/pol/ challenge: Can you argue against atheism without using

>>39709282
>*tips meme*

whats the utility of atheism? is it producing happier people?

but muh fedora quips

File: jew lotion1412366435578.jpg (38KB, 419x767px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 419x767px

>>39709282
>>39709282
Yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tryxAwbH-kk

Why would i want to? Nobody's gonna change anyones mind.

>>39709317
It isn't a utility, it is not having a religion.

That's a big commitment that I'm not willing to take on at the moment or any time soon. Don't die in the mean time.

>>39709282

Atheists can provide no empirical evidence to support their claims, and I do not accept unfounded beliefs. Therefore, I am not an atheist.

Why would I argue against something so pointless and trivial? Dont you have better things to do with your time anon? Your family is starting to think theres something wronf with you, maybe you should get a gf? Or a bf

If matter were not created by an exterior force, it would be static and eternal.

Perhaps he's wondering why you'd bless a man before sending him to hell.

>>39709282
What is the purpose of aesthetic if there is no god?

>>39709376
What is the purpose of aesthetic if there is a god?

>>39709365
>agnostic denies his lack of belief.txt

>>39709398
To bring praise to beauty and thank god for it.

>>39709317
The utility is being able to look at religions comparatively and objectively, intellectual freedom from dogma.

File: Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1n_(Miguel_%C3%81ngel).jpg (685KB, 1707x775px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1707x775px

>>39709398
God created man in his image, the purpose of aesthetic is to be swole

>>39709413

>christard logic

>>39709434
You used meme first does that mean I win?

File: einsteinpraying.jpg (70KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x625px

> Einstein believed in god
> here is a picture of him praying
> do you think you are smarter than Einstein?

>>39709282
If we take premise A that:
>A God is needed in order to have a absolute set of morals in a Chaotic universe.
Then i could argue that Atheism is trying to unwound society from its core beliefs and that without Society mankind will quickly devolve into a savage cannibalism instead of a relatively ordered and productive one.

Of course whether or not premise A is completely universal or historically accurate is up for debate.

>>39709418
You need a little dogma if you want to be worth anything, or else you'll constantly take the path of least resistance and then chose whatever validation you want. Working for values without basis is better than working for fluctuating values that conform to your lassitude.

>>39709456
Savage cannibals actually had dogma, Queequeg is superior to atheists.

>>39709401
Given that theism and atheism are both faith-based beliefs, there is no empirical evidence in favour of either belief, nor will there ever be. Therefore, I do not involve myself in any side of the argument, and am neither atheist nor theist.

>>39709474
>savage cannibalism
I meant in a more random burst of violence, greed or lust without any inner checks sort of way

Sort of like 'crabs-in-a-bucket" syndrome, but up to 11

>>39709458
>You need a little dogma if you want to be worth anything, or else you'll constantly take the path of least resistance and then chose whatever validation you want.
That's dogma. Or would you care to prove that one leads to the other?

Dogma has little to do with values, it's just inability to adapt.

>>39709504
Hey anon, what's the word that describes someone who doesn't believe in God?

This word should encompass atheists, agnostics, and vegetables.

>>39709541
I don't not believe, nor do I believe. I simply have no opinion on the matter.

>>39709418
A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Existence of this universe is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Then existence is a dogmatic belief. Therefor, are you saying that atheism utilizes freedom from the belief of existence.

Believing there is no god and believing there is evidence for god are different statements, however nuanced they are.

>>39709336
>implying this isnt a meme already

>>39709282
Atheism is a mental disorder like homosexuality. Just like the teenage phase where due to hormones kids feel rebellious of their parents and teachers, atheism is also caused by those teenage hormones which never receded. It is an imbalance of chemical in your body which tricks your brain to think otherwise, which for you is always right and enlightining, which infact gave rise to all these "enlightened" maymays on the internet you talk about. Normal people can see how retarded you sound when you babble all these retarded nonsense without any factual evidence against it. Atheism is literally caused by the ignorance chemical which can be found in women's brain. If you take a looks at statistics, you will find that lots of women have faith in higher power even if they have this ignorance gene. Which supports my theory that if male have this gene active in them, they will be most likey serial killers or fags or fedora tippers. But I have no state-of-the-art facility to continue my research. Anyway, there are lots of resources on how hormones can change your mood, feelings, thinking and has a lasting effect in your life if left unchecked.

>inb4 citation needed
Google it yourself you fedora fag. But you don't need citation, you need a common sense which you mentally ill people don't have. So I'm really sorry that you're this way.

>>39709282
Plenty of times. I only use the memes against people who have no interest in debate.

Start off by watching this video and make a debate about the remaining issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyQVnO8Vt8&index=29&list=LLAhTo8JhmQlLwSmOtcygrJg

When debating in an eternal butthurt wars, it is important to be able to notice the repeating falsehoods. Most creationists (YEC), fedora atheists (/antitheists) etc. do this.
>(Feminism; women get 70c, rape cullture etc.).

This causes butthurt on the levels that cause boards like /pol/ to exist.

>>39709282
What is that from? Also, I feel sorry for the kittens.

>>39709647
the laws of physics are not an authority nor are they incontrovertibly true, if you got a better scientific theory with evidence to disprove/enhance the current one, it will be replaced

>utilizes freedom from the belief of existence
what are you even trying to say?

why are you being retarded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

/thread

>>39709594
>I don't not believe
You literally are literally saying that you believe.

There isn't a way to believe something and not believe something. Belief is something you've got or you don't.

Either you believe in God and behave as if a deity is looking at you at all times, or you don't behave as such.

If you don't believe then you don't believe. It's as simple as that.

Having no opinion on X means that you don't believe X.

File: aVSVQ.png (260KB, 1685x1930px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1685x1930px

>>39709713
lol

>>39709282
Atheism is wrong because it is based on an incomplete list of facts as well as misinterpretations as to what the shit atheism is

>>39709282
If you're an atheist, answer this simple question:

Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

>>39709713
>posts an article that debunks his own argument
Theists, everybody

>>39709541
nontheistic

>>39709739
Sure.
And?

>>39709739
>yes

If you're a theist, answer this simple question:

Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

>>39709692
>you don't need citation
I think you're falling prey to your own "ignorance chemical" there. Implying a single chemical is responsible for a viewpoint is utter stupidity. It's more about intellectual insecurity, kids grow up without a religion to guide them and they feel lost: so they start rebelling and making up silly ideas.

>>39709712
>the laws of physics are not an authority nor are they incontrovertibly true, if you got a better scientific theory with evidence to disprove/enhance the current one, it will be replaced
not in the case of heliocentric vs geocentric theory, even though the evidence greatly favored the geocentric theory, dogmatic establishment still has the final say in anything.

>what are you even trying to say?
atheists deny dogma
existence is a dogma
atheists deny the dogma of existence

>>39709317

Does truth necessarily need a utility?

>>39709739
Yes, just like everybody else on this planet.

>>39709745
Criticism is not debunking. If you actually read it, a lot of the criticism is already addressed in the work itself.

>>39709806
>even though the evidence greatly favored the geocentric theory
really, where is this evidence?

>existence is a dogma
I'm not sure if you're crossing the matrix/philosophical line here or not

>>39709825
>refusing to address criticisms because "lol it's a trap" is addressing criticism

>>39709770
No, I couldn't be.

>>39709753
>>39709821
Now, all of you tell me how you can know anything with your worldview because it doesn't seem possible.

If I say the speed limit on the street outside is 30 mph but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the speed limit.

See, atheism is ultimately destructive of knowledge itself.

if god isnt real, then what started the universe and evolution?
#rekt #btfo #nomoreeuphoria

>>39709851
>really, where is this evidence?
>Kepler

>I'm not sure if you're crossing the matrix/philosophical line here or not
I am. Since it was stated earlier that atheists are free from dogma, it states that any dogma is not reasonable, even an atheist dogma.

>>39709935
>No, I couldn't be.
lol k

>>39709935
Empiricism supports many things but unfortunately not the existence of a deity

File: 2005.jpg (126KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 900x675px

>>39709282
Everything that breathes knows their is a God.
Sin seperates man from God.
If you do not feed your spirit man, you feed the flesh and your flesh dominates the spirit, hence being reborn. Burying your flesh, born in the spirit.

Atheism denies all non material ideas, including the wind and thus atheists prefer to attack rather than reason or open their hearts. This could be due to sin, conviction, denial due to sin or indoctrination or just a love for the world.

I'm not going to argue with you OP, nor am I going to give you any evidences. Pick up a bible and read it with understanding and guidance from the Holy Spirit if you are indeed, a seeker of truth. We live in a supra-not super- supranatural dimension but if we are deniers you are merely batting for the other team are therefore impotent to any manifestations of experiences.

Try this if you are a student of research and truth but I warn you that even an intellectual won't go far without being born again. (It's free) It's also a free gift if you can read between the lines. You are in a dungeon, get out, set yourself free and break those locks. This is literal in the sense of dimensional realities.

http://www.theword.net/

If you are interested in the spiritual or supernatual aspect I suggest you seek out Dan Duval who has helped me personally.

Russ Dizdar, Firefall talk radio, Stan Deyo in the archives of according to the sciptures are good resources once you take the jump. Douglas Hamp's corrupting the image or age of deceit 2 by Gonz may also help you slide into thinking rationally about things if you are questioning and searching for a logical explanation to life itself and your purpose.

Unfortunately religion gives God a bad name and prevents you from understanding all these things I talk about. Sadly, man made religion could be the very reason you do not wish to convert.

Godspeed Anon. Praise Yeshua Hamashiach, a father who is pleading with you to return.

>>39709896
Sorry, can't decipher idiot speak.

>>39709963
Pascal says of a major criticism
>This is a trap and I refuse to address it
because he was a pussy who couldn't back up his argument

>>39709935
>Now, all of you tell me how you can know anything with your worldview because it doesn't seem possible.
It's called a best guess. You can't know you won't have a heart attack the next moment, but you still plan for tomorrow.
>If I say the speed limit on the street outside is 30 mph but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the speed limit.
But you're still sure enough to follow it, trusting your memory, even though it could be faulty.
>See, atheism is ultimately destructive of knowledge itself.
Skepticism, which tells us that all knowledge is subjective. In order to know something as an absolute truth, it would need to be objective knowledge, but since we cannot objectively percieve anything, such a thing is not possible.

>>39709935
>If I say the speed limit on the street outside is 30 mph but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the speed limit.
If I say god in the entire universe exists but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the that god exists.

If I say god in the entire universe doesn't exist but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the that god doesn't exist.

wut

>>39709937
>kepler

at least choose someone who has technology to see into space other than a telescope, we can see from space that Earth is not at the centre of the solar system

>>39709523
Yes, dogma includes values that don't change (adapt).

>>39710015
Knowledge has to be 100%, man

It doesn't matter if I'm 99% sure, close only counts in horseshoes. if I were even 1% uncertain, then I dun know nuffin.

I can't be 100% sure I had perfect memory, I can't even say whether I believe in God because there's always the chance that I'm misremembering.

>>39709958
See, you resort to mockery but you're the one who could be wrong about everything he claims to know. How do you know you're not tied down to a bed in a mental asylum, imagining this website?

>>39709961
So you're saying you know things through empiricism, i.e. that truth is verified through the senses. By what empirical observation did you verify that "truth is verified through the senses" is true?

>>39710015
Correct. You're just saying things but you don't know it.

>>39709991
In other words you're denying that absolute truth exists. Is that absolutely true?

>>39710094
>Knowledge has to be 100%, man
>It doesn't matter if I'm 99% sure, close only counts in horseshoes. if I were even 1% uncertain, then I dun know nuffin.
>I can't be 100% sure I had perfect memory, I can't even say whether I believe in God because there's always the chance that I'm misremembering.
damn, i can almost smell your tinfoil hat

>>39709282
WHATS THAT PIC FROM

>>39710140
I could retort by say I couldn't be wrong either, and claim if you were tied to a bed in an asylum, what makes you so sure you're not? WHat makes you so sure morpheus is not in the matrix and you're still in the pod?

>>39710140
>By what empirical observation did you verify that "truth is verified through the senses" is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

>implying any system can prove the truth of its own axioms

>>39710140
>In other words you're denying that absolute truth exists. Is that absolutely true?
It's my best guess.

>>39710140
>By what empirical observation did you verify that "truth is verified through the senses" is true?
I think therefore I am. My knowledge of a known truth, my own existence, and the senses that made my conclusion that I exist therefore shows that my senses can at least detect some truth.

>>39709365
It's not the responsibility of atheists to 'prove' their views. It's the responsibility of religious people to prove their vies. Religious people are the ones MAKING a claim. Atheists are REJECTING a claim.

>>39710082
That's true. The point is that he said without dogma one would choose the path of least resistance but valuing the path of least resistance is a dogmatic value, so he basically refutes himself.

>>39710140
What are some absolute truths that you know of?

Is your existence absolutely true?

Why do you think you exist?

>>39710173
Revelation from God makes me sure.

>>39710174
That's the absurdity of your worldview. If you can't know your axioms to be true then you can't trust anything that comes after.

>>39710179
So "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not absolutely true. Then it is false and absolute truth does exist. See the absurdity of your worldview now?

>>39710215
How do you know that your senses are accurate? How do you know that your reasoning is valid? Isn't it just a classic case of circular reasoning to appeal to your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning?

>>39710257
I know I exist therefore I exist.

>>39710350
>So "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not absolutely true.
He says he guesses "absolute truth does exist" is true.

learn to read

>>39710369
>I know I exist
Prove it

>>39710369
Are you absolutely sure? Think carefully.

>>39710350
>So "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not absolutely true. Then it is false and absolute truth does exist.
A best guess isn't necessarily false. A subjective truth isn't necessarily wrong.

"Absolute truth doesn't exist" is most likely true. But I can't know for sure.

Between 100% true and 100% false, there's also the realm of "I don't really know, but I can make an educated guess."

>>39710350
>How do you know that your senses are accurate? How do you know that your reasoning is valid? Isn't it just a classic case of circular reasoning to appeal to your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning?
There is no other method of evidence besides my own knowledge and intuition. Do you have a way of proving my existence?

>>39710257
>What are some absolute truths that you know of?
God exists.
The Bible is his infallible word.

>Is your existence absolutely true?
Yes.

>Why do you think you exist?
Revelation from God.

>>39710416
>The Bible is his infallible word.
Which version?

>>39710389
>Prove It
Only I can prove my own existence, I would have to become you to have proof that I exist.

>>39710416
>God exists.
>The Bible is his infallible word.
>...
>The Bible mentions God
>Since The Bible is infallible word by God and mentions God's existence it must be true.

Why are you christians so sure of yourselves yet reject any other form of criticism or other form of religions that deviate from the bible?

>>39710350
>If you can't know your axioms to be true
There is no system that can prove its own axioms.

Systems can only establish validity (i.e. noncontradiction), not truth.

This is what has found to be valid in the system of logic

If you take mathematics to be true, then "There is no system that can prove its own axioms." is true.

The alternative is that logic is false.

Can logic prove itself using logic?

>>39709282
Argument against atheists or against religious types literally always comes down to a "NUH UH, YES HUH" type of shitfling.

We will all know when we die, wait till then to make your decision.

>>39710471
>If you take mathematics to be true
*logic

>>39710452
No other religion has performed miracles.

>>39710509
Says every religion ever

>>39710350
>Revelation from God makes me sure.
How can you be sure that it's Revelation from God and not a demon deceiving you into believing that it's revelation from God?

>>39710509
almost every other religion did perform miracles, muslims etc aside we have even records of pagan gods and their followers miracles

christianity did not spread in a non miracle world where a single guy did wondrous deeds

>>39710389
True and false are the only two options (by the law of excluded middle)

If he's denying the laws of logic then he's being even more absurd.

>>39710401
>"Absolute truth doesn't exist" is most likely true. But I can't know for sure.
Go back to my speed limit analogy. How can you say it's "most likely" true if you don't have an absolute truth to compare it to? You can't say something is 99% unless you know what 100% is, otherwise it may as well be 0.099% - it's absurd.

>>39710405
>There is no other method
Could you be wrong about that?

>>39710423

Whatever suits them at each different point time

>>39710510
Show me a religion that has the same quantity of recorded historical miracles.

>>39710523
>using binary logic instead of trinary logic
Get on my level

>>39710471
You can't. Your only option is to appeal to a transcendent authority that knows your axioms are trustworthy.

>>39710537
>At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away ...fell at Vespasian's feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth... Vespasian .... did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man's eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.

Tacitus, The Histories, 4.81

>Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases.


Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Divine Vespasian Chapter 7

>>39710523
>>There is no other method
>Could you be wrong about that?
Show me another method, otherwise there is no other method.

>>39710509
If you're standard is as low as performing miracles, why not voodoo?

Miracles cannot be conducted consecutive times nor are they supernatural. Most can be explained by natural ways with our current understandment but the ones where we do not yet know, we cannot say 'God did it'.

I bet you wouldn't fathom coincidence as a thought would you?

>>39710523
>How can you say it's "most likely" true if you don't have an absolute truth to compare it to?
It's been true every time so far. Of course, that hits the problem of induction, which is that induction is not possible.

But it still works. I can't know for sure, but it got me this far, hence I presume it'll continue to get me places.

In other words, I rate the likelyhood of something high if it's worked reliably in the past, because that has worked reliably in the past. I know it's circular reasoning, thank you very much. It still works.

>>39709282
>Guys s-stop using the fedora meme it offends me!
*tips fedora*

>>39710537
Pastafarianism

>>39710537
>>39710561

>A girl had died just in the hour of her marriage, and the bridegroom was following her bier lamenting as was natural his marriage left unfulfilled, and the whole of Rome was mourning with him, for the maiden belonged to a consular family. Apollonius then witnessing their grief, said : "Put down the bier, for I will stay the tears that you are shedding for this maiden." And withal he asked what was her name. The crowd accordingly thought that he was about to deliver such an oration as is commonly delivered as much to grace the funeral as to stir up lamentation ; but he did nothing of the kind, but merely touching her and whispering in secret some spell over her, at once woke up the maiden from her seeming death ; and the girl spoke out loud, and returned to her father's house, just as Alcestis did when she was brought back to life by Hercules.

Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 4.45

>.... the old woman had now begun to question the corpse in a somewhat louder voice. ....Then he suddenly collapsed and fell flat on his face. The old woman rolled the body over onto its back and persisted with her questions. Employing apparently more powerful spells of compulsion this time, she repeated her string of incantations into his ears, and, leaping, sword in hand, from fire to pit, from pit to fire, she succeeded in waking the dead man a second time and, once he was on his feet, began to put the same questions to him as before, forcing him to use speech as well as nods of the head to make his prophecy unambiguous.

Heliodoros, An Ethiopian Story (Aithiopika), 6.3- 4

>>39709692
that's how a retard scientist would have formulated a retard theory two centuries ago
>no proofs cuz google it
>googles it
>conservapedia
good job faggot

>>39710242
Incorrect. Atheists claim there is no god. The word you are thinking of is "agnostic".

>>39710559
How can you prove that the authority is trustworthy?

File: bait6.png (129KB, 1000x1002px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1000x1002px

>>39709692

>>39710523
>how do i math guys
>lol math is hard
>lol probability?
>who needs probability when god says absolute truth

what type of tinfoil hat are you wearing?

>>39710423
There is only one. The "versions" are translations but the word is infallible.

>>39710512
The nature of the revelation is such that I can't be wrong about what it reveals.

>>39709449

Einstein was a deist.

>>39710561
Is there any other source at the same time that has reference to such events?

>>39710615
>The nature of the revelation is such that I can't be wrong about what it reveals.
How do you know that the demon isn't deceiving you into believing that the nature of the revelation is such that you can't be wrong about what it reveals?

>>39710596
>Atheists claim there is no god.
Atheists claim that is no EVIDENCE of god, which is different

>>39710615
>There is only one. The "versions" are translations but the word is infallible.
There's far more than one, even not touching different translations. But surely the church did well assembling the version you trust. Have faith! :^)

>>39710617
No, he was agnostic.

>>39710640
He believed that God was the laws of physics or something. More like a pantheist if you ask me.

>>39710624
>bible is not a source
>bible is not literally written by god
>not understanding allegory and metaphors
>christfags buttmad

>>39710615
>The nature of the revelation is such that I can't be wrong about what it reveals.
Tell me more.

captcha: theological dbeloyw

>>39710655
That was a poem, he was being metaphorical

>>39710624
depends, in the case of Vespesian we have 2 different sources citing 2 different miracles

and thats vespesian alone, there are tons of miracles etc most regularly cited ones would be emperors and famous oracles

my point is your argument is invalid, that it was christians/jesus that did miracles and pagans din dun nuthing

pagan world was filled with miracles, just as christianity, hell go read early christians even the christians don't deny pagans can be wonderworkers they just state that those are the works of devil / unauthorized while their wonderworkers are blessed by god

>>39710570
>Miracles cannot be conducted consecutive times nor are they supernatural. Most can be explained by natural ways with our current understandment but the ones where we do not yet know, we cannot say 'God did it'.
Miracles break natural law, therefore showing divine intervention. You are not talking about miracles.

>>39710655
Wikipedia says he called himself agnostic.

>>39710685
>he was being metaphorical
Just like everyone else whenever they talk about God

>>39710599
How can I prove anything to an atheist who denies knowledge, logic and all rational basis for proof?

>>39710568
Argument from ignorance. Your worldview is absurd. QED

>>39710572
In other words your worldview is based on circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy. And that's why atheism is incoherent.

>>39710611
Mockery again?

>>39710695
Wikipedia also says, and directly quoting Einstein
>We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
He really liked Spinoza.

>>39710731
>How can I prove anything to an atheist who denies knowledge, logic and all rational basis for proof?
Nice strawman, but let's pretend that I'm a good little christian who accepts knowledge, logic and all rational basis for proof.

Now prove to me that the authority is trustworthy.

>>39710708
>Just like everyone else whenever they talk about God
you do realise, there are people that literally believe everything in the bible?

Saying something metaphorically doesn't mean it's true or they believe it.

here have a simle definition of metaphor:
>a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

>>39710731
>In other words your worldview is based on circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy. And that's why atheism is incoherent.

>my revelation proves my revelation is true
>not circular

>>39709936
3k years ago: if god isnt real, how do you explain pox?
proofs about the existence of god= 0

today: if god isnt real, then what started the universe and evolution?
proofs about existence of god still = 0

Just wait another 50 years dude and it's likely you'll have your answers.
Science advances, theology is always the same shit. What it can do is just to parasitize scientific discoveries

>>39710731
>In other words your worldview is based on circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy.
The whole world is built on this circular reasoning. Our entire civilization, all of science, is built on the axiom "Induction works", this is the basis of empiricism. If you say atheism is incoherent due to this, then you also say science is.

>>39710632
Same way I know everything else I can't be wrong about. Revelation from God.

>>39710639
Amen brotha.

>>39710760
God himself is a metaphor, there is no thing people point to or refer to as God. Everybody just uses the word as a metaphor for whatever they want.

>>39710693
Christian miracle are the most accepted and least disputed miracles. Not even Muslims deny that Jesus was a prophet. I'm just saying that in most cases the events of a miracle are disputed while the events of christian miracles are in fact not.

>>39710774
>replying to b8

>>39710731
>How can I prove anything to an atheist who denies knowledge, logic and all rational basis for proof?

You're saying that your knowledge is omniscient? That you're equal to god in knowledge? Your arrogance is reeking

>>39710805
How do you know that revelation from God isn't actually a deception from a demon?

File: 1385421227813.png (74KB, 171x278px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 171x278px

>>39710807
>I'm just saying that in most cases the events of a miracle are disputed while the events of christian miracles are in fact not.
>christian miracles
>not disputed