I'm a Christian and I challenge all atheist to a respectful and intellectual debate on the fallacies of atheism. I will be in this thread giving out my rebuttal until the very end, Let's begin shall we?!
So you believe we have only one true god, and his son Jesus died for all humanity? Why did native Americans, south Americans, and Asians not experience this fact? If Jesus came to America and was rejected you're coming close to being Mormon. Why did the religion spread through the world from the Roman Empire? What happened to all humans before Christianity was introduced? Did ever Germanic tribe go straight to hell for following dietys who's law contridict yours?
>>739309793 >>739310466 These are rather strong assumptions, folks. Way stronger than what's already been proven wrong by quantum mechanics(like, that values exist before they are measured). Care proving them? Intuition is unreliable as I've already shown.
I like trolling as much as the next roodypoo, but debates like this actually hurt your brain. You're reinforcing neural pathways that would be better left to "die" for lack of a better word. I know its really fun to engage in this shit but we should stop for the sake of progress. Giving credibility to the idea that there is or ever was a god keeps it going, even in silly forms like this "debate". The best course is to live your life as an athiest and treat expressions of faith as the delusions they are. Ask "what do you mean by that?" "Are you feeling okay?" and "whatever you say, pal". Don't act like you're dealing on equal footing. It's overly gracious to theists and frankly just for your own ego. Just let faith die. We've already shown we're better off without it. We won this war hundreds of years ago. Whats happening nowadays is equivalent to when the nerves in a dead body contract and he sits upright and scares the shit out of you. Don't worry, God died a long time ago.
>>739310921 It's a shit post anon. And a bad one at that, which I don't mind admitting, since I made it. In fact, you taking it seriously makes me wary of you, since it was a very obvious shit explanation for something silly. You can be French Canadian all you want, if you take my non-answer seriously, something is wrong with you.
>>739311648 But it was so obvious. I said French people shit paint, which is patently untrue, they shit shit. Now your shit might smell like a mixture of frog legs cooked in maple syrup and garlic, but it would still be shit. The key to enjoying yourself here is not taking any insult to heart and giving as good as you get. And on that note, I'm danish and I welcome any stereotypical insult you can cook up for me, I'd love to see what prejudices a French Canadian would have about me.
>>739312061 Yet the anthropological explanation, based on symbolism, is counter to the doctrine of actual religions. Which is why atheism can only really be defined by those who believe. Atheism is not a thing, it's an anti-thing, and can only be defined in contrast to a belief system.
>>739312211 nice dubs >I'd love to see what prejudices a French Canadian would have about me. I don't have any because i honestly don't have any time and mental disposition to waste on lowering myself to some childish highschool tier bullshit name calling based on cultures
if anything i respect everyone and where they come from because nobody chose to spawn out of a woman's vagina from any parts of the world so i personally don't take pride in it
but if i would've to get back at you in any sorts of way, i'd tell you to go back in your barn fuck your pigs since animal fucking is legal in Denmark
>>739307893 Christian.... I want to debate intelectually which religion is right.. Christianity, or my belief that you are a massive faggot and when you die you will be sent to a river of sperm where you will be raped by narwhal unicorns for eternity.
Can you disprove my belief with you intelectual debate, or will you admit that your god is a phony and serve the sperms-wimming unicorns?
>>739312746 It's a kind of weak insult, but it's a start I guess. Also you wouldn't know, but bestiality recently got outlawed here. Also for someone who want to respect everyone, you seem rather angry. I was mocking you in good fun, from the notion that I know the stereotype I am using about you is false, that is what makes it fun. Just like a rape joke can be funny because people know rape is bad. It's dark humor man and like clean water and food, not everybody gets it. >>739312925 If he can't how is he almighty?
>>739312966 The earliest quote I can find is from Cicero, who said Diagoras is called an atheist (atheos). The Athenians labeled him with that term, because he rejected at least some portion of the established faith system (he may not have believed in gods, or maybe he only believed they didn't meddle). Which is clearly a term the theists used to describe an outsider to the belief system.
>>739307893 God isnt real. Ive died twice. Once in the ambulance once in the hospital. Fist time died for 3 minutes. Second died for 8 minutes. Ive never felt right since. But, I thought there would be a light at the end of a tunnel and jesus calling my name. All of my childhood pets and family members would be there too. Nothing happened. Its just a void of nonexistence. Felt like sleeping without dreaming. People who think that theres an afterlife are fucking retarded or just desperately want to feel comfortable believing theres something after death. We are all here by accident. Theres nothing special or spiritual about us. I fucking hate christians. Always think they're better than everyone else, pushing their beliefs down everyones throat, and ruining lives. Islam is pretty fucked too. Just accept the fact that there is no big bearded man in the clouds and live life fully until you eventually die and become nothing forever.
>>739313186 >It's a kind of weak insult, but it's a start I guess. i wasn't even trying to insult you, just throwing that out >Also you wouldn't know, but bestiality recently got outlawed here. you're right, i didn't know >Also for someone who want to respect everyone, you seem rather angry. yeah dude, i'm pretty pissed off about people in general since with my life experiences, i get to see that most people are narcissistic walking paradoxes full of shit and i'm sick and tired to have to put up with people's fakeness and bullshit >I was mocking you in good fun, from the notion that I know the stereotype I am using about you is false, that is what makes it fun. fair enough >Just like a rape joke can be funny because people know rape is bad. >It's dark humor man and like clean water and food, not everybody gets it. yeah man, fair point
>>739313512 I wanted you to try though, I even invited it. How can you respect a person if you are not willing to take the piss out of them? Humor is a great way to take people down a few notches, especially if you invite them to respond in kind so you yourself don't get too full of yourself.
>>739314007 >I wanted you to try though, I even invited it. and i don't care to bother with trying to find fault in people based on where they are from >How can you respect a person if you are not willing to take the piss out of them? what is your definition of respect and why does it apply to your previous statement? >Humor is a great way to take people down a few notches, especially if you invite them to respond in kind so you yourself don't get too full of yourself. not everyone share your perspective of humor tho i don't think laughing at stereotypes is a good way of trying to bond with someone you're making fun of based on things they never chose about their own culture they have been brought on whether they want it or not
>>739314273 you are fucking retarded, an ad hominem is a lack of rational argument against a point that makes you resort to name calling just to get the upperhand and shift the focus on the other being ''stupid''
when i called you a dumbass i was just calling you out on being stupid for assuming things you create in your head because you are so full of yourself and are simply looking to have the last word and lick your own ass in the process
>>739314288 Well it's not like you are a close friend of mine, I don't know your personal idiosyncrasies or any opinions I might find silly I can rib you on. In an anonymous setting, all I can go from is what you provide me, which in this case was French Canadian. My view on respect is like this, if people coddle me and try to avoid offending me, without me letting them know if there are subjects that are tender to me, I see it as them perceiving me as weak or fragile and thus lacking respect for me as an adult.
>>739314518 > you are fucking retarded, an ad hominem is a lack of rational argument against a point that makes you resort to name calling just to get the upperhand and shift the focus on the other being ''stupid'' Which is all you've been doing, since you haven't made any points. The only attempt you made to defend your initial argument was to claim you weren't talking about Abrahamic religions. Which had nothing to do with anything, since I wasn't talking about them either.
Since then, these are all the "arguments" you've presented: > dumbass > faggot > salty > stfu > you are fucking retarded > full of yourself > lick your own ass
>>739313493 There's a lot of debates about differences between Atheism and Agnosticism. Initially, atheists were every people that not believe in god also the ones on dubt. But because there is the word "theist" in "atheist", some atheists did not want to be linked to the "god concept" so they created the "agnosticism". So, the new definitions for "atheist" is "person who do not believe in god at all" and "agnostic" is "person who dont care about god"
oh please, SCIENCE only operates by induction - 'believing' or 'trusting' or 'having faith' that what happened in the past, will happen in the exact same way in the future
course in atheistic 'Scientism' you have a belief that something can just happen without any prior indication of happening before... y'know, like the singularity called the Big Bang
what's more, your blind belief that SCIENCE can measure everything is itself unmeasurable by SCIENCE - you can't prove that SCIENCE is the only way to perceive reality, nor be the best way to measure things
>>739316020 That's the stronger version. But there are plenty of agnostic who just can't be bothered, or don't care.
And the boundary between agnostic and atheist is slippery. Because it takes faith to be a pure atheist, the absolute belief that god (or whatever) doesn't exist. While agnostic technically covers even the slightest shred of uncertainty, even those who believe that the chance god exists is so small it might as well be zero.
>>739316361 But you're the one who is saying that science is patently false, so I want to know which superior ideas you have that aren't prone to the same issues as the ones you see in science. From a scientist point of view, if you could prove god, I would believe in him/her/it.
>>739316124 Partially incorrect. Induction is certainly part of the scientific method, but its weakness has been understood by scientists since Kant. Science is much more intellectually robust than your superficial and theistically-tainted gloss gives it credit for.
>>739307893 There is no god. The closest thing to god is Nature, the force of life and death. But nature having the power of a god. Has no conscious. Does not care if it is hated or revered, or worshiped. Nature is a cycle. Species are exterminated when and where it chooses. Always unknowing.
>>739316701 You give Dawkins far too much credit, that usage predates him (and he's largely irrelevant, anyway).
And even if you want to redefine the term, it doesn't make any difference. Science is based on evidence, or assumptions that actually work, while religion is based on belief, and keeps getting redefined so it remains unprovable.
Ok Christian, I have a request. I too am Christian, but one thing still fucks with me. Look up Last Thursdayism, the belief that everything, your memories, the whole earth, me, you, even the light coming from other planets, was created Last Thursday.
>>739316771 >Science is much more intellectually robust than your superficial and theistically-tainted gloss gives it credit for.
if you knew anything about SCIENCE you would know that it could only have developed inside a Christian milieu, due to the presupposition that God had made an ordered and observable universe
and when Newton developed the SCIENTERRIFIC Method, it was due to that 'belief' in an ordered and observable universe, that he trusted experiments would yield consistant results
look at the history of SCIENCE and you'll see that the greatest, most inquisitive thinkers have been men who which to explore the Cosmos because they believed the Bible which says 'the Heavens declare God's Glory' and they wished to understand Him better
>>739316832 But science isn't a dogma, it's a method or a tool if you may. It's a set of rules made to figure out the world around us, while trying to avoid making personal biases a foundation for teaching people about the world. The metaphor I would use is you calling me a Planerist because I happen to like using a planer instead of the sandpaper that everyone agrees is superior without saying why.
>>739317314 Your ad hominem assumptions are incorrect and your point about science is meaningless. It is, however, an inherent irony that the scientific method (long before Newton, by the way - look up Robert Grossteste for example) was pre-figured by christians looking for god's message in nature. Science has matured past mythology since then.
atheistic Scientism holds to a blind belief that humans are beings that evolved without any input from an outside source, other than the drive to survive and reproduce
yet these same atheistic thinkers hold that their 2lb brain is evolved enough to perceive reality in a rational way, and so they trust to a bag of random chemicals in their head to accurately receive and comprehend truth
... even though they simultaneously hold to the belief that this lump of meat is at it's most primal level concerned with getting them to stay alive and make babies, so anything it employs to stay alive and make babies is more important than rationality
course that kinda cognitive dissonance is what causes so many atheists to kill themselves, eh - so maybe they aren't as evolved as they think?
>>739317621 >, it could have only developed under Islam.
but it demonstrably didn't develop under Islam - any innovation in Muslim culture coming from conquered territories - but when they could grow no larger than the Ottoman empire, all creativity floundered and died
>>739307893 OK i will talk to you but can you answer some of my questions? like do you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible? if not what interpretation do you believe in. do you believe we can be moral without religion at all?
and ok if you want to get technical i suppose im an agnostic atheist i dont believe in a god and i see no evidence for a god that exist.
>>739318258 But there are plenty of indicators of simple things moving towards being more complex. Not because they have guided there, but because it worked. There are billions of evolutionary dead ends that didn't make it to our current time. And also sure we are based on survival and procreation instincts, but we as a species happened to use our wits to survive the cruelty of nature and through that became more intelligent and started having bigger ideas than "I need to fuck/eat/drink/sleep".
>>739318855 Unless you add energy, which we have plenty of flaming balls of helium doing all over the universe. The earth isn't a closed system, it's bombarded with energy from our sun all of the time.
>>739319208 >Unless you add energy, which we have plenty of flaming balls of helium doing all over the universe.
yeah, see that's kinda the whole point
a whole big bunch of energy just happened all of a sudden one time, and as it expanded outward from the singularity, it created more time, and space, and governing laws such as physics and gravity and even... the Law of Logic that operates in our Cosmos
and while you might say, 'well hey, sometimes stuff just happens' - the christian says; 'no, no they don't'
in beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth
>>739319655 Well my position is that unless they can prove that god made the big bang, I'm not going to believe it. In the absence of proof, the notion of "I don't know" is superior to crying god/magic/ancient aliens in my opinion.
>>739320059 >Well my position is that unless they can prove that god made the big bang, I'm not going to believe it.
well the christian position is that you wouldn't be capable of believing the evidence because by nature man is at enmity with God, and in our natural rebellion, are unable to perceive Him because of our love for Sin
>>739320166 Well isn't that convenient. Oh no you can't question this, that is just how things are, now listen to the rules of bronze age desert dwellers and know that you are born as shit and need to dedicate your life to apologizing to your maker.
>>739307893 Sure, but starting out already saying you're going to debate "the fallacies of atheism" is kinda dishonest. Also, i don't get how atheism would even have fallacies in the first place since it's not an ideology, it's just a word to describe someone who is not a theist.
>>739320550 oh, i'm sorry - are you under the impression that christians want you to follow 'our rules'
no anon, in the same way as we don't think you can believe in God until he directly intervenes in your existence and gives life to your soul - we don't think you can attain to God's moral perfection unless he empowers you
that's why christians say you need to be born again... kinda like having energy imparted to your spirit by the Holy Spirit, bringing something dead to life
until then, i wouldn't try to impose God's Morality on you - only tell you what it is, and why you need to repent from self-determined Sin
>>739313493 Those aren't mutually exclusive terms. One pertains to belief and the other to knowledge. Most people who call themselves "agnostic" though are atheists and are just dodging thequestion because they don't like the label.
>>739307893 Theism is flawed because there is no hard evidence of the supernatural, only your personal beliefs. And even if there was something out there, how do you know that your religion is correct? Sure you could go for the "we all worship the same god" argument, but religion is more centered around tradition, and so how do you know that you aren't worshipping god wrong and pissing him off? There are examples of that happening in many religious texts, including the Bible in both the old and new testaments. The entire concept of theism is utterly foolish, and the only reason I'm willing to type this out is because I think that you're simply a product of how you were brought up. I understand the importance of working with others, having a strong sense of community, and having an objective moral standard. That's all fine. The specific part of religion that I disagree with is the concept of a higher power. I think that if people come to realize the harsh reality that we only have this one life and there are no second chances after death, that people will be more grateful of this wonderful chance they have to explore, create, think, and live out the human experience.
>>739321288 Your love is very judgmental though anon. I treat people around me with respect, try my best not to influence other negatively and generally try to be the best version of me that I can. You bringing the church to me basically comes off like "oh hi, are you minding your own business, hurting no one? Did you know that you are still the scum of the earth unless you believe what I believe?".
>>739321872 But you have any proof to support that belief though. Because right now what I see is a guy waking me up by yelling that my house is on fire, but there is no smoke or heat to be detected at all.
>>739321985 the soul is the 'Imago Dei' - a thing of eternal substance which is shown in Genesis as being breathed into the clay of Man; and being an eternal creature, must have an eternal destination after physical death
throughout the Old Testament - before Christ - when men died, they were said to be 'drawn to their fathers', indicating that their was an existence after death
and again, in the Old Testament we see God speak of being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - long after these men physically died - but in God speaking of them in the present tense, we see that they continued to have existence
>>739307893 People always keep confusing the terms. "I believe there's a God" - Theist "I believe there's no God" - Antitheist "I don't make any assumptions about God and don't give a shit really" - Atheist "Well I can't be absolutely sure there's no dick in my mouth right now" - Agnostic
>>739307893 Where exactly is the logical fallacy in not believing something without proof? Or are you going to claim that because someone wrote a book once that somehow proves that there is a divine being outside of space and time controlling everything?
>>739322815 But if I can't see, touch, taste, smell or hear the flames, how can they affect me? Why should I believe you, when all you can do is assert "But I'm right and if you don't believe me, this thing I can't prove will punish you".
>>739323049 look you cnat and this guy wants to LARP as a christian debater but hes terrible at it, he avoids lots of the questions in the thread and answers the others with nonsense. if he doesnt realise it himself then i congratulate him he has fooled himself into being a devout believer. may his days be peaceful and full of joy
all your testaments are trash the old testament a bad translation from the dead sea scroll s the new testament is holy book with bits put in and out decide by ordinary men who decided what they wanted, especially the king james version,
>>739322484 So your proof is subjective experiences of people at the brink of death when the brain goes haywire in activity practically firing up every part of the brain at once to try to survive?
The core at your argument here is that you are afraid of death and so you cling on to the hope that you have a soul that is eternal and ever lasting. Just like how the brain at the brink of death clings to anything that can keep it alive, so are you clinging to hope of a magical soul because you fear your own mortality.
But for arguments say, lets say there is a soul. How does that prove there is a god or a heaven or any other super natural forces beyond the laws of physics?
>>739323283 I'm just taking on the debate because it's a way to spend my time, I find it intellectually engaging to talk to people whose opinions differ from mine. Also as a science minded person, if someone managed to give me proper proof of a concept, I wouldn't want to miss out on it, no matter how counterintuitive it might seem to me. >>739323285 Repent from what though? What have I done wrong? You're approaching me from a "I'm better than you" position and expecting me to thank you for it. If you really wanted me to see god through my own experiences, you wouldn't be engaging with me at all, because that isn't your place or your job.
>>739323285 > i won you by argument, you could be lost by better argument what teh fuck does that even mean... and yeah sure trust something you cant proove is even real, you're definitely not like a crazy cultist. :P
>>739323390 There's an interesting principle in science called "falsifiability". Basically, if something can't be proven wrong it's not worth talking about. It doesn't tell whether something is true or not but it instantly filters all useless shit(like religions or theories that don't predict anything). And all theories are either "proven wrong" or "not yet proven wrong". If you accept that absolute truth doesn't exist you can resolve every conflict. This only applies to our world and natural sciences obviously, formal sciences operate on axioms.
>>739324440 >these are Higher Laws, Anon - and if there are higher laws which exist extant outside our Cosmos, then that implies a Higher Law-Giver. Or it implies that this is how our universe turned out. What is the problem in acknowledging that this is how things work in our universe and still being open to the idea that other universes might be different? We can't know until we visit them.
>>739324440 >Higher Law-Giver why not just say "something beyond" oh right, because you have decided that its a god and are leading the evindence to a god instead of following the evidence to the actual conclusion which is "we dont know".
>>739323688 >I'm just taking on the debate because it's a way to spend my time,
well i've appreciated your engagement, anon - you ask great questions which get to the heart of the matter quite quickly
as to this, though >You're approaching me from a "I'm better than you" position and expecting me to thank you for it.
i'm really sorry if i've given you that impression, anon - i believe myself to like every other human being; naturally predisposed to rebellion against my Creator, having inherited Sin from my first parents
in point of fact, the Bible goes out of its way to show God choosing to show mercy to the very worst of humanity, the most evil of His enemies, so i count myself as among that number, and think that can be demonstrated in the fact that i'm a natural /b/tard
as for your Sin though, Anon; you break the very first commandment to Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength - as demonstrated by your complete rejection of Him, and unwillingness to bend the knee in surrender
now how do you expect to be treated by the very source of all Life - your Creator - when you reject all that is Life?
you will be cast outside of Life and given no nourishment for your eternal soul, for Eternity
>>739324440 Ok, lets say there is a higher being or law giver outside of our universe. What does that matter to us in our universe who are bound by the laws of physics of this universe? If there is a super natural being outside our universe and he decided to break the laws of our universe, then our universe would collapse through a chain reaction.
Laws of logic aren't actually laws like the physical laws.
But what makes you think there is a higher being outside our universe or higher laws? You have a lot of what ifs but zero evidence or reason to even suggest that they are true or even possible.
>>739325184 teh idea of inherting sin itself is evil. its to say the fathers mistakes are the childs mistakes. and if u believe in original sin it must mean u believe in adam and eve, so i guess u do interpret the bible literally. so your an idiot
>>739325184 But see the whole thing with sin and all that, is that what I see when you mention that is manipulative shaming tactics, formed to stop me from asking deeper questions. If God created me like this, how can he fault me for how I am acting? I've read the bible and sure I've seen some stories in there that has made me ponder on morality and on how I should treat other people. But I can say the same about the Bhagavad Ghita, the norse mythology, greek/roman mythology, shamanism and several philosophies that border on religion. If god is al loving and just, why use shame and scare tactics to bring people in? As a person who grew up without religion, your words sounds like an invitation to willingly submit to Stockholm syndrome.
>>739309231 Because we are not braindead monkeys that need a book to tell us what's right and what's wrong. We have developed actual understanding of the world and the things around us. That is why we have a moral compass, not because a big man in the sky told us.
>>739309231 unless u believe the bible literally then u also use ur own morality wihout religion or you would be stoning people who wear 2 different types of cloth like the bible tells u to. your welcome for the argument bye.
>>739325578 >so i guess u do interpret the bible literally.
never heard of 'Theistic Evolution'?
the idea that God brought everything into being, including the micro and macro evolution we can observe in operation on our planet, bringing a race of hominids from a place of animalistic instinctive ignorance to a place where they were gifted with the Imago Dei, as spoken of in the poetic language of Genesis where we see innocent man walking with God?
and because of my reference to first parents, you immediately assume i'm a Young Earth Creationist
... and in your complete ignorance of this field, you think i'm the idiot?
well you're not wrong, anon - i'm the kind of fool who replies to such comments with patience and even respect for the poaster
but when you assume things you make an ass out of u and me
>>739326623 in order to believe in original sin it means you beleive in adam and eve if u believe in adam and eve u dont believe in evolution and if u believ ein teh bible literally then u think the world is 6000 years old unless u pick and choose what parts u believe literally in such a case u would be putting ur authority above ur so called god and assuming u know better then him.
>>739327293 how can i not believe in micro-evolution when it is observable within a few short generations of single cell organisms?
similarly, how can i not believe in Sin when it is observable as soon as i open this board
but anon, you are demonstrating a very reductive view of Christianity which smacks of American Evangelicism - and since the Church is much, much older than America, i would suggest you look outside that little bubble which only appeared in its current form within the last century or so; else you are displaying an ignorance which is decidedly un-SCIENCETERRIFIC
Ffs...you Christians have been brainwashed...mankind had blindly followed thousands of Gods over millenia...now you're so fucking ignorant to say all the others are fake gods and your Christian God is the only real one...can you not see how idiotic that it? Zeus...false...Apollo...false...Thor...false...atheists understand that all of them are rubbish...just one more God than you do...idiots the lot of you
>>739327876 >similarly, how can i not believe in Sin when it is observable as soon as i open this board
idiot. i talk about somethign serious and terrible in your belief like original sin, the idea that the moment we are born we have sin in our hearts. and you try dismiss that by saying look at all these sinful sinners on this board, i cnat tell if your serious or not. how is that an example of original sin existing, how do you know that everyone is born with original sin and how are you able to judge who is sinful or not to fall under that category you authoritarian cunt.
and like i said again if you believe in the first sin story (adam and eve) then you do not believe in evolution. these are contradictory ideas and you cant hold them both.
>>739327876 But sin is subjective, it's an idea we invented to avoid bad behavior in a ruthless world, in order to take some of the ruthlessness out of it. The living standards and our ideas of human rights have improved since sins was invented though. We've gotten to a point were outlawing homosexuality is silly, because we already have more than enough people around, but some Christians still vilify it as a sin. You're expecting us to follow rules that made sense in an arid climate with hard living conditions, in areas where many of the issues of living in a desert isn't present. Heck, look at the rule about not eating shellfish, that makes sense in a place that is scorching hot with no refrigerators or fast transportation of food. But we have fridges now and I refuse to believe eating shrimps will condemn me to hell.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.