What's the easiest way to trigger an atheist?

ask him to explain how it's only a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that a single human was ever born, if the "accurate" models for existence are correct

File: image.jpg (47KB, 618x340px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 618x340px

>>3173387
>take away separation of church and state.
REEEEEE

>>3173450
Sounds like Islam tbqhwyf

Explain how faith-based his axioms are. Explain that the results of his axioms both require acceptance of another axiom (truth-practicality) and accept the axioms themselves. Do this and they'll scream their science class memes for hours.

File: Batiashur.png (319KB, 597x515px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 597x515px

>>3173387
Wouldn't it technically be
>I get hung up
>But I get down again

>>3173387
atheism is by far the easiest religion to troll

File: 1497070349741.png (22KB, 320x179px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x179px

>Be an "omnipotent god"
>"""Die""" on a cross
>Come back to life becuase you are fucking god and can do anything

What drooling retard actually finds this impressive or inspiring?

>>3174549

You're not getting the point. God themself was tortured, humilliated and executed like the lowest scum on Earth. Even jesus claims in the Bible that he is scared of dying.

God allowed that to happen only for our sake, for our salvation, and that's the impressive part. Their resurrection is secondary.

>>3174549
are you retarded?

>>3174585
why can't he do something impressive that's testable like curing leprosy or cancer?

>>3174651
are you retarded?

>>3173387
Christians are the easiest to trigger in 4chan. Start a thread saying 'refute atheism without resorting to fedora memes' or '>worshipping a dead kike ona stick' and you got over 350 replies of christian butthurt.

>>3173463
He died and was then resurrected. Ergo, knocked down, and got back up again.

Bring crucified isn't even the most painful way to die, there are without a doubt several thousands, no, millions of other humans who suffered more than the historical Jesus Christ. This is undeniable.

>>3174585
That sounds like overkill desu. If Jesus just needed to be sacrificed like a lamb to propitiate sins, then why the beatings, tortures and humiliations? Just for us to feel sorry for him? Is god a drama queen? Or it just happens that the gospel writers knew how to captivate the pleb with graphic imagery and appeals to sentimentality?

>>3173387
Tell them that the burden of proof lies on them
Claim Atheism is a religion/requires as much faith as believing in God

>>3173392
everything that has a chance of happening will happen given infinite time.

Not even an atheist

>>3174759
Because if jesus died stumbling on a banana peel we wouldn't reflect on our sins, and It would be pointless. God died not as a hero, but as a victim of human wickedness, so we could see it and avoid it

Burden of proof is a joke. It's simpler to say don't believe in things without good reason.
Burden of proof is not 100%. How many times have scientists made new discovers which were lead by belief in hither unto discovered phenomena.

>>3174651
>Who is Lazarus

>>3173457
>B-BUT MY AXIOMS ARE MORE """""RATIONAL""""""" THAN YOURS!!!!!!!

>>3174861
>stumbling on a banana peel
You're being disingenuous. Yes that slipping on a banana peel would be pointless because it would be an accidental death. I'm not talking about that. Surely Jesus could be properly sacrificed without all the gore and drama. Did the ancient Israelites beat, humiliate, torture, drag around and hang every lamb they sacrificed? Is there something necessary about the drama besides shock value and inciting the feelings from the passionate plebeian readers?

>>3174859
>everything that has a chance of happening will happen given infinite time.
No.

>>3174903
He suffered for YOU! Therefore you must give your money to us, otherwise you're a bad person.
>Christians were the SJWs of the ancient world

>>3174903
>God died not as a hero, but as a victim of human wickedness, so we could see it and avoid it

>>3174908
>muh victim complex
Christians are still the SJWs of today.

>>3174914
Its not victim complex if you're actually a victim

>>3174905
yes

>>3174908
Again you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that he needed to die as a "hero" either. Christian theology says that Jesus was a perfect sacrifice, a blameless lamb because he was without sin. The sacrifice of the blameless lamb is all that is necessary to accomplish the propitiation. It doesn't say that the lamb that the lamb also has to be a victim of human wickedness. Clearly the drama and gore are literary devices to arouse pity and compassion, and to emotionally blackmail the victim/reader. Classic proto-SJW guilt tripping.

>>3174934
This is the part where Christians say that "you can't understand the ways of God". They have been saving this """argument""" up until now, and they will use it.

>>3173392
Not an argument

>>3174905
...yes?

File: IMG_0212.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>3173387
Provide him with concrete evidence for a Jewish elder god in the clouds. Not how god is generally described but if you could pull off thy hat trick you might get some lulz

>>3174934
Thathow """drama and gore""" that you are talking about are totally justified. Its literally mankind killing god, of course it's gonna be dramatic. Its the most tragic and shameful thing I can imagine.

>>3174927
>>3174954
>>3174957
1/3 is the repeating decimal 0.33333333333333...

It can never be the case that one of its digits is 5. WOW I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE THAT GIVEN INFINITE TIME SOME THINGS WON'T HAPPEN!

>>3173392
There's a similar chance (only a few zeros) that you were ever born, and that's not counting the probability of God actually creating mankind
>>3173457 that's gold
>>3174549 He had to because he already signed a contract with old testament people about getting to heaven, so having Jesus dying instead of an endless flow of sheep sacrifices was a legal loophole out of it. Besides, dying and coming back is quite a spectacle, don't want your new absolutely true religion to be forgotten now

File: 1500619624258.png (4KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 183x275px

>>3173457
>foundationalist epistemology is the same as faith

>>3174977
Still not an argument

>>3174977
not an argument

>>3174977
ceci n'est pas un argument

>>3173387
What used to trigger me all the time was parroting bible verses at me as a proof that I cant eat whatever morsel of food I feel like eating during lent.

>>3174907
No one is told that they HAVE to give money. It's considered good work, but it's by not means a necessity.

>>3174943
Anon, are you attempting to say that we can fully understand the will of a Being that is in a higher dimension than us?

> Universe is causal
> Matter is contingent
> ... Therefore the material universe was created in and of itself

Atheists are retarded.

>>3174715
No you get a few dozen replies discussing metaphysics which are ignored by the fedoras because "science has refuted philosophy" or whatever.

>>3175127
>youget a few dozen replies discussing metaphysics

Literally has never happened.

>>3173387
Tell them they have a faith based belief system.

>>3175102
>argument from contingency

t. brainlet

>>3174866
What about the thousands of other people with leprosy?

>>3175102
>contingent
The Middle Ages called. They want their illuminated manuscript copy of Aristotle's Metaphysics back.

>>3175174

No atheist can provide evidence for how this cosmos could come about of its own volition.

They always slip to an argument from authority or to attack the idea that any other force could exist.

>>3175220
Not an argument

>>3175220
Physical reality is not contingent
Christcucks btfo

Why is it always atheism vs christianity? IS it an american thing?

The atheist only knows to insult and undermine. He cannot understand the opinions of his opponents. Everything is defined through his narrow worldview and he is unable empathise with other people. Every opinion other than his is a personal attack and affront to his being.

Basically; Autism.

>>3174549
This. Like big fucking deal. It's like when a guy pretends to beat up a purse snatcher to impress a girl.

>>3175261
Self-awareness: 0%

I see a lot of parallels between Christianity and Atheism. Like for instance you're both faggots.

>>3173457
>>3174782
>>3174894
>>3175172

>This is what post-modernists actually believe

It's funny to see Christfags go total Frankfurt School in the wake of their increading irrevalence among educated men with IQs above 100.

You lot are no better than feminists.

>>3174918

>muh oppresshun

Christian claims of Rome being mean to them are exaggerated. Matyrdom stories are just that.


>>3174979

It's a Post-Modernist.

>>3175035

You might as well say, "muh feelings."

>>3175285
>This post contains no arguments.

File: 1455295076208.jpg (30KB, 552x340px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 552x340px

The atheist is his own enemy.

>>3175285
>Anon, you cannot expect to understand the Creator of the Universe.

>You: muh feelings

No, not the same.

>>3174651
>Did both.

>>3175261
Damm man, thanks really insightful

>>3175292
>quotes are arguments

Brainlet as fuck

>>3175232

You never gave one to reply to.

You have established nothing. Everything in this Cosmos points to the fact that it is not self reliant. Prove otherwise.

>>3175232
Oh, it's an argument you want.

Here's one.

The existence of the universe has but three choices as to the cause of its existence:

1. It is self-created;
2. It is eternal; or
3. It is created by another.

The atheist immediately discounts #3 and waivers between #1 and #2. Why is that?

I'm so baffled as to why people believe in religion. There is LITERALLY no proof of God. Who's to say that an invisible Gorilla that walks with blades of grass as legs and has a penis that is connected to his belly button isn't right next to me right now?

>>3173387
Remind him that his sense of morality is religion derived and has no basis in logic.

>>3175326
The universe God created suffices as proof of His existence.

>>3175317
>Why is that?

Occam's razor, you cuckold.

>On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.

Christcucks btfo for eternity

File: IMG_0722.jpg (70KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x375px

>>3175317
Kek, so you rather ignore #1 and 2 ? Why? Makes your life easier?

>>3175334
>Occam's razor is a universal fact
t. brainlet

Atheists have now ascribed the attributes of God to the Universe.

Existence is miraculous and therefore they have rationalise the irrational through the language of the divine.

>>3175328
how the fuck can morality have a basis in logic?

File: image.png (288KB, 917x525px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 917x525px

>>3175343
>he doesn't get what Occam's Razor is

>>3175334
You realize that's choice #2, yes? That the universe is eternal?

Something science has disproven by the Laws of Science for centuries?

>>3175341
1 makes no sense; nothing physical contains within it the genesis of its own creation.

2 makes no sense because we're not in heat death right now.

3 makes sense because in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

File: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg (17KB, 220x317px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 220x317px

>>3175328
Actually it has

>>3175386
>the proof for big bang theory is centuries old

>>3175391
But who created god?
And if there's a god, what would it change for us?

>>3175356

Provide a simple answer for the existence of the cosmos? Invariably atheists will stop at the idea of it being eternal at least in potential. Yet they will deny the idea of any other force which operates as its instigator. How the universes operates is still a mystery and to deny that any other force is needed to to deny current research being made into how it operates.

>>3175386
>he doesn't know what B-theory of time is
>he doesn't know is the most widely accepted view among philosophers and physicists
>he doesn't know it has become the default view in physics since special relativity
>he thinks it has anything to do with the steady state theory

I knew I was discussing with a brainlet, but you're something else

>>3175406
>How the universe operates is still a mystery and to deny that any other force is needed is to deny current research being made into how it operates.

fixed

>>3175401
The proof that the universe had a beginning is centuries old, yes.

>>3175405
Can I ask you a question?

Who told you God was a created being, like you?

>>3175405
>And if there's a god, what would it change for us?

It would kind of matter why He created the universe, and you, no?

>>3175408
It's #2.

And it's been proven false by real science.

>>3175396
Nope.
See
>>3173457

>>3175412
mythologies don't count as proof.

>>3175423
Agreed.

The proof is scientific. Has to do with someone named Newton.

>>3175406
The current research is physical research, making physical theories. It has nothing to do with supernatural magical beigns creating universes out of nothing to then impregnate a virgin and kill themselves, but with Quantum gravity during the Planck epoch

Consciousness. Checkmate atheists.
inb4 emergent property, as if such an idea is no less magical than the belief in God

>>3175418
There's no possible way for us to figure out what his motivation for doing it was, the only way would be if he told us. What evidence is there this god would care more about us than any other organism of thus universe?

>>3175420
Are you even reading, retard? The Big Bang doesn't contradict B-theory at all, not even one tiny bit. The B-theory of time is by far the most widely held view about ontology of time among physicists, rejecting it is a fringe view.

>>3175435
Consciousness therefore magic, the most sound argument in history. How will atheists ever recover?

>>3175429

Never said they were; but the real nature of this universe would be beyond our comprehension since it exists in a state that is alien to us.

>>3175425
tell me his scientific argument then

>>3175438
>untestable hypotheses are ok when we do it
It's hilarious how atheists will do anything to avoid believing in God.

>>3175442
Ah yes, from a reductionist standpoint there is no consciousness in the brain, but it magically appears past a certain threshold of activity, without proper physical explanation.
At least pseudo-science of the past invented ethers.

>>3175452
>he's too dumb to understand philosophy of time

Understandable. It's a dense field, so it was silly of me to think a brainlet would get it. "God did it" is a more appropiate explanation for someone of your intellect. Don't feel bad about it.

>>3175442
>m-magic
There's no such thing as magic, it's just a artificial subdivision created by materialists to a priori dismiss ideas that they find inconvenient.

>If we can't explain it, it doesn't exist.
>If we can explain it, it isn't magic.

>>3175461
What's a more likely cause for an ordered system, chaos, or a greater order?
Why should I believe that chaos should beget a harmonious order?

>>3175461
>philosophy
>somehow holding a higher intellectual ground than theology
LOL

>>3175460
>Ah yes, from a reductionist standpoint

A minority view. Most physicalists are of the non-reductive variety.

Until substance dualists (read: brainlets) can give a proper rebuttal of non-reductive physicalism and a succesful defense of substance dualism, invoking consciousness as an argument for theism is brainlet territory.

How come the least intelligent populations are drawn to Abrahamic creeds?

>>3175476
t. brainlet

>>3175485
'sup brainlet

>>3175481

> Christian Europe has contributed the most the world
> least intelligent

The only thing atheist nations lead to are death and decline

>>3175472
Not an argument

>>3175472
So, it's "greater order" ad infinitum? Turtles all the way down?

File: 7913674a950b9e95b20bcbece800efe4552502e85b1df9ed97432fbb6d793c20.png (851KB, 1974x2183px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1974x2183px

>>3175292

>He Lives in Trump country.

>>3175437
Unless of course He explained it in very simple terms.

Which, of course, He did.

>>3175438
B-theory isn't real, dude.

>>3175445
Had something to do with conservation of mass and energy.......not being able to create nor destroy.....something about entropy......something about the laws of thermodynamics.....

I sense a gaping hole in your "education".

>>3175528
>you're wrong
Not an argument

>>3175481
Why do intelligent people value intelligence?

>>3175511
>it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction
>not turtles all the way down

>>3175511
It begins with the original order of the divine ground, which being intelligent, produces intelligent orders.

>>3175537
It is, actually. Being wrong means that you're wrong, and your argument is wrong. (Your argument that mankind dictates what time is, does, and did in the past is absurd).

>>3175511

You're the one who believes order comes from chaos.

Prove it.

File: blocks your path.jpg (166KB, 1500x750px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1500x750px

>>3175490

>The only thing atheist nations lead to are the most impressive economic growth and fastest poverty alleviation in human history, and unprecedented increase in material prosperity and scientific and technological progress

Fixed

>>3175561
>Prove it.

This triggers the atheist.

>>3175561
Evolution

File: dba2e540536a242b8f88c71e3d6afa55254d898f9d5c3624041ff2d562234ee3.png (14KB, 292x460px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 292x460px

>>3175490

>Europe has been secular for awhile
>Africa, Middle East, and Beanerland are mudpits
>All are filled with Christfags or Muhammads
>Blacks have the highest violent crime levels for their population, lowest IQs, and done zip to little to advance civilization
>Blacks are more holy rolling than Whites, with White Men the highest represented as atheists for their population

>>3175526
Where/When?

>>3175541
"Finitely" is literally the opposite of turtles all the way down

>>3175558
>It is

It literally isn't, brainlet

>>3175583
And how would evolution take place without the laws of chemistry in place?

Telling atheists that you cannot be a practising buddhist without faith.

>>3175533
>newton
>thermodynamics
i give up

>>3175602
The fundamental laws of chemistry are significantly simpler than the organisms it produces.
I already gave you a case of "order" arising from "chaos", fuck off.

>>3175616
It's hardly order arising from chaos if it is puzzle pieces falling into place.

ITT: Christfags pretend to dig science.

>>3175290

>doesn't deny being a post-modernist

Shouldn't you be advocating Seperate Ways of Knowing like those Niggers in South Africa?

>>3175293

Sure it isn't, Christfag.

>>3175295

In controlled conditions?

>>3175298

Found the SJW.

>>3175330

Hey there. Found some dinosaurs in Noah's Ark?

>>3175414

You haven't shown there was one.

>>3175418

You haven't your desert savage religion is anything more than We Wuzzery.

>>3175627
It's not a "higher order", you cuck. You can have quite complex results from simple initial conditions (see Conway's game of life)

>>3175589
>>3175589
Not when it relies on a "tenseless object" that has to be described using tenses.

>>3175602

If evolution is a thing then the Bible is just a bunch of scribbles by desert savages.

>>3175639
>Noah's ark
This is some quality bait anon. Congrats

>>3175648
Literally nothing to do with turtles all the way down. Wrong, as well.

ITT: christcucks on suicide watch

>>3175656
>You now realize all of human achievement can be dismissed as "just a bunch of scribbles by savages" when viewed objectively.

>>3173387
Just link them to this thread.

>>3175639
>Atheist
>Complaining about post-modern
LOL

>>3175667
>HAHA, technically my untestable unsupported explanation of the nature of the universe doesn't actually rely on turtles, checkmate Christ fag!
Autism

>>3175736
Who are you quoting?

>>3175675

>Christfag goes full relativist

What's with you Christfags and embracing relativism in the wake of increasing irrevelance among non-muds and non-White Trash?

>>3175721

>pretending modern Christian Apologetics isn't another branch of post-modernism with Amerifat Brand Fundamentism with its Jesus riding dinosaurs being a reaction against the march of modernity like Islamism.
>pretending I said I was atheist

File: godfags_get_triggered.jpg (77KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x800px

>>3173387
Like I'll be triggered by someone who unironically believes in talking snakes

>>3175220
>No atheist can provide evidence for how this cosmos could come about of its own volition.

Most smart atheists are honest enough to say "I don't know"

What makes your faith based asumption how it all happened without evidence true?

Being honest about not knowing something is just to advanced for retards like you right?

>>3176451
>empirical evidence is highest form of rationality.
:-]

>>3176451

Even conceding to a creator doesn't support the Christfag. After all, the Christfag can't demonstrate what makes some desert death cult the one to follow as opposed to Deism, Zoroastrianism, select Hindu sects, etc. That's the joke behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme.

>>3175461
When God did it, "God did it" is a perfectly fine answer to the question.

>>3175583
You're stating that order derived from chaos.

You're not proving it in the slightest.

>>3176451
>>3176491

always the same responses

>>3175585
To Moses, to His prophets, and then through His Son. From @1486 BC to @95 AD.

>>3175598
It is, actually. When you're wrong, the way you got there is irrelevant.

>>3176467

Where there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?

>>3173392
There was a 100% chance a human was to be born, we know this because it came to be

>>3176509

>Moses

Fictional character. Modeled on earlier West Asian mythology.

>>3176513
Of course. Baby ones, obviously. Because they still existed after the Flood.

>>3176523
Whatever you say, person with infinite knowledge.

>>3176508

>Doesn't actually answer the post

Are you sore at how your creed has lost so much relevance among those with IQs above 100?

>>3173387
1. *tips fedora*
2. Prove it.
3. Atheism is a belief.
4. Atheism and autism are strongly correlated.
5. Atheism is degenerate.
6. Atheism is amoral.
7. Atheism is a modern spook.
8. Atheists have lower IQs than the population.
9. Atheists tend to be unattractive people.
10. Old atheists are miserable people.

>>3176513
I don't believe in Noah.
But is it rational to take the chance condemning your self to hell forever, because that is how God argues.

>>3176556
Do you believe that your beliefs change history?

>>3176556
>But is it rational to take the chance condemning your self to hell forever

No, no it is not.

File: heisenberg first gulp.jpg (39KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 403x403px

>>3175481
>least intelligent populations

Here's a short list of some Christian scientists:

Francis Bacon
Nicolaus Copernicus
Nicolas Steno
Galileo Galilei
Blaise Pascal
Gottfried Leibniz
Emanuel Swedenborg
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton
Johannes Kepler
Antoine Lavoisier
Alessandro Volta
André-Marie Ampère
Bernhard Riemann
Michael Faraday
Charles Babbage
James Clerk Maxwell
James Prescott Joule
Louis Pasteur
Wilhelm Röntgen
Gregor Mendel
Guglielmo Marconi
Max Born
Werner Heisenberg
Max Planck
Wernher von Braun
John Lennox
Rosalind Picard

Also, don't Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any people on earth?

>>3176529

>Anatomically modern humans capable of building arks were contemporary with dinosaurs

Christfag Science everybody.

>>3176530

Show all the non-biblical records of the Exodus from the Bronze Age. And evidence showing a mass migration from Egypt by Levantines.

>>3176570
Of course they were. Hence dinosaur depictions on ancient pottery, ancient cave drawings, ancient gateways, and in all ancient literature.

>ITT: Atheists on suicide watch.

>>3176570
The Book of Exodus detailing the event.
The Ipuwer papyrus, detailing the plagues from the Egyptian point of view.
The Solomon monument on the other side of Al Aqaba.
The chariot wheels at the bottom of Al Aqaba.
The dramatic fall of Egypt as a world power.
The sudden cessation of massive works done by Egyptians.
The dramatic rise of Israel as a world power.

Anything else?

>>3176574

>can't list any examples accepted by relevant academia.

>>3176594
>relevant academia

Academia has never been relevant.

>>3176587

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

>Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person

Whoops.

>>3176611
>Scholarly consensus

Has no bearing on reality, and certainly not on history.

Try again.

>>3176605

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

Hey there Trump voter.

>>3176621
Hey there kommie kraut.

>>3176618

>I know better than the experts

Hello there Mr. His. Ever looked up Afrocentricism?

File: image.jpg (41KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 479x720px

>>3176503
>evolution isn't real

File: 0059014198bd5347b9aa4da317f69b3c425509a8dea5d9dd27e5f439d590bbe2.png (70KB, 768x952px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 768x952px

>>3176546

Debunked by basic research.

>>3176130
>What's with you Christfags and embracing relativism in the wake of increasing irrevelance among non-muds and non-White Trash?
I'm not a Christ fag, I just despise atheists and "science" worshippers.
:^)

>>3176541
>atheists are so triggered by this thread they instinctively default back to their Christophobia even though this thread has nothing to do with Christianity
LOL

File: daec5da328d9412663e39ec6f36f88c2e2019cdc690585444a462d0bd89ce70a(2).jpg (873KB, 1008x2136px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 1008x2136px

>>3176687

>pretending this thread and others like it aren't Christfags picking fights

Also:

>>3176672

Dindu Edition.

>>3176726
>only Christ fag could possibly have a problem with nation wrecking atheists
LOL

File: pope-francis-1.jpg (65KB, 930x698px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 930x698px

>>3176739

>nation wrecking atheists

Oh sure, you have the Pope kissing Nigger Feet but it's the Atheist's fault.

>>3176633
>muh fallacy of appeal to authority is valid

>>3176646
Micro, yes, macro, lolno.

>>3176768

>misunderstanding appeal to authority

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Bonus:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

File: 1.jpg (32KB, 377x667px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 377x667px

>>3176770

>Micro, yes, macro, lolno.

>>3173392
Okay, I hate this argument. It's stupid and it misunderstands probability off events.
You're comparing the probability of this one event to the probability of ALL OTHER EVENTS COMBINED. But obviously, there needs to be an outcome of some kind. The proper procedure is to compare the probability of this event to the probability of any other event individually. Sure, there is a really small percentage chance of this outcome, but there are like 10^56 number of outcomes and one of them had to happen.

>>3176985
Thank you. It's like saying it's incredible that a rock exists since the probability that that particular rock has all its atoms in that specific configuration is astronomically low. The atoms have to be configured some way, it doesn't matter that that particular configuration has such a low chance of occurring.

>>3174749
the point isn't that he could've been impaled, it's that he died like that at all

>>3174986
>>3174993
>>3174998
t. buttblasted gaytheists

File: 5fe8c17da47cfb80d0b67c36698288f3.jpg (104KB, 554x800px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 554x800px

Based on some of the replies to this thread it seems that even the mention of religion is enough to trigger some atheists

Have a pretty icon, y'all.

>>3176658
Underrated.

>>3174859
There's no such thing as infinity, infinity is based on time, and time did not exist prior to the big bang.

File: SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg (38KB, 440x429px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 440x429px

>>3173387
Triggered

Fuck humanities

>>3178023
>some of them are even wearing a fedora in that pic

>>3178023
And they wonder why Franco won

File: Spanish Civil War from 1936-1939 (51).jpg (113KB, 944x642px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 944x642px

>>3178116
>>3178125
No Gods No Masters

File: aqinas.jpg (2MB, 2700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x6826px

Demonstrating that their faith in materialism is irrational and actually require vastly more faith and double think

Being a young atheist is excusable to an extent but at a certain point after about 25-30 years old if somebody is still an atheist there's something wrong with their head, like they're on the spectrum but not enough to be super obvious. There has definitely been a bit of the 'tism in every older atheist that I've interacted with. I wouldn't call them mentally ill but they are defective because they can't perceive other minds like normal people, and you combine that with a rigid ideology that makes them feel smarter than everyone else and you have a massive wildstorm of insufferableness.

>>3178163
Except Franco. He did win, after all

File: Crispy_nun_CNT.png (255KB, 573x386px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 573x386px

>>3178198
And now he is death and despised.

File: u.jpg (107KB, 680x598px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 680x598px

>>3178184

>>3173457
>axioms both require acceptance of another axiom
I am triggered, that's not how axioms work.

>>3178228

Has Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris been talking about axioms lately? That's all anyone wants to talk about lately.

File: 1488237308623.png (124KB, 292x389px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 292x389px

>>3178210
And Spain is ruled by a King. Lefties deserved everything

>>3178324
A leftest king and the very party that led the Republic most of its life.

>>3178178
>making "debates" through successive edits of a jpg

christcuck autism in action

>believing in kids stories
>2017

religious brainlets lmao

>>3178481

But the atheist is the one that started it

>>3178213

Does anyone know any atheist over 30 who isn't a complete sperg? That's what I thought.

File: bradd-pitt.jpg (67KB, 930x933px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 930x933px

>>3178498

File: greatpyramidcoord2.png (358KB, 539x717px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 539x717px

>>3173387
>>3174863

>What's the easiest way to trigger an atheist?

Give them evidence God is real - although they might be thrilled to know that God despises mono-"theists" and thinks they're the scum of the universe. They were warned that following Moses is trading one's soul for Earthly power and they decided to do it anyway.

"What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi0Ff3-nz8A

>>3173457
That's basically false equivalence though, just because two axiomatic systems both rely on accepting initial postulations (or as you put it "faith") that doesn't mean that they are equal in all other respects.

>>3176546
3. It is.
5. Depends on your definition of degenerate.
6. Correct, it is not a moral stance.
7. And theism is an pre-modern spook.
10. Old people are miserable people, getting old is fucking awful, you watch all your friends and loved ones drop like flies, worry about horrible diseases like cancer and Alzheimer, your visits get less and less as your kids and grand-kids move on with your lives, and chances are you'll get stuck old folks home when you can't take care of yourself anymore where you may or may not get abused by poorly paid nurses working caseloads well beyond their capabilities. [spoiler]Go visit your grandparents anon some time, it will surely brighten up their day. [/spoiler]

File: 1467704116689.jpg (193KB, 1024x1016px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1024x1016px

If there is no god and there is no point to the universe

why and how exactly can we discover there is no god or point? if the universe was assembled due to random chance, why is it that we can understand that the universe was assembled at random chance.

wouldn't that be like looking at a painting with colors that were randomly assembled and say "yup no one created this, I'm sure of this"

>>3178324
a puppet king with a bunch of progressive selfhating fags, nice legacy franquist.

>>3178926
The only triggering thing here is how stupid you are. Christ mate, read a fucking book or something.

>>3174585
>Even jesus claims in the Bible that he is scared of dying.
That just makes him stupid. If you are 100% certain you are going to heaven it is retarded to be afraid of death. If you are afraid of death than your either aren't completely faithful or you are an idiot.

Atheists, the bed rock of logic and reason!
Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy!
Oh, I see, a guideline for argumentation is based in logic and not pragmatic rationality!
Gotcha!

>>3178992
not an argument

>>3176762
How dare the Pope imitate Jesus Christ

File: jesus christ titian0.jpg (1MB, 940x1276px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 940x1276px

OP here, glad to know the answer to my question was the thread itself

>>3178020
>/his/ tries their hand at science
lmao
Stick to the humanities

>itt autists who were raped by their priests screech at teenagers who think being an atheist is makes you enlightened

we're gonna need extra bleach

>>3179473
>lmao
>Stick to the humanities
Maybe prove me wrong instead of lmaoing at something you don't get.
Before the big bang time didn't exist, nothing existed, there needed to be a cause for the big bang to happen, the possibility of us being here is .000000...01%, but time wasn't around before the big bang and time has only been around for 13.8 billion years (age of the universe). Therefore using time to explain our improbable chance of existence makes no sense.

>>3179550
>the possibility of us being here is .000000...01%
lmao

>>3179550
Or maybe it is just our current conception of time that didn't exist.

>>3179561
>>3179557
Either way, there required a force for the big bang to happen.
There is no such thing as infinite because if there was you wouldn't be here because you'd have an infinite past therefore you wouldn't have been able to get to the point where you are now in the age of time. So this means at one point time didn't exist, because if time existed always then there is such thing as infinite, but there's no such thing as infinite therefore time at one point didn't exist and at some point will cease to exist.

>>3178926
the universe isn't completely random
there are certain mechanisms at work that create patterns (for example, evolution)

>>3179550
not him, but we have no idea what happend before big bang
there is no casual relation to the world before big bang

>>3179590
>we have no idea what happend before big bang
Exactly, and we will never know. Because knowing what happened in the past requires us to empirically us the laws of physics, and the laws of physics did not exist prior to the big bang. Which means they had to be invented. For something to be invented there has to be an inventor, which is where God comes in.

>>3179596
>and the laws of physics did not exist prior to the big bang
we don't know that. In fact, we know nothing about what was before big bang

>>3179604
>we don't know that
We do know that time did not exist, if time did not exist then all the laws of physics become obsolete

>>3179611
>We do know that time did not exist
no, we don't know that either.

>>3179621
If it did, then infinite existed, but it's impossible for infinite to exist therefore time did not exist.

>>3173387

by being god and on the moment of his death, condemning him to hell.

>>3179635
So you make the statement that god exists.
is there any way to test your logic? Any predictions which could be proven wrong?

>>3179645
>is there any way to test your logic
Conscious is a direct proof of God, the fact that we are aware of this conversation proves that someone had to have made us aware.

>>3179654
So your hypotesis cannot give us any new knowledge about the world, is that correct?
if yes, I don't really see the point of following this theory

>>3179659
My hypothesis proves God, which furthers our discussion to religion. If there is a God, and if we exist on earth, then God wants us to exist for a reason. Which is why God sent down the Torah, Bible and Quran. To guide humans.

>>3179666
>My hypothesis proves God
a hypothesis is not a proof. If you wanna prove God, your hypothesis needs to make some predictions which can be proven either right or wrong.

>>3179686
>a hypothesis is not a proof
A deductive hypothesis is a proof, which is what I've given.

>>3176618

This is the single dumbest post that I've read on 4chan over about the past two years or so.

I'm leaving aside all worries about troll, meta-troll, reverse-troll etc, just to judge the statement on its face. The statement itself in its immediate context is the dumbest thing I've read on 4chan for about two years, by my estimation. The poster doesn't seem to understand the relationships between what actually was, what is, the relationships between the known/might-probably-be/probably-not, and so on. It fundamentally does not get that series of imaginative ideas.

>>3178926

I love this picture because it represents the cavalier anthropocentric triumph over nature of human beings over all who oppose us. The bear, beloved Soviet emblem, is yet not so beloved that it warrants first-class quarters. Instead we stick it in a pseudo-forest, and a very mean one at that, and can just make out the glint in its slowly dying eyes while my son gleefully mugs for the camera.

This is the proper attitude of man with respect to nature. Respect and deference are only due insofar as we can conquer dumb same, and thus never need be in long term equilibrium.

>>3179692
deductive proof works by setting up axiomes and then deducting from them. Thus, deductive reasoning can be prove the axiomes right or wrong.
But unless your axiom is "god exist", you can't use your reasoning to prove or disprove god

>>3179729
No, my axiom is that someone had to invent the laws of physics, which I claimed to be God who did.

>>3179734
>someone had to invent the laws of physics
that's not an axiom, thats an argument.
Axiom would be like:
>given that someone invented laws of phyiscs
>thus follows...

>>3179743
Okay sure, it's an argument, so disprove my argument.

>>3179753
my point was that gods existance cant be proven, and an argument is no proof

>>3175285
>I have no fucking clue what post-modernism is

>>3179445
Jesus Christ did not kiss nigger feet

>>3179937
you do realize that racism is against christian belief, right?

>>3180004
You do realize that cuckoldry is against Christian belief, right?

File: wifes_son.jpg (40KB, 295x436px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 295x436px

>>3180026
it really isn't

>>3180026

Jesus is literally Joseph's wife's son

>>3179635
>it's impossible for infinite to exist
How would you know that.

>>3178184
Define God and prove it exists.

>>3180530

See what I mean? Autism.

>>3180583
Can you not do it?

>>3178184

t. Pakistani

Theists never provide arguments, only insults.

>>3180659

Sure I can, but I don't what that has to do with the post I made. I'll humor you anyways.

We can use Aristotle's definition of, defined as the creator of the universe or "first cause." We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music. Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing other things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent. Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

>>3180659
>>3180694

Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God. Isn’t it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people’s consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience. Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority—an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities: (1) from something less than me (nature); (2) from me (individual); (3) from others equal to me (society); or (4) from something above me (God).

Let’s consider each of these possibilities in order.

1. How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
2. How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
3. How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is “society” God?
4. The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul.

>>3180659
>>3180698

1. Our universe contains particular laws of nature that allow for intelligent life to exist.
2. These laws are either necessary, were produced by chance, or were designed.
3. They are not necessary nor were they the product of chance.
4. Therefore, the laws of nature are designed.

In the past fifty years, scientists have doscivered that even a slight variation in many of the laws of nature would have spelled disaster for life as we know it. Consider the cosmological constant, which represents the strength of gravity in an empty vacuum of space. Once thought to be zero, this constant is actually fine-tuned to the 122nd power--a decimal point with 121 zeroes and a one. This constant, or numerical value in a law of nature, could have been 10^122 times larger than what is necessary for life to exist. Alexander Vilenkin wrote:

"A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty . . . This is the most notorious and perplexing case of fine-tuning in physics."

For some perspective:

>10^50: The number of atoms in the planet earth
>10^80: The number of atoms in the universe
>10^122: The number of ways the strength of gravity in space could have been different and prevented life from existing

Some people say that the universe is not fine-tuned for life because so much of it is hostile to life (such as the vacuum of space). But to say the universe is fine-tuned for life does not mean it is a place where the maximum amount of life will thrive, It only means that out of all the possible universes that could exist, it is much more likely that there would have been no life at all. The fact that our universe does accomdate life, regardless of how much or how little, against such incredible odds, requires an explanation. So what explains these finely tuned laws of nature?

Part 1 of 2

>>3180659
>>3180701

Part 2 of 2

There's no reason to think the laws of nature must allow life to exist, since we can imagine them being different. We can rule out chance, because the odds of getting the laws of nature right are on par with winning fifty consecutive hands of poker in a row--with royal flushes every time. (Or one in 10^300, and that's a conservative estimate)

This leaves design. Like Alexander Vilenkin, the string theorist Leonard Susskind is a nonreligious scientist. But he said in his article, "Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant," that unless this constant's value was designed, "statistically miraculous events" would be needed for our universe to be life-permitting. He suggests that, in light of this, it is possible that an unknown agent set the early conditions of the universe we see today.

>>3180659
>>3180703

Part 1 of 2

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. (See>>3180698) We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the “religious” one is.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the “religious” view of reality is correct.

We need to be clear about what the first premise is claiming. It does not mean merely that we can find people around who claim to have certain duties. Nor does it mean that there have been many people who thought they were obliged to do certain things (like clothing the naked) and to avoid doing others (like committing adultery). The first premise is claiming something more: namely, that we human beings really are obligated, that our duties arise from the way things really are and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions. It is claiming, in other words, that moral values or obligations themselves—and not merely the belief in moral value —are objective facts. Now given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does the picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? The answer is no. Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter, a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask, Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.

>>3180659
>>3180707

Part 2 of 2

Suppose we say it is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire. In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate source—purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation? According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry—that, in fact, no one has any real obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation.

I'll await your well thought out rebuttals.

>>3174585
So what about the regular assholes who get tortured and humiliated and executed?

Jesus got executed cuz he was too popular and the Jews got tired of his hippie shit, and we've based our entire system of mortality on his adherent's religion.

>>3180683
well OP did ask for stuff that triggers atheists, which legitimate arguments wouldn't have done

>>3180709
>>3180659

One reason to believe in God is actually the "problem of evil," because without a universe in which God actually exists the term "evil" is meaningless. Let's think about these concepts of “good” and “bad” for a moment.

How do you know the difference between, for example, a good bowler and a bad one? Only one thing matters in bowling. The person who knocks down the most pins wins. It’s the score that counts. Knowing the difference between mediocre and masterful in anything requires a way of keeping score. There must be some standard of perfection by which to measure a performance. In bowling that standard is 300 — every pin down in every frame (some people have done this). If you are a golfer, one stroke per hole — a hole-in-one with every swing — is golfing perfection (no one has ever done this). Notice that even when perfection is not attainable (a golf score of 18 on an 18-hole course), a scoring system is still necessary to differentiate between excellence, mediocrity, and abject failure. In the same way, moral judgments require a way of keeping score to distinguish virtue from vice. When we call something bad we have a standard in mind — a moral scoring system of sorts — that allows us to recognize moral shortfalls. The reason we say some things are evil is we realize that they score low on the goodness scale. If there were no standard, there could be no error.

The argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how do people get this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. Where does the moral scoring system come from that allows one to identify evil in the first place? Where is the transcendent standard of objective good that makes the whole notion of evil intelligible? Are moral laws the product of chance? If so, why obey them? What — or who — establishes how things are supposed to be?

>>3180836


>The argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how do people get this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. Where does the moral scoring system come from that allows one to identify evil in the first place? Where is the transcendent standard of objective good that makes the whole notion of evil intelligible? Are moral laws the product of chance? If so, why obey them? What — or who — establishes how things are supposed to be?


It's a faithfully and earnestly considered argument. But there isn't any reason to believe that the moral laws or 'scoring system' 'must' come from a single source, the system of what is right and what is wrong could just as easily appear from several causes and consequences, interacting and reacting, developing naturally and organically over thousands of years.

Jesus is the devil.

>>3180982

People usually recognize evil, even if they are reluctant to recognize good. Some might look at an apparently heroic action and imagine a selfish motive behind it--the desire for fame, or praise, or monetary reward. Few people, however, will hesitate to call evil by its name. Yet, once they have done so, they have placed themselves in a bind. They have bound themselves by law. Because evil is possible only as the perversion of something good, the opposite of something good, the denial of something good. Once people acknowledged a transcendent standard of good, they themselves have placed the world under a law.

They can't escape the bind by saying that law exists, but merely as a utilitarian stopgap, to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people either. For even then they are invoking transcendent standards: the notion, for example, that the greater good: or that anyone should be concerned with another person's safety.

Part 1 of 2

>>3180982
>>3181024

Part 2

A moral rule is a command. Commands are features of minds. Ethicist Richard Taylor explains: “A duty is something that is owed . . . but something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as a duty in isolation. . . . The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.” There seems to be no good way to account for a transcendent standard of objective good — the moral rules that are violated by people who commit the evil in question — without the existence of a transcendent moral rule maker. In the movie The Quarrel, Rabbi Hersh challenges the secularist Claim on this very point: true If there’s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who’s to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there is no Master of the universe, then who’s to say that Hitler did anything wrong?

If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong. A morally perfect God is the only adequate standard for the system of scoring that makes sense of the existence of evil to begin with. Since God must exist to make evil intelligible, evil cannot be evidence against God. Ironically, evil does not prove atheism. It proves just the opposite. There can only be a "problem of evil" if God exists. It is a problem only a theist can raise, not an atheist.

>>3181028
>A morally perfect God
Morally perfect gods don't subject people to torture by their power being humans much weaker and then force them to love the torturing god.

In fact not even the worst psychopaths do this.

>>3181062

Can you explain to me how the Aristotelian God tortures people? I was asked to define God presumably so people couldn't move the goal posts and change the subject yet here we are, with people attempting to talk about their interpretation of Scripture.

>>3181028

tbf Hitler did nothing wrong

>>3181028
Would it be impossible to make the claim we evolved to be moral as that gives us the best chance for survival?

>>3181099

That would be the utilitarian stopgap that I spoke of. Evolution or biology may explain why we act a certain way but it doesn't explain why we should or should not act a certain way. If moral truths are the product of evolution, they are not commandments we are bound to obey but merely helpful suggestions that can assist our "herd" in survival. Science has no way to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought." In other words, science can show us what helps us but it can't tell us why we should.

>>3181088
>their interpretation
I see god does not test anymore, it was merely an interpretation, oi vey.

>>3181024

"How can there be laughter, how can there be pleasure when the whole world is burning? When you are deep in darkness, will you not ask for a lamp?"

I hope you find your answers.

>>3181118
Then maybe there isn't any "ought", just an "is"? God is useful to create the idea of an universal truth regarding morals but you may make the claim the idea of god or gods has risen from the human need to base their idea of universal truth on something even if this is false.

>>3181186

If there's only "is" then there can be no morality at all, and we're left with pure relativism and all of the problems that brings.

>>3180694
Creating this concept of "causing" only works on cartoon physics, it doesn't seem like a realistic view of how matter and energy actually interacts. Plus it leads you into a paradox, you complain about absurdities yet you have no problem inventing an "uncaused" category to resolve it. Also suddenly it's a "being", don't you realize this obvious anthropocentric contrivance?

>>3180698
This idea of an "absolute" conscience is easily dismissed, it's just begging the question to be fulfilled by your "absolute god". It's not an accurate reflection of real primate sociology from which our concept of morality is derived. For instance, why is nature painted as being "lesser"? To conform to the imaginary god as the contrasting "higher" (i.e. more desirable) option. Our nature is the actual real biological and neurological situation that our species finds itself, so I hardly think it is appropriate to deny it's importance.

>>3180701
This one is another sophistical trick: how unlikely is it that all the molecules of the current universe are in their exact state right at this moment? Why, almost impossible! Therefor the universe can't exist in any state at any time!
In other words, we don't give a whit about the untold possible universes in which life didn't arise, so we think ours is special.

>>3180707
Finally this one is the most subjective and insincere since it's based on the cracked premise of the absolute morality bent.
You are ignoring practically the entire real field of Ethics and blaming atheists for simply not agreeing with you.
If I dismiss the absolute morality assumption, then this one drifts away in the winds of emotional and ideological attack.
The fact is as biological animals, our morality must comes from our social understanding and our feelings on how to behave, which is where our sense of charity comes from, for example.

As a cheap rebuttal to your "religious view is correct" assertion, here's an obvious one: Which religion?

>>3181290 here

I googled some of these posts and I noticed they all come out of a book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=PBRHd_BP6cMC&pg=PT102&lpg=PT102&dq=How+do+you+know+the+difference+between,+for+example,+a+good+bowler+and+a+bad+one?+Only+one+thing+matters+in+bowling.+The+person+who+knocks+down+the+most+pins+wins.+It%E2%80%99s+the+score+that+counts.+Knowing+the+difference+between+mediocre+and+masterful+in+anything+requires+a+way+of+keeping+score.+There+must+be+some+standard+of+perfection+by+which+to+measure+a+performance.+In+bowling+that+standard+is+300+%E2%80%94+every+pin+down+in+every+frame+(some+people+have+done+this).&source=bl&ots=BQIe7mxJpg&sig=XxuN6-sZUXxl2pw1mGS1tQYrcKc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizqvS1grnVAhXJ7IMKHfd3CV4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So jokes on me for falling for it I guess.

THE JEWS DISTORTED THE TRUTH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

He's the REDPILL VERSION:

1. The Israelis were never united under David. They were always the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah and they were always separate.

2. Biblical David (and therefore his lineage) never existed. He is either a mythical figure like King Arthur or he is a very mediocre King from the Kingdom of Judah.

3. King Omri might have been one of the most powerful kings during that period but he is barely mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The reason for this is that he was a king of the Kingdom of Israel and the Hebrew Bible was written by the Kingdom of Judah.

4. The Israelites were polytheistic. They had a lot of the same gods as the Canaanites.

One last fun fact. If you actually read about David's rise to power without being indoctrinated from early age about how he was a hero, you'd see him for what he really is: a treacherous ruthless backstabber who use the excuse of "god told me to do it" to commit a series of really vile acts.

File: 1423894028321.jpg (35KB, 229x343px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 229x343px

>>3181328

>Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
uhhhhhhhhhhh

>>3181257
there is no "problem" with it other than our feelings. if a lack of morality causes societal breakdown or even just unhappiness that is enough reason to follow morality, even if it's not objective

>>3181359

In a world of pure relativism, what is this "morality" that we should follow if we're unhappy? What is unhappiness if not a feeling that something "ought" to be a certain way that it currently isn't?

>>3181376
Thankfully as thoughtful and creative human beings, we can consider our habits and behaviors against our current and imagined future situation and make decisions that please us, perhaps we can even right down our thoughts on this matter and call it Philosophy.

Oh wait, humans are not physically capable of do that and we absolutely need magic feelings from God, such a necessary component to resolve this impossible paradigm.

>>3181376
I have plenty of reason to try to not feel unhappy, as it is objectively unpleasent (to me). unhappiness is just as a real as hunger.

>>3175564
>Kill 50 million of own people
>Switch to state capitalism in order to make China economy strong
>No value for human life, majority of population live horrible lives as serfs for decadent party-corporate elite
>Persecute Christian minority, who probably the only non-sociopathic people in the country

>>3176491
Classical theism (which would include all those things minus the FSM) can be proved from logical deduction . Christianity can be proved from revelation. Why believe Christian revelation as opposed to some other? Because Christ actually resurrecting is the best way to explain the existence of the New Testement and the rise of the early church. Other theistic religions can't make the same claims. This argument is discussed at length by scholars like NT Wright.

>>3181830
>Christianity can be proved from revelation.
Literally magical thinking, what a hail mary claim right out the gate.
>Why believe Christian revelation as opposed to some other? Because Christ actually resurrecting is the best way to explain the existence of the New Testement and the rise of the early church.
Uh, frankly no, it's infinitely more plausible to consider the rise of Christianity by sociological adoption rather than supernatural magic.
>Other theistic religions can't make the same claims.
Almost every single other religion does this exact shit, for instance claiming the lineage of their royalty from a God or demigod. How come those are somehow less compelling to you?

This is such a farcical bias you are trying to put forward.

File: 1.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>3180707
>divine command theory

>>3181876
Or you're an asshole and an idiot. We have to take that as a possibility.

>>3181760
>Christian minority, the only non-sociopathic people in the country

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Lightning

Read on the history of christianity in China, christcucks were literally responsible for killing dozens of millions and nearly destroying the country during the Taiping rebellion.

>>3181899
No it was Divinely Revealed unto me that you are wrong and I'm right.
Since divine revelation is always true, I expect an apology from you for defying God.
Sorry chum, God's words, not mine. Take it up with him.

>>3181876
The argument is fairly complicated, and Wright, being a New Testement scholar, can make it better than I can here, which I why I pointed him out. This website was designed to discuss which anime girl is best girl in their respective series, and the like. Any further discussion we have here would just dissolve into shit slinging. If you read a book, you might learn something.

>>3181916
Weird oreintal heresies maybe. Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans weren't responsible for the Taiping Rebellion.

>>3181028

>If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong. A morally perfect God is the only adequate standard for the system of scoring that makes sense of the existence of evil to begin with. Since God must exist to make evil intelligible, evil cannot be evidence against God. Ironically, evil does not prove atheism. It proves just the opposite. There can only be a "problem of evil" if God exists. It is a problem only a theist can raise, not an atheist.

This "argument" doesn't even begin to work. First, it assumes theism is neccesary for moral realism, a view widely rejected by ethicists. Second, it fails to understand one does not need to be a moral realist to bring the argument from evil. Why? Because the argument seeks so show the existence of certain facts about the world would be unlikely if Christianity were true, yet completely explainable under naturalism. That is to say, it points out an inconsistency between the worldview of the theist and the reality we observe (e.g. pointless suffering). J.L. Mackie is known for his use of the problem of evil, yet he was a moral anti-realist. There's no contradiction there, as he was seeking to show the christian beliefs were contradictory, not to show evil exists as an objective property of reality.

File: 7.gif (284KB, 108x147px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 108x147px

>>3181941
>muh no true christians

>>3181918
The idea is that what Christianity puts forward as divine revelation is that certain events historically occurred in the Levant around 30 AD, and that, after examining the historical record, these events can be confirmed. Obliviously many deny this, which is why they are not Christians. If the Christians are wrong, they are wrong because the misread the historical record, not because they blindly asserted to have received divine revelation.

Its good to keep in mind that we're talking about the Medieterrian, during height of the Roman Empire, in a time of great intellectual sophistication, about 400 years after Plato lived. This isn't like claiming that Noah's Ark actually happened, even if both claims are supernatural.

There is no point debating a christian or any other religion here, their religion, especially christianity is based on defending their faith and literally being persecuted for their beliefs. Any conversion from the will come from within

>>3180701
>3. They are not necessary nor were they the product of chance.

This premise fails spectacularly. No where in your posts you have shown it cannot be by chance, you simply pointed out a supposed estimate of how likely it is to occur in a particular universe. Now what? You argue it's exceedenly unlikely so it can't be, but unlikely compared to what? You argue it must have been a creator, but how do you calculate the probability that a supernatural being creates a universe capable of having life? You can't, it's an inscrutable probability, thus your implicit claim that the probability of a creator is higher than the probability of naturalism given the evidence is unsupported, as you lack the likehood function to make a bayesian inference.

Not only that, but such probabilities are about life arising in a particular universe. If multiverse theory is true, an hypothesis heavily supported by contemporary inflationary cosmology, then the probability of at least one universr having life in a gigantic ensemble of universes isn't that surprising.

>>3182013
The willingness of a dedicated cult to attest the impossible biochemical resurrection of their revered figure, this seems easily within the realm of human behavior. I think the willingness to suspend disbelief and accept this as evidence of the divine is the real issue here. Religious groups lie all the time, it's not unreasonable in the slightest for anyone (atheist or not), to object to this assertion and dismiss it as implausible.

>>3179770
Prove your point

>>3174521
Probably this, calling it a religion. Theistic projection of their faults onto atheists is probably the most triggering thing for me.