providing cute one sentenced rebuttals packed so densely full of logical fallacies, I think you're pulling in other retards with it.

>>35747597
I don't need anything reaffirmed, I just want there to be more logical, less retarded, more tolerable human beings on a planet we all have to share for our foreseeable futures.
>>35747680
Holy fuck dude, a theory in the scientific term is much,MUCH DIFFERENT, from the colloquial sense. A scientific theory is a reformed hypothesis that has been rigorously tested time and time again, without one failure.

>>35747815
see>>35747757

>>35748205
>Godel's proof is based on perfect God
I already told you it isn't. That destroys the whole foundation of your argument, but you still persist with regurgitating that falsity.

Point to me where in Godel's argument he says God needs to be perfect in a human context?

>>35742452

lel. One of your relatives is going to die in a car crash soon.

>>35748302
But your OP didn't refute Godel's ontological proof.

Samefagging and posting as someone else who agrees with you, isn't a refutation.

>>35748010

Stop misreading Wikipedia.

File: 1879un-Imagem Luis Ricardo Falero the_favorite.jpg (280KB, 821x1277px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 821x1277px

[spoiler]>>35742452

Theologian here. OP clearly hasn't read Ecclesiastes. The fundamental positions that most of the major religions have developed from are those of nihilism and agnosticism. We don't know why we are here, we don't know who or what caused us to be here, or where we are going. So we (humans) created concepts (words) upon which we appropriated meaning to give us a sense of place and purpose. God is analogous to Allah, YHWH, Odin, etc. Over time these words not only adopt different, conflated meanings (depends who you ask). Then humans found different ways to relate to these concepts, many of which we personify so as to relate to them better (because humanity is quite simple). It is the way in which which we mediate and relate to these differing concepts as tribes,societies, and civilisations that distinguishes us from one another and tends to cause conflict. It is people's belief in those concepts and their devotion to them that makes them real. Real in the sense that their behaviour, speech, and actions are set (largely) in line with the rules by which they understand and mediate their relationship with that word. Simply arguing from the position that 'God' - a word/concept - as a literal/real being, in of itself, is quite retarded and is just a way of, essentially, begging the question. Belief makes things real (indirectly). These 'meta' concepts are not real in of themselves. I.e. 'Love' and 'gravity' are not real. Certainly unseen phenomena exist that we can observe through their effects, which in turn we, in the past, have appropriated the aforementioned terms. The same thing goes for human nature, natural law, and the motions of both the earth and the cosmos, and in the past we have usually conflated these things under one concept, in the West for the last 2000 years it has been 'God'. Ideas cannot die and are not real in of themselves, they are inert - but it is the meaning and treatment of these words by people that gives them life.

>>35742452
>if God knew this then God is cruel
I knew you'd be out sucking dicks at gay bathhouses to fuel your ruinous Jenkem habit, and I could have stopped you by locking you in my basement, but I am not cruel by neglecting to do so.

You seem to think that allowing individuals to reap what they sow is cruel. However, negating free will by getting rid of consequences is equally so.

Also, what is death to a God? If your soul is immortal, since we're working within the framework of a diety, then your life is nothing more than a phase, and your suffering and death is inconsequential in the long-run.

File: 1370803129666.gif (1MB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x358px

>>35742452
>mfw I never have believed in a perfect/omnipotent/omnipowerful god

>>35742452
>Attention all religious faggots, your religion is wrong, and your god doesn't exist.

I respect your position and will defend your right to say it, regardless of whether or not you agree with my own private beliefs.

Have a good day, anon, and God be with you (even if you haven't accepted him into your heart).

File: QUEER.jpg (36KB, 367x451px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 367x451px

>>35748101
>Necessity
>Religion
Pick one.

>>35748172
What part of imply did you not understand. I realize you didn't blatantly say it, but by affirming you believe anyone who hasn't read Aristotle is irrational, then by simply reasoning, you can see everyone before Aristotle had no way of knowing anything he wrote. Therefore everyone before Aristotle in your eyes was infact irrational. How can you not see this?

>>35748242
see>>35748072
see>>35747991
see>>35747757
Way too easy.

>>35748416
So you can't prove your point? I thought so.

Just point it out, it shouldn't be so hard to do for someone who thinks so highly of themselves like you do.

>>35748560
>>Necessity
>>Religion
>Pick one.
>implying this culture of hedonism will survive the century

>>35748456
Try explaining that to someone who doesn't understand what rationale knowledge means.

Like OP, for example.

File: tesla.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>35742452
Nobody believes in a God in the sky that created Earth.

At least not /pol/'s Christians.

So don't bother trying to look "smart', you gay bitch.

>>35748560
>What part of imply did you not understand. I realize you didn't blatantly say it, but by affirming you believe anyone who hasn't read Aristotle is irrational, then by simply reasoning, you can see everyone before Aristotle had no way of knowing anything he wrote. Therefore everyone before Aristotle in your eyes was infact irrational. How can you not see this?

No I didn't imply it, you did when you created your strawman argument using that as your basis. I simply stated there is a difference between empirical knowledge and rational knowledge, as what Aristotle has postulated.

It's okay at the end of the day, I have a loving family, a stable life and a God I can take comfort in.

At the end of the day you'll still be bitter that religion exists. So enjoy your autism, it won't change anybody's mind anytime soon, as your shit arguments have been destroyed time and time over in this thread.

>>35748560
Saying you disproved a point without offering any actual refutations does not mean it was refuted.

Keep believing in your craziness though OP. You haven't refuted shit. Explain to me what in or OP refutes Godel's proof? Go ahead explain it.

Protip: you Can't

File: HahaYeahNo.jpg (14KB, 250x272px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x272px

>>35748496
No, I assume any God that would create beings that have a natural 50% infant mortality rate at birth to be cruel.
If the parents want the child, and the world is perfect, then it should be no problem for an all powerful being to make a child be born.

>'Love' and 'gravity' are not real.
Wow, you don't fucking acknowledge gravity.
Wow.....Please don't fucking reproduce......
You sound 100% like a hardcore solipsist
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
In which case there's no point in arguing with you, because I only exist in your imagination, and not in reality.

>>35748309
>Point to me where in Godel's argument he says God needs to be perfect in a human context?

Like I say, you clearly don't even understand the ontological argument, you have read something on wikipedia you don't even understand and now you are asking people to refute it when you never grasped it in the first place.

>Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Another way of describing a being with only positive attributes is a perfect being.

Any negative attributes (e.g. not being benevolent, not being omniscient, not omnipotent etc) are not possible if the being only has positive attributes.

Using 'human context' is using weaselly words to try and wriggle out of any criticism. The ontological argument requires the god being 'proven' to be perfect, based on human understanding.

If you reject the idea that humans can understand god in 'the human context' then you have to reject Godal and all ontological arguments anyway, the same way Catholics do.

The problem is I know you won't understand what I am saying because you never understood what you were posting in the first place.

>>35748560
>>>35748242 (You)
>see>>35748072 (You)
>see>>35747991
>see>>35747757
>Way too easy.

Some of those "refutations" aren't even refutations they're actually comments from the counter-argument.

Wow you really are as stupid as you sound, OP.

File: HelloYesThisIsBullshit.jpg (257KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 720x720px

>>35748354
Nigga I can't same fag 3 people at once and type this great wall of text, that shit would be impossible for such imperfect beings.
>>35748740
A quote by someone famous doesn't prove any point. Especially an unscientific one with a heavy opinion smothering it.
Most Christians believe in a God that created everything you faggot, stop being in denial

>>35748931
>Another way of describing a being with only positive attributes is a perfect being.

Wow you are fucking beyond help. Positive does not mean perfect in that context, it means it exists.

I apparently understand it way better than you do, since you cannot even grasp the context in which Godel is explaining his concept.

Anyway I already pointed that out, but another typical atheist disregards anything that goes against his preconceived, brainwashed view of the world.

See >>35747907

>>35749032
>Nigga I can't same fag 3 people at once
I never said it was 3 people. Topkek, nice job at revealing yourself, faggot.

File: Science.jpg (163KB, 1058x705px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1058x705px

At this point you theists have not provided even ONE piece of evidence for ANY of the THOUSANDS OF GODS, to exist within 117 posts. So far all you've done is attempt to smear my image, thankfully you're attempting to smear an ocean with merely a pebble.
This is hilarious, and I've concluded for myself that no such God exists if you're all willing to dance around the evidence for God, even though I've kindly asked for evidence more than a dozen some times now.
I'll continue to argue for fun at this point, fuck it, it's the Sabbath, why not? ;)

>>35748931
>Another way of describing a being with only positive attributes is a perfect being.

This is your own definition that you pulled out of your ass and is in no way implied by Godel.

>>35749216
>This is hilarious, and I've concluded for myself
Yes and only yourself. How does it feel to know that you're crazy?

Your points have been refuted numerous times throughout this thread, anyone who decides to read it can see it.

You haven't changed anyone's mind lol.

>>35742452
>that chart
Literally zero flow noted between the PIE religion and Hindu. It's like they don't even know what the "I" stands for.

File: ShitPost.jpg (43KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x480px

>>35749175
I just threw out a number that I observed. I can clearly see 2 others arguing for my side. If there's two others and OP, that makes three. I haven't revealed anything, except for the simple fact that I can't samefag 3 people at once, especially when one of the supposed samefags(OP) is typing a wall of text after wall of text.
Lmfao, still trying to smear me, but can't provided evidence for God, or smear very well.

File: Delicious.png (106KB, 350x319px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 350x319px

>>35749287
If I'm crazy, then I don't know what Theists are.
Yes I can only conclude things for myself. I wish I could conclude things for other, but unfortunately, unlike your perception of a God, I can't control others. You've proven absolutely nothing, particularly that a God exists.

>>35742452
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAxPHWF8aec

For all non-Christians: Christ rose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUVKUHNY5Mg&list=TLQqtHp9CG1t6o8W5XXs27kaZ3Pk9nTauY

What it takes to be saved. John 3:5-7:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Ephesians 2:8

Not of works: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Romans 11:1 (KJV)

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


http://jesus2020.com/index.html

https://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm0hI2SUinQ

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXHkMZGwB9g4rW4BV45ISbA

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

https://www.youtube.com/user/husky394xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUVKUHNY5Mg

Salvation is of faith, not works

http://carm.org/verses-showing-justification-by-faith

Anger against God doesn't change the facts.

>>35742761
Denominations don't mean people aren't saved. Many places are false churches.

File: OnlySoErect.gif (897KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 500x281px

Can we archive this thread, this is fucking great. 100+ some odd posts of theists proving they can't provide one shred of evidence for any one of the thousands of Gods. This is too great, I want to revel in my victory after this thread dies.

>>35742452
>There's a fundamental problem with god, and this is the issue of infinite regression, meaning who created god
The same problem exists for the big bang theory: from whence came the singularity?

File: LogicalFallacies.jpg (571KB, 1600x1131px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1600x1131px

>>35749595
I can clearly not watch 4 hour long lectures and reply to this comment before the thread dies, so here goes. I've seen that in each video, it's a preacher and/or the bible. Neither is the evidence, both are the claim.
This is hilarious, still not even one shred of evidence. xD Holy fuck theists are retards.
>Denominations don't mean people aren't saved. Many places are false churches.
So now you're the arbitrator of what is and isn't a "real" church. Wow, look up the "no real
Scottsman" fallacy there buddy, or better yet, I'll show you.

>>35747302

that was very interesting.

>>35749122
>>35749228

I knew it, completely clueless.

Go away and do some more research. It isn't my definition, it is the one used in all ontological arguments.

God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

If that being is not omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then something greater can be conceived can't it?

Pure retardedness.

File: Shiva in Uma comic.jpg (82KB, 400x316px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 400x316px

>>35742452

I can't even tell if bait or not, but here we go.

Not every religion believes in a central God, Hindus believe God is everything and everyone and all the forces of nature. God is also not just God but Brahma, or absolute truth, and exists eternally both inside and outside the universe. The universe is a temporary thing and eventually dies like everything else but is also eventually reborn.

There is nothing separate from God/Brahma. Essentially it is like Taoism, it is about balance. God is both good and evil. Hell, Kali is often described as the great goddess and great demoness. I mean face it, if there was no evil, what would justify the existence of good? And even then it isn't just about that, it is about finding enlightenment and escaping the reincarnation cycle(Which has not yet been disproven and so far the only argument I seen that would suggest it is the idea of a soul, but even then, a Buddhist could accept conciousness, the persons mind reincarnating).

Go be edgy somewhere else. You can easily challenge the goodness of Yahweh in the Abrahamic faiths, but you'll find a harder time challenging the Indian/Eastern religions.

>Using Western Philsophy to counter any argument for God

Weren't the Greeks and Romans also known for their utter decadence? I fail to see why I should take advise from a person who likely liked going to the Arena for some blood sports.

File: Don'tWorry.jpg (402KB, 900x1199px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 900x1199px

>>35749847
The difference between science and religion, is that we concede to the fact that we don't know what happened "before" the big bang, but that's kind of misleading, since the big bang was an expansion of space time from a point, which means there was no space time before the big bang, meaning nothing could've been "before."
Holy fuck, this shit is too easy. Even with a basic elementary school understanding of the scientific method, evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang, and the fact that we concede we don't know everything, and instead reject shitty explanations involving an unfalsifiable all powerful God.
You guys are too much.

>>35742452

LOL this will be easier than I anticipated

Cruelty != Imperfection

Middle Easterners raping each other is their own fault; God does not cause man to sin. Arabs are the descendents of Esau who was a shithead anyway. This is the consequence of people who live in sin. God takes his favor away and lets you do your own thing. Tough. Deal with it. Should've repented.

So that kills your entire chain of logic. Nextpls

File: UhhuhYeahOK.jpg (16KB, 230x316px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 230x316px

>>35750068
>Not every religion believes in a central God
Yep, stopped reading right there, because you stopped reading midway through my first post. I acknowledge some religions with multiple gods and monotheistic religions by saying god(s). Also, over the course of this entire thread, I've said god(s) multiple times, over, and over, and over again.
Your argument falls flat on its face, because I'm saying that I believe no god(s) exist, or ever will. Now git out.

>>35749650

my fedora to you sir

File: FuckingBULLSHIT.gif (1MB, 190x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 190x300px

>>35750317
Cruelty does equal imperfection. A perfect world is by definition a world without imperfections. Clearly if most of the world's inhabitants are unhappy, or die before birth, then the world is imperfect, because not all needs are met. Your argument falls flat.

>Come on theists, you seem to have given up. I think I may have just converted some of you to nonbelievers by your sudden disappearance.

>>35750473
please give empirical evidence for this idea of perfection.

>>35750068


BTFO

>>35750326

>>35750317
>Middle Easterners raping each other is their own fault; God does not cause man to sin

God created man and the entire world.

He is omniscient and therefore knew in the instant of creation everything the creatures he created would do. Thus everything they do is the direct responsibility of god.

1. Odin promised he would kill all Frost Giants
2. There are no Frost Giants in our world

If the Gods aren't real then why haven't we been overrun with Frost Giants?

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!

>>35750326
>>35750744
>linking a reply of a post to the post it was replying to.
I smell samefag.

>>35750473

Nah justice is whats being served and thats perfect.

Look, suffering will happen until one reaches Heaven. Nowhere does God claim that there will be no suffering in people's lives - He never said that. He said suffering ends when He creates a NEW Heaven and a NEW earth. So you cant use any current suffering to prove that God is cruel or w/e.

We're all disappearing bc its a waste
of time and not everyone feels like arguing. Besides, football is on

>>35750326

>Not even knowing what Buddhism is.
>Not understanding what Humanism is.

You also know there are atheist Buddhists, Hindus, and even likely Jains right? I was also explaining the Hindu view point of god.

Having no central God does not mean the same as "Having multiple Gods(Especially in Hinduism which is both Monotheistic and Polythistic or none depending on what school of Hinduism you read)," it just means that they may or may not focus on any Gods at all. Hence Buddhism, which main idea is that you do not need God or a god at all to achieve enlightenment.

But the funny thing is, by not reading the rest of my post, you basically ignore the entirety of my post and points, thus, either you have nothing to go up against what I said or your not really a intellectual or looking for intelligent debate.

Also.

>Now git out
>Git
>Trying to be intelligent.

How cute.

>>35742452
Hello dumbass.

Have you ever read a bible?
Man is in a fallen state? Who roams like a lion looking to steal, kill and destroy? - Not God.
Do you have free will or are you a calvinist robot deemed for destruction? - No, you have free will.

Choose Life or Choose Death. It's simple really, choose death and you lead a life of self destruction no matter how you feel about it.
Choose life, you enjoy and believe in a spiritual supernatural world where you actually experience things beyond your wildest dreams.
Choose to deny this an you will recieve nothing. Believe first, and then recieve. It doesn't work the other way around.
Remember that we are not citizens of this fallen world. Remember that Jesus was the underdog himself. God knows all the awful things you profess but God also tells you why this happens. You haven't bothered to seek truth, instead you have blamed God for your lack of knowledge. We live in a courtroom and I fear you have a God shaped hole in your life. Repent, Seek Jesus Christ with all of your heart. I give you two weeks to try this. Post again and see what happens. You are loved. All your pain, suffering and questions will be answered. Just grow up first and take this post seriously for once in your entire manchild life.

File: HUE HUE HUE.gif (198KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 360x360px

>>35750933
Which God are you claiming there would be no suffering?
In a perfect world there would be no need for justice. I'll quote King of the Hill"
>Bill: "In a perfect world, my arms would be long enough to scratch my back.."
..
..
Hank: "No Bill, in a perfect world, your back wouldn't itch."

If you're implying the holocaust was perfection, or the Armenian genocide, or communism, or capitalism, or anything else in this world, then you're bold face lying.
>ANOTHER, I DEMAND MORE ARGUMENTS FROM THEISTS!

>>35750688

It's so cute watching atheists try to empirically prove that they know more than god.

"MY IDEA OF THE PERFECT GOD IS PERFECT AND I AM PERFECT SO DONT TRY TO QUESTION MY IDEA OF PERFECT BECAUSE MY IDEA OF PERFECT IS BETTER THAN YOUR IDEA OF PERFECT"

File: OhHellYe.jpg (132KB, 600x960px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 600x960px

>>35751061
I concede that there are some nontheistic sects of Buddhism, but what I will not concede is your argument. I've still never said only one god, I've almost always said at least once in every post god(s), referring to both monotheistic and theistic religions. As for Janists, my post says I don't believe in God, which I guess me and Janists have in common, so no argument there.
What is your underlying point? I clearly am not getting what you're talking about.
>>35751156
God created man
God created free will
God is thus the cause of all suffering by your logic
God is thus cruel
God is thus imperfect
Why call him God?
TOOOOOOOOOO EAAAASY!

>>35742452

OP belief isn't about logic. anyone who tries to rationalize their belief isn't a real knight of faith, and any argument you put up is invalid to someone who has actual belief.

Guys, I see alot of the athiest comments being with memes.

I think this is a troll thread and all comments are trolls coming at each other.

Still, since when are intellectuals need to use so many memes?

>>35751445
Sounds to me like you don't know what free will is...

File: huckleberry.jpg (14KB, 250x210px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x210px

>>35742452
Infinite regression. You see that is the problem with the ant looking up at the human trying to understand why. I'll give you this answer but you won't like it.
Time. God created time and it may not even be as one dimensional as we perceive. You see it is time that our nature is bound to and so we understand from that nature, but that is not the nature of God. Outside of time there needs be no regression. Time is even argued by science as having a beginning. God created time.

But none of that really matters to you. I could stand here all day and answer every one of your problems and you would not acknowledge them. You would just continue to add new questions until you felt you had won because you need to win.

The reason why you argue is because you want to convince yourself there is no God. You need to attack and prove to yourself that he is not there so you can find peace, but there is no peace in living lies is there?

Why are so many on the attack against a belief in God? If they have already been enlightened shouldn't they be happy and show us by example how right they are? No, they come back and constantly harass people simply because something is eating at them deep inside and they don't want to accept what it is.
They act like the very Christians they hate.

File: media_preview_php.jpg (93KB, 496x602px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 496x602px

>>35751553
>I think this is a troll thread
Of course it's a troll thread.

>>35742452
If God thought like you, he wouldnt be God, he would be a piece of shit like.

File: BrettyGood.gif (29KB, 482x800px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 482x800px

>>35751553
What part of any of my arguments used memes? It seems to me like you don't like this thread, since you feel as though you and the other half dozen theists lost to arguing against me and maybe 2 other atheists who shot out maybe 2-3 comments each, that this is a troll thread. In which case I can only assume you think every 4chan thread is a troll thread, because your debating skills are on par with every other theist, which is slightly below a honey badger. Don't feel bad, Honey badger's claws make a fairly decent argument.

>>35742452
What created the thing that created the Big Bang?

#REEEEKKKKTT

File: Bowserthisfuckingguy.jpg (71KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x500px

>>35751445

>No central point in argument.
>Reiterates previous points despite being described what was wrong(That being that what was pointed out that "not having a central God" did not mean the same as having multiple gods and could mean having no god at all).
>What is your underlying point.

My point is your attacking religious people in general, but most of your arguments apply to religions of the Abrahamic variety. Not all religions have a god or a god focus. Buddha acknowledged no God nor creation story or anything of the sort and a number of what Buddhism is in multiple parts of Asia is what was absorbed into local cults, but regardless of this, buddhists usually focus and acknowledge the Buddha as the supreme teacher and maybe a 'divine person" at best.

My point? Your hating on religion as a whole for the problems of the Abrahamic faiths and he problems don't apply to a number of Eastern religions and applying western ideas and philosophy on them. Its like trying to play soccer with base ball rules.

Also.

>This amount of memes.
>This redundency
>reusing points.
>TOOOOOOOO EAAAASSY!

Either a troll or a idiot. Either way.

GG No Re.

File: TheGame.jpg (48KB, 231x350px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 231x350px

>>35751820
Nothing can exist outside of time, because that would also be bound to space, which means it occupies 0 space, which mean god is within the Zeroth dimension. That means that God in your eyes doesn't necessarily have 0 size, just an undefined size, it could be infinite or infinitesimally small. Without time, no action can be taken, therefore nothing can be created. You God's God's God's God's God's would still have to exist within time, which means God would still have to exist within the last 13.6 billion years, which means your argument is null.
Something within the Zeroth dimension can't be observed, because light wouldn't be able to pass through something with no time, meaning it might as well be non existent.

The US government investigated UFOs and found out that humanity was created by ancient aliens. In the official report, they basically stated this determination before closing the case.

So I think 'God' and 'Satan' should be interpreted as races of beings, not individuals. Once you read the bible from this context, a LOT of shit that didn't make any fucking sense, even from a spiritual context, starts to makes sense from a historical context. I have done some research into this over the past month or so, and I had already come to this conclusion before finding what the US military came to conclude. I'm not pressuring anyone to believe this, because I don't have the time to post all the places I did my searching, but the idea is not as crazy as it seems.

File: FoRale.jpg (30KB, 552x454px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 552x454px

>>35752137
There was no before the big bang because there was no space time. Your question is loaded, fallible, and overall assumes too many wrong things. Scientists will concede we don't know. The absence of evidence for our models that have pretty much provided everything in your life from your clothes to your computer and house, doesn't mean you need to inject God.
>>35752193
You've ignored my point twice now. Me and Janists both don't believe in gods, therefore there's no argument. Oh my, hopefully you'll read the 2nd sentence in this 3rd reply, or else you'll assume you're right again. Your argument can't seem to even rise before it falls flat, again, again, and again.

>>35742452
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

ATHEISTS BTFO

File: AChance.jpg (28KB, 583x342px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 583x342px

>>35752453
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ
There ya go m8. Maybe you meant something else, but I'm assuming you mean our interpretations of Gods were merely visitors from another world, which in that case, watch the video.
If you meant something else, then by all means, go on. I'm an open minded skeptic.

>>35752616
I love to see people throw around the term quantum physics and/or just quantum as if it means something. Buzzwords galore.

>>35750776

>not understanding omniscience

*sigh
last post I'm gona make for you helpless sinners

God is omniscient in the sense that He knows and is fully aware of ALL POSSIBILITIES that exist from each decision people make. He does not make decisions for them, He simply knows what would happen should you choose to do this or that - the choice is still yours.

>>35752254
Logical fallacy.

You are arguing from ignorance. Unless you can prove you have omniscient knowledge, there may be things that exist which you are unaware of. Therefore a God may exist, based on rationale alone.

>>35752871
>there may be things that exist which you are unaware of.
Let me expound on that:
>there may be things that exist which you are unaware of and that are out of your ability to comprehend their existence.

File: OOOOOOOOOYEEEEEEBABY.png (5KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x300px

>>35752871
I'm not saying nothing exists outside of our dimensions, but I'm saying things outside of it might as well not exist.
>MIGHT NOT EXIST
>MIGHT
This is like the 4th or 5th time this thread I've already thrown this out here. Unless you're able to measure something, does it really exist at all? An example of this most people will understand and obviously debate hardcore is can you measure a soul, and if not, then does it really exist?
No logical fallacy was made, but nice try though.
This is fun.

>>35751165

You really are retarded.

Why do you think there should be no suffering? God never said there would be no suffering. Thats your own fallible mind telling you that. God never said this world was going to be perfect, that doesn't mean He isn't perfect. Humans screwed it up for themselves and now we're living with the consequences. The earth is not perfect, but God is.

File: ButtHurt.jpg (8KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 264x191px

>>35753131
>God never said there would be no suffering
Which God are you referring to? Oh man, do I have to try and guess out of the thousands of religions your particular God(s).
I'll assume you mean the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh, in which case, you can't prove God said anything, or the authors of the old or new testaments. It's printed on the front of every Bible the authors are unknown.
Holy shit tooooooooo eaaaaaasy! You don't know if God(s), if ANY, said ANYTHING, EVER! So you're in the dark too my friend. I'm still going to wait right here for God(s) to reveal itself onto me at any given moment.

File: c26.png (18KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 625x626px

>>35742452

Judging from this post, and all debates had with this OP, this thread is most likely a troll thread.

I advise all posters either stop posting in this thread and not archive it, as it will just encourage said troll.

He has no real argument outside "Gods don't exist cause I say so" and he only reiterates poitns and says "no argument" or "whats your point" when given one.

File: AAAAYERRRYBODY.jpg (17KB, 350x268px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 350x268px

>>35753454
Yes, this was a troll thread. You got me.
Oh wait no, see >>35742452
>>35742761
>>35743217
>>35743497
>>35744047
>>35744500
>>35744743
>>35744951
>>35745421
>>35745778
>>35746200
>>35746539
>>35746728
>>35747006
>>35747164
>>35747505
>>35747967
>>35748302
>>35748560
>>35748910
>>35749032
>>35749216
>>35749389
>>35749530
>>35749650
>>35749865
>>35750099
>>35750326
>>35750473
>>35751165
>>35751445
>>35751990
>>35752254
>>35752505
>>35752660
>>35752776
>>35753051
>>35753392
All 37 of my posts, most of which were well thought out walls of texts, replying to almost 90% of the replies in this thread, was all a troll friend. ;)

>>35753392

Uh there is only 1 God

Lol

File: 1394171069213.jpg (240KB, 827x1204px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 827x1204px

>>35753706
>namefag spamming strawmen like an autist in his own thread

Yup, sounds like a troll thread.

File: 1407626220205.jpg (953KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 2592x1944px

>>35753706
>All 37 of my posts, most of which were well thought out walls of texts
>well thought out

tl;dr you're upset about a creator of man abandoning this world and letting man fall into sin

Okay then.

Its not going to matter when I die. I have a one in infinity chance of ascending upon my death and taking up the mantle of godhood. A world that diverges off the course of semitic philosophy that all men were born as maggots of the Earth.
When I die and clutch onto my firm affirmations of becoming a god that man needs in these crucial times, I will be saddened for a mere moment knowing that your reality will be without my radiance.
This is my belief, and it affects ne specifically and no one else.

>>35742452
>Your God doesn't exist
>Your God
tfw I'm a Daoist

>Trying to logically argue with a spiritual codex
>Not realizing the nature of the argument is illogical

File: HmmReally.jpg (30KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x300px

>>35754075
I namedfagged to distinguish myself from others, so people wouldn't just assume every atheist was OP.
Spam? I don't think so, I've been posting for over 4 hours, so that's like a post every 8 minutes. Also, I could spam my own thread if I damn well please.
>>35754078
Thank you. I haven't lost an argument yet.
Also God(s) haven't been proven yet, or at the very least 1 shred of evidence.

File: OnlySkinDeep.jpg (343KB, 700x1984px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 700x1984px

>>35754157
>tl;dr you're upset about a creator of man abandoning this world and letting man fall into sin
Wrong, I'm just trying to make living on this planet with other fallible beings slightly more bearable by converting theists to atheists.

>>35742452
>muh God is cruel

For man will heark'n to his glozing lyes, - devil's
And easily transgress the sole Command,
Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall, [ 95 ]
Hee and his faithless Progenie: whose fault?
Whose but his own? ingrate, he had of mee
All he could have; I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
Such I created all th' Ethereal Powers [ 100 ]
And Spirits, both them who stood and them who faild;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have givn sincere
Of true allegiance, constant Faith or Love,

Where onely what they needs must do, appeard, [ 105 ]
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid,
When Will and Reason (Reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoild,
Made passive both, had servd necessitie, [ 110 ]
Not mee. They therefore as to right belongd,
So were created, nor can justly accuse
Thir maker, or thir making, or thir Fate,
As if predestination over-rul'd
Thir will, dispos'd by absolute Decree [ 115 ]
Or high foreknowledge; they themselves decreed
Thir own revolt, not I: if I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less prov'd certain unforeknown.
So without least impulse or shadow of Fate, [ 120 ]
Or aught by me immutablie foreseen,

They trespass, Authors to themselves in all
Both what they judge and what they choose; for so
I formd them free, and free they must remain,
Till they enthrall themselves: I else must change [ 125 ]
Thir nature, and revoke the high Decree
Unchangeable, Eternal, which ordain'd
Thir freedom, they themselves ordain'd thir fall.
The first sort by thir own suggestion fell,
Self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls deceiv'd [ 130 ]

>>35743217

>implying your average scholar before Newton could even read Greek
>implying the Byzantines would have traded the book to the Latin imposters anyway
>implying by the 13th Century, the original work was even in readable condition
>implying that, in the 13th Century, Byzantium did not have other copies of this entire book
>implying you are not a chode

Please.

>>35754307
>I namedfagged to distinguish myself from others, so people wouldn't just assume every atheist was OP.
But you namefagged and samefagged. Please provide empirical proof that there is a single other atheist in this thread.

File: BahahahahaFAGGOT.gif (3MB, 445x247px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 445x247px

>>35754480
That's perfect Christian logic.
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, DESTROY IT!
Do you hear yourself right now? Just because the average person couldn't understand Calculus, doesn't mean destroy the text and write over it.
The average person doesn't understand what a neutrino is, does that mean destroy every book that tries to explain what a neutrino is?
Fuck man, this logic hurts sometimes, but is a good source for laughs with the boys.

>>35754742
>implying that, in the 13th Century, Byzantium did not have other copies of this entire book

do you even read before you reply?

File: DasIt.jpg (27KB, 385x576px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 385x576px

>>35754666
666 master post.
I don't know how to prove to you the others were different people, but by my well thought out replies numbering over 40 at this point, and the fact that most of them were walls of texts, I don't see how you could assume I was samefagging.
That's why after maybe my 3rd post or so, I thought it'd be a good idea to start namefagging. I can't prove it, but you can infer they were different people.
I'd almost assume if I were one of the many theists arguing against one man, that replies so quickly, and in an articulated way, that I was arguing with many people under the same false name. What do I know, I'm just Johan.

File: CyaShitlords.gif (2MB, 296x248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 296x248px

>>35754853
Implying we've ever found 1 other copy of Archimedes' book. I've got to go, the Atheist Experience is on, can't miss the show!
Also there's your logic again: OH I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, DESTROY IT!
>>35754666
Before I leave, I guess you can check the IPs or something, but that's not really definite proof.

>>35754906
>I can't prove it, but you can infer they were different people.

Prove you're not samefagging in ONE MEASURABLE WAY. OOOOOOOOOOONE
HOLY FUCK JOHAN, PROVIDE EVEN ONE WAY TO MEASURE YOU'RE NONSAMEFAGGOTRY, EVEN ONE!
HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE IS? THE THREAD AND YOUR TRIP AREN'T THE EVIDENCE, THEY'RE THE GOD DAMNED CLAIM!

look familiar?

>>35754411
I'll see you on my death, anon. Even if you won't see me within the current reality or the state of current objective laws of physics.

File: 1391033504821.jpg (9KB, 261x180px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 261x180px

>God/Jesus say do not dabble in magic arts
>created said magic arts in the first place

File: Zelda.png (143KB, 399x352px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 399x352px

>>35755186
While I'm listening to the AE, I'll say this. I conceded I can't prove anything, unlike you theists that assume you're right.
I'd assume if you can check, just see the IPs or locations of the computers that are hosting the IPs, it's not like I'm using a proxy server. I'm just not tech savvy, but I'm sure someone who is can prove I'm not lying.
Completely different, someone can prove I'm not same fagging, but right now, you can't prove God(s) exist. Nice try though newfriend.

>>35742452
sad.

suffering exists to give us the opportunity to correct our souls.

doesn't make God cruel.

how have you dedicated your every moment to peace?

try harder.

>>35745456
If you actually look into genesis the moment Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit was the moment they became self-aware. Before that they were animals, they were content running around naked without a worry in life. After eating it they realized that "... uh we're naked".

>>35744496
All religions are based on deception intended to control the behavior of others. Every single one.

File: taylor.gif (820KB, 245x140px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 245x140px

>>35757215
Hail Lucifer; the liberator of man.

>>35744423
>It is holy possible...
fyi
it's wholly, ya fruitloop dingus

File: 250px-Kingdom_of_Israel_1020_map.svg.png (46KB, 250x381px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 250x381px

>>35742452
> Judaism 900 BCE

Wrong, Judaism dates back to at least 1800 BCE.

>>35747049
There is no rational evidence for the existence of a god. There is only the irrational development of external agency inherent in an overly social brain with tendency for fantasy. This is literally all that any religion is.

>>35754742
It wasn't the only copy retard, they probably had dozens of copies and where out of velum, they then saw they had extra copies on hand and used this copy for new writing.

Ask yourself why none of the mudslime, roman, greek, or chinese records remain? Because most where written on papyrus, rice paper, or other less hardy material velum is so fucking resistant to fire and decay that it lasts centuries. Hence why this scratch paper survived to many various uses and the impregnated ink remained in it.

Also the recorded material isn't actually calculus.

File: MoshiCircumcisionDesu.png (30KB, 712x649px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 712x649px

>>35757929
>Where out of velum
>Where
Ok anon, you got, nice troll..

>>35742452
Atheist here.
To me it sounds like you are using the typical rhetoric without playing devil's advocate yourself and try to defend god.
For one, your argument attacks Christianity or other faiths (such as Islam or Judaism) which emphasize that God actually cares and interacts with humans.
In fact, your argument does not debunk Deism at all.
I could defend the Christian God against your attacks as they do not completely succeed in attacking it; however that would take some work and I don't feel like it.

>>35758496
>I could defend the Christian God against your attacks as they do not completely succeed in attacking it; however that would take some work and I don't feel like it.
It's Sunday evening, we've both got time. Do it if it's so easy to refute my 40+ comments.

>>35754411
>by converting theists to atheists.
And failing miserably at it.

>>35758725
It's not easy to defend it, that's why I said it would take some work, and I am not really in the mood to do so.
Also, even if I defend the Christian God, it wouldn't disprove atheism. It would merely be a defense so it would not be playing for a victory in the argument but rather a draw.

File: Harlequin-type-ichthyosis.png (160KB, 400x265px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 400x265px

>>35758835
You can't take a cheap shot and say you can do something, then say you're too tired to do it.
I wouldn't walk up to Shaquille and tell him I could dunk on him, but then I was too tired.
That's the weakest shit I've ever heard. You can't slither your way out of this one.
>>35758819
Even if I implanted the seeds of doubt in the mind of 1 theist today, I succeeded.
Pic is of God's perfection.

>>35759155
>Even if I implanted the seeds of doubt in the mind of 1 theist today, I succeeded.
>Pic is of God's perfection.

Using sensationalism to try and sways others only shows how little truth your argument holds.

No one here has changed their love of God because of your half assed arguments.

>>35759155
The reason I don't want to argue it is because I am not religious.
If I was religious then your arguments would be attacking my pride and thus I would be compelled to address them.
Because I am atheist, and your arguments are not attacking my pride as an atheist, I am not compelled to expend extra energy to play devil's advocate.
I am merely saying that it is possible to defend the Christian God to encourage you to try to attack your own arguments to see what you can come up with.

>>35742452
>>Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
>There's a fundamental problem with god, and this is the issue of infinite regression
You're misunderstanding the "everything needs a creator" argument.
All things subject to the laws of science came from something. This pattern cannot continue indefinitely, and therefore must have its origin in something that is not subject to the laws of science. Christians assume this to be God.
>If God did this, that means he knew we would do wrong in this world. God knew 30,000 humans would starve to death worldwide daily. God knew Middle Easterners would rape and kill women by stoning for fun. God knew that some North Koreans would never know the light of day, think everyone is either born a prisoner or guard, and die in a chemical weapons testing chamber.
You make the mistake of assuming that the Christian's point of view is Earth-centric. It's not. We're put here as a fair way of deciding whether we go to Heaven or to Hell. If a good person dies an untimely death, this is not bad for him. This is good for him. It means that he gets to leave Earth and go to Heaven. If a bad person dies, well, he got what was coming to him. God did foresee all of the untimely deaths that would happen, along with all of the shitty lives. This does not make Him cruel. What's eighty years tops of bad shit that you don't deserve compared to an eternity of good stuff that you do deserve? It's nothing.

>>35754742
Way to misread, you cancerous namefag.
He said they couldn't read Greek; not that they wouldn't have understood calculus.
I bet you can't read Greek either, nigger.

>Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

What an argument. Considering the laws of nature and universalist theory like evolution must be constant throughout existence or it is invalid. God, or our knowledge of one states (the bible) that we were created in his image. If there is already an image, evolution cannot exist.

>>35742452
Just coming to say that this picture seems, in fact, to be bullshit.
I mean, considering the 24th prophet of Jainism lived around 700 to 600 BC, I doubt that religion was only born in 1000 BC.
Also, this does not represent the HUGE links between zoroastrism and hinduism.
Finally, anyone has a source on that 900 BC date for judaism ? I mean, the jews claim 1500 BC, and the oldest synagogue in the world dates back to around 700 BC, so I have no idea where this date came from.

File: LicenseToFornicate.jpg (298KB, 1600x1375px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1600x1375px

>>35759306
No no, you said you could defeat my argument, but in a slimy fashion, you said "I don't feel like it."
That's pure 100% bullshit.
>>35759259
This isn't sensationalism. I'm asking you if you still think this is God(s)' perfection.
>>35759746
>Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
That was a disclaimer so no theists could conflate shit, are you even reading? Look at this faggot below you, this is what I was trying to prevent.
>>35760166
GOD(S)' PERFECTION COMING THROUGH!

>>35760723
>No no, you said you could defeat my argument, but in a slimy fashion, you said "I don't feel like it."
>That's pure 100% bullshit.

>in a slimy fashion
>implying you can detect my tone over the internet