ITT movies that restored your faith in humanity

File: 119073.jpg (86KB, 308x475px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 308x475px

>>83688103

>The whole plot of the movie is ripped-off from those retarded e-mail copypastas about an Einstein student
>That businessman that abuses and belittles his dying mother because she is a christian
>He dies in the end of the movie but converts while he is agonizing
>The Hercules guy is a huge edgelord because his wife died and he hates God because of it that's how the protag wins the debate in the end

Also in every movie if this kind
>Everybody that isn't a christian is a huge asshole while the christian characters are too righteous and perfect

Protestant scriptwriters can't write believable characters, you can write about religion without making it proselytizing propaganda you know

>>83688103

Is that the one with Professor Hercules? That block head playing a professor is just as absurd as anything in the Bible.

File: 2nd law disproves evolution.png (149KB, 684x936px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 684x936px

Because religious apologists are always refuting science left, right and center. Science can only huddle in the corner and cry as they dominate the stage with their wit, reasoning and debating skillz.

>>83688103
>You only grow out of atheism, never into it.
This is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read...and look where we are, you complete idiot.

if god not real how bananana

>>83690450
bad post

File: creationistwof.jpg (24KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x300px

>>83690624
Go away, Ray.

God can suck my dick lmao

>>83688103
You don't have to grow into this kind of evangelical horseshit. Did you see the end of that movie? That good samaritan ought called him a amberlance instead of baptizing him in the name of the Lord while he dies of a punctured lung.

File: image.gif (2MB, 450x337px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x337px

>>83688103
>2017
>literally believing Jewish sandnigger tales from 2000 years ago

I mean, you do grow out of Atheism, but becoming a Christian is not "growth" I can understand becoming spiritual, I can even understand believing in "God", but Christianity is a cancer that is so far removed from truth that it's straight up harmful. You only need to look inside yourself to find god, because you are god.

>>83691387
>>83691589
These.

>>83691589
No I'm not, nor are you.

>>83688103
>he worships the sky-kike
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>83691531
Implying atheism isn't Jewish sandnigger shit

try not to cringe guys xd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkJg9xHFumw

>The Muslim father beating his daughter and kicking her out for wanting to be Christian

Ummm this is pretty problematic. Ugh.

Look at all these triggered atheists.

>>83691816
Hey look. It's redneck faggot dog killer. Torture any animals for Jesus today?

>>83691617
What the fuck exists except for you, Anon? If God exists, and you are the only thing that exists...

>>83692015
thanks Descartes, but the utmost certainty of my own existence does not preclude the existence of others, nor strip them of their causality in my own generation. Moreover, my own reflectivity is not eternal, but a mere imitation of a true eternal reflective found in the Trinity.

File: G_DsNOTDEAD-1-1.jpg (38KB, 196x263px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 196x263px

WHY DO YOU HATE GOD?

>>83688103
Bragging about turning christian with meme words? You're not finished yet, pleb.
>"grew out" of atheism
>didn't grow out of fedoraposting

Tune in next week, when OP jumps off a bridge to impress his friends who told him to do it.

>>83692125
But how can you truly prove the existence of anything beyond yourself?

>>83688103

Atheism and Theism are both really stupid ideas and unscientific.

Agnosticism is much better as it leaves open the idea that we could just inherently create our own god through machinery thus proving it's existence once it obtains unlimited power.

>>83692262
My consciousness it not eternal. Even if the things that exist outside of myself are mere illusions created by my mind, they cause me to be to respond to them, and in a temporal manner. This establishment of cause and effect would mean my own existence requires a source, because, as I said before it does not saturate all of time, like presumably God's would. My nature is mercurial.

Moreover, the things outside of myself would imply that I posses a higher degree of knowledge then I am aware, because the conscious me needs inspiration or reasoning to create things, and there exists things in which i lack the ability or knowledge to create.
>You do possess this knowledge, it is merely hidden from you within your subconscious somewhere

well presumable within that infinite knowledge also existing would be the knowledge of the delusion, how could this not seep up and betray the illusion? How can I strip omniscience away from myself?

>>83692469
>and there exists things in which i lack the ability or knowledge to create.
Unless your mind is creating it all, then there isn't.

>>83692469
Yeah man, you get it. We are all reflections of the Source. So we are all reflections of God, in a way.

>>83691853
I cringed when I read the video title.

>>83692530
and I think we might be holographic, in a way. And holograms can have pieces of it still hold the entire information if it's image. In that way we might possess all knowledge the same way a part of a hologram contains the whole image.

>>83692518
like I said, that would require this knowledge to exist in my subconscious and be denied from me. But this infinite knowledge would also contain the understanding of my current delusional state. How can I unlearn something, especially if we are saying I'm mere spirit and thus truly lack the issues of age or physical damage. How can an infinite knowledge strip itself of the awarness of something, and not in turn become newly aware of this action? it can't.

>>83692675
>But this infinite knowledge would also contain the understanding of my current delusional state
Except it doesn't, because clearly you aren't aware of it right now.

>especially if we are saying I'm mere spirit and thus truly lack the issues of age or physical damage
We aren't.

>How can an infinite knowledge strip itself of the awarness of something, and not in turn become newly aware of this action? it can't.
Define infinite.

>>83692459
Always my problem with god, there's such a specific thing people want god to be, but will quickly pretend anything fits the most well enough.

>>83692716
>Except it doesn't, because clearly you aren't aware of it right now.
because it doesn't exist. I'm not a deluded omniscient.

>Define infinite.
In terms of knowledge? Consummate. This hypothetical divine me would be the source of all knowledge. Infinite would entail, in this case, all available knowledge. Presumable that would include any action that I took to reprieve or suppress memories and more confounding still, my knowledge of my own knowledge, extending backwards forever.

>>83692911
>I'm not a deluded omniscient.
Can you prove this?

>>83688103
Movies made by Lifeway tend to suck. There are good Christian movies out there like Silence or Book of Eli, but these movies are just not kino, although their messages are still correct as most atheists do reject God for perceived injustices in their lives.

>>83692928
If a temporal god, how did I strip myself from the knowledge of my omniscience without in turn become aware of this action? I would be come aware the minute I did it.

If I'm eternal, and exit outside of time, how does my omniscience not saturate every instance of my being, how could the promised future resolution of my delusion not be made aware to my consciousness? Moreover, if truly eternal, I should't be subject to cause and effect anyway, as I would exist equally distance from all points in history.

>>83693074
Who said you are a temporal god? You're just a single being creating the world around you in your mind.

>>83693098
So I'm eternal now? Then how does cause and effect exist at all for me if all points are equal from my consciousness? Cause and effect certainly exist, as the presumption of delusion requires me to react to my infinite knowledge and curtail it, and the promise of regaining my state in the "future" would require change on my part.

>>83693180
Who said you are eternal, why are those the only two options?

>>83691617
>Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Luke 17:21

File: image.png (85KB, 480x377px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 480x377px

>>83688103
>21st century
>surrendering your critical faculties to place faith in a tale of vicarious redemption via human sacrifice in Iron Age Palestine

Never go full retard.

>>83693197
Being within me is hardly the same as finding its source within me. Its a grace from God if true, not an act of will on my part.

>>83693193
give me a third, you phantom I've apparently conjured up to irritate myself.

>>83693337
>you phantom I've apparently conjured up to irritate myself.

Now you're getting it.

>>83693256
everyone always focuses on the fantastical and seemingly ridiculous when arguing against religion, while completely ignoring the philosophies underlining every part of the scripture, which is where all the meet and potatoes is at

>>83692459
So let me get this straight, you think that not believing in a personal intervening God who cares about human affairs, takes sides in human wars, and depending on which version of God you're talking about, sacrificed his own human incarnation to slow death in the most backward and illiterate part of Iron Age Palestine is stupid?

>>83690775
That comic is fucking retarded

>>83693361
>So let me get this straight, you think that not believing in a personal intervening God who cares about human affairs, takes sides in human wars, and depending on which version of God you're talking about, sacrificed his own human incarnation to slow death in the most backward and illiterate part of Iron Age Palestine is stupid?
why is it stupid

>>83693031
That is wrong

File: C&H - creationism project.jpg (43KB, 620x467px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x467px

>>83693396
Well, the subject matter is creationists, so....

File: 1439650571830.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>Abrahamic gods

>>83693360
>Obfuscating the point with an appeal to parable and philosophy.

I'm dismissing the metaphysical claims of Christianity as fantasy, I'm not debating the philosophical or ethical importance of the Christian faith, which aren't particularly unique to Christianity, nor are particularly moral.

>>83693360
>while completely ignoring the philosophies underlining every part of the scripture, which is where all the meet and potatoes is at

Because that actually requires knowing what you're talking about and theology studies aren't exactly on first name basis with most people. Not to mention it's material that priests have been studying and debating since pretty much forever.

>>83688103
>implying Christianity didn't kick off because it's ultimately a lazy man's religion that's very easy on user end

You could basically summarize it with "be a good guy and go to church every now and then".

>>83693532
>You could basically summarize it with "be a good guy and go to church every now and then".
That's a pretty poor summary. More accurate would be "Help others and live your life in prayer"

Why is 4chan a magnet for the contrarians? When 4chan started it was all edgy liberals and now that Obama became popular, 4chan swung to the right and adapted conservative beliefs such as believing in God.

Pathetic. The only thinking they can do for themselves is thinking what would make them stand out and make people notice them as they go against the grain.

>>83693532
Those martyrs, ever the layabouts.

>>83693570
despite what people say, you are not here forever. There is a pretty steady cycle of people coming in making the age range consistently 14-24. Part of the appeal of this site to younger people is to get away from mainstream opinions everywhere and be contrarians. This is just where contrarians congregate, its not that this is the same group from 06' flip-flopping over and over

>>83693570
The anonymous image board was founded on the concept of being contrarian. That the threads are temporary and posts anonymous so you can say whatever the fuck you want with no downside. Many people use this as a place to test their arguing abilities by playing devil's advocate.

>>83693423
Why is believing in it stupid?

1. Because it's increadibly arrogant and self centred to believe that a God takes a personal interest in your life, can be appealed to by prayer and who will perform miracles by suspending the natural laws in your favour.

The universe existed long before we were here and will continue to exist long after we are all dead when the andromeda galaxy collides with our own (assuming we live that long and the sun doesn't have a heat death).

2. If God exists he is either infinitely capricious and inept or either infinitely cruel and callous. 98% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct and at one point in humans distant history, after our close cromagnun cousins were killed off we numbered about 20,000 on our exodus from central Africa to South East Asia and only barely survived as a species. The infant mortality in the ensuing years was about 60% and the basic life expactancy was about 25-30, the most common cause of death was toothrot and subsequent brain rot.

3. The central claim of Christianity is that Gods only son Jesus Christ would be born of a virgin, vicariously redeem the whole of the human race and then be resurrected in a region which at that time resurrection and claims of divine revalation were so common that they bordered on banality, and in a region full of illiterate stupified peasants and hysterical women. Meanwhile China has a thriving literate population and revolutionary advances in science, mathmatics and philosophy.

I'm willing to grant the virgin birth first, and the resurrection second, neither of which would prove that Jesus of Nazereth was either the son of God or that his teachings were moral.

Do you need more?

>>83688103
>PURE FLIX
Hmmm

File: chosen children.jpg (39KB, 472x470px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 472x470px

>>83693852
Preach it, brother.

>>83693532
The central preachment of Jesus and thus Christianity was "take no thought for the morrow".

If what you describe is the central message of Christianity then how is it any different to any other religion? They all basically have that same message.

File: godsmessenger.jpg (82KB, 676x676px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 676x676px

>>83693897
you're forgetting the important bit.

>>83693852
>Do you need more?
A little bit, yeah. From what I can understand of this post, you're not entirely familiar with the bible or Christian doctrine. The whole part about Christ redeeming humanity really reveals it. Jesus was never sent down to redeem man, but to usher in a new covenant with God that man might find redemption through

>>83688103
>You only grow out of atheism, never into it.
I fully agree, this is a great quote.

>>83693852
>1.
An omniscient God would, by His nature, be aware of us. As all powerful, nothing could exist against His will. Consequently, He must not only know us, but will us into being.
>too small to care
God is omnipotent. His faculties cannot be exhausted, He cannot be exhausted nor overwhelmed by the minutia of the universe.

>2.
Beatitudes

>3.
Are you arguing its absurd, or that it is contrary to logic. The latter speaks for itself. Despite its humble origins, christianity is ubiquitous. Chinese philosophy from the era is esoteric at best. "Alls-well..." etc. etc.

>Chinese philosophy from the era is esoteric at best. "Alls-well..." etc. etc.
I wouldn't really call Confucianism or Legalism esoteric

>>83694082
>Confucianism
>legalism

uh, about 400 and 200 years to early bub

>>83693927
Apples and Oranges, you're arguing symantics. And I am familiar with Christian doctrine having been brought up a catholic with catholic education.

Jesus came both to create a new covenant with man in order that they can find salvation and redemption through him and also to atone for a redeem the sins of human kind.

Argue against my points not by appealing to my apparent lack of understanding of Christian theology.

>>83693337
not the dude you are debating with but here is a thought...not original but a thought none the less...

why not both, Relative and absolute, a relative condition illusory self that perceives separation and pain, that when the knowledge arises it dissolves revealing the absolute truth. No separation, all knowing, omniscient etc...like cleaning a dirty window, you are not adding anything to get to the clean window, its always there the whole time just obscured by dirt(ignorance).

now as to why this ignorance s there, I don't know, evolution perhaps, animalistic self preservation giving way to ignorant survival mechanism perhaps.

maybe its just a game we played on ourselves (noselves) just because we could.

>>83688103

All rational adults are agnostics

This movie was intellectually bankrupt cancer, all the way down to including a five-minute plug for some horrifying "Christian rock" boy band. Anyone who has studied philosophy or theology for real will wince with pain when they see the utterly retarded "arguments" that the brainwashed teen and the logically-challenged "professor" exchange over the course of the movie.

Among the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. It basically reminded me why American protestant and evangelist churches are all nightmarish charisma cults, completely devoid of theological rigour or respect for the millions of man-hours of intense study that have been poured into decoding the Scriptures by the European and Middle-Eastern sects.

>hurr durr you can't prove God doesn't exist! Checkmate, atheists!

I wonder if they pulled that genius line from a translation of Voltaire?

>>83693980
>1.

How do you know, what source of information do you have that is denied me.

>2.

Christian scripture doesn't sufficiently address this problem as it pre-dates Christianity. Inb4 muh Noah's ark.

3. Both

File: charlie-day.jpg (45KB, 245x348px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 245x348px

>You only grow out of atheism, never into it.

This choice of words is very telling of the mentality behind people who push fedora memes. They're former fedora-tippers themselves, proving they'd rather do the mental gymnastics required to go back to religion rather than risk association with the stage of their lives in which they were a cringe-worthy vocal atheist.

Every insult they fling at the irreligious isn't truly directed at their opponents at all, but at an earlier version of themselves they will forever be embarrassed by.

>>83693566
>More accurate would be "Help others and live your life in prayer"
No one does any of that though.

t. Christfag

>>83693679
Just like OP

>>83694185
These sorts of movies were never really about winning arguments. They're basically the theological equivalent of porn for the kinds of people who do shit like post that Einstein student thing unironically. I just wish they were treated with the same stigma as porn

>>83694235
nope.

he is saying one goes from hard nosed denial to a sense of curiosity as one matures. That is not to say one becomes so open minded their brain falls out.
It just means that one's faith in man becomes less than one's faith in the unknown over time.

>>83694213
>How do you know, what source of information do you have that is denied me.
speaking out of both sides of your mouth anon. The initial argument was not the debate over God's nature, but the apparent absurdity of something all knowing or all powerful caring about us. I explained that neither would allow for a insufficiency in concern, as it would invalidate power, nor an imperfection in knowledge, as it would invalidate omniscience
>Christian scripture doesn't sufficiently address this problem as it pre-dates Christianity. Inb4 muh Noah's ark.
i don't know what the Noah's arc illusion is, but again the beatitudes. Temporal suffering is blotted out in the face of eternal reward. The fact that the rich and well fed tend towards atheism while the poor and inflicted cry out for God only confirms the utility in temporal suffering for the obtainment of this reward

>>83694235
It really enforces the idea that it's the same faggots ruining everything no matter what side they happen to be on,

>>83694295

I quite honestly believe that porn is better for your brain than that movie. The endorphin and dopamine rush from masturbating is, at least in small measures, pretty positive for your psychological health, whereas sitting through a mere 90 minutes of God's Not Dead is probably enough to knock 2 or 3 points off your IQ.

>>83694406
Good goy. Just make sure its interracial

File: 1439218644137.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>83694235

>>83688541
basically this.

The movie sucked for the above reasons and I cringed in the theater with my youth group watching it when I was 17.

>>83694295
I'd rather be caught watching porn than reading the bibble. No one wants that kind of stigma attached to them.

>>83694242
That's why a BUNCH of people are prolly going to hell. Including most churchgoers, tbqh

t. Christfag.

>>83694438

I would have more respect for a philosophy professor instructing his class to study the theological implications of a 90-minute interracial porn video than if he did the same for God's Not Dead.

>>83691589
should have converted to islam and grow all the way to stupid

File: 1493437428586.gif (3MB, 491x704px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 491x704px

>>83694235
This guy gets it.

>>83694235
projection much? I know you're lonely being an atheist and all but there has to be another way.

>>83691589
>You only need to look inside yourself to find god, because you are god.

so god jacked it to interracial tranny scat porn 5 minutes ago?

>>83694553
God is capable of anything and everything. You bet your ass he jacked off to interracial tranny scat porn.

File: IMG_0955.jpg (251KB, 350x463px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 350x463px

>>83688103
If you honestly believe that these proddy made-for-tv circle jerks are the epitome of Christian philosophy and are the reason you choose Christianity over atheism, I feel bad for you.

>PSA:

No Christfags actually think this movie is good, besides "1 like = 1 prayer" autists on Facebook

Christianity was never meant to be the subject of a low-budget feature film featuring the Newsboys™ and the cast of A&E's Duck Dynasty™

>>83694567
Is capable of doing =/= has done

He is the ultimate standard for morality, not the product of all that he could theoretically do

>>83691589
No, Zod.

>>83694611
its the fault of born again Christians, out of all christians i know, they are the worse. my brother in law was born again and a creationist, i can understand belivin in something bigger than you but when you start saying humans and dinosaurs lived together im done with your crazy ass

>>83692154
Which one?

>>83688103
>God's Dead

As in his dead? He owns them? Is it God is Dead? As in he's deceased?

>>83694662
something/someone cant die if it never exist in the first place

>>83694651
The born-again Christians mean well, but they are so ignorant because they are "born again" meaning they have like 0 background in the religion.

Typically born again types aren't knowledgeable in philosophy or science.

>>83694684
I just need an answer Tip fag.

File: babel_fish_translator.jpg (62KB, 600x403px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x403px

>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

>"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

>"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

>"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.


https://youtu.be/iuumnjJWFO4?t=102

>>83694715
Short for "God is Dead"

>>83694723
The "proof denies faith" argument is sound, actually.

Fortunately for us, the Babel fish doesn't exist, so God has not vanished in a puff of logic

>>83694723
fucking love hitch hikers guide
>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Evangelicals are stupid. Real Jesuskino:
>Ben Hur
>Flowers of St. Francis
>Viridiana
>Calvary

>>83692459
Agnosticism isn't a fucking position, it is the degree to which a conviction is held. Anyone who calls themselves "agnostic" is just an atheist with low self-esteem.

People who call themselves "agnostic" are in my opinion markedly worse than atheists.

>>83691589

based gnosticism

>>83691589
>I mean, you do grow out of Atheism
I mean, you don't unless you are an intellectually bankrupted, gutless person who feels like regressing as a thinking person is "growing out".

>>83694315
>The initial argument was not the debate over God's nature, but the apparent absurdity of something all knowing or all powerful caring about us

It was both, you're moving the goalpost to avoid addressing one of the aspects of my argument.

You're obfuscating by first presupposing that God exists, then dismissing my claim that there is no reason to believe that there is a God that exists who cares about us by making an appeal to the presupposed Gods omniscient and omnipotent nature.

You're arguing in reverse. I ask you again, what information do you have, that I don't. By what authority are you describing firstly the nature of God and secondly that he even exists. I'm refuting the metaphysical claims of Christianity you seem to know Gods implicit nature

>Temporal suffering is blotted out in the face of eternal reward. The fact that the rich and well fed tend towards atheism while the poor and inflicted cry out for God only confirms the utility in temporal suffering for the obtainment of this reward.

An immoral preachment, one of many. There is terrestrial suffering for which no recompense is sufficient, divine or otherwise. You're saying or rather the Beatitudes say that a child who is routinely raped in sex trafficking circles will get a reward in heaven, and the going through of it will have been worth it.

How can you be a morally serious individual and believe that, and what sort of God would create such a depraved horror show. For who's entertainment is this?

>>83694532
You know the rules

>>83694662
It's a contraction of 'god is', non-english speaking retard

File: burns.jpg (15KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 512x384px

>>83694834
Ben Hur is pretty good

>>83688103
>you "grow out" out of being honest with yourself about your own beliefs and intellect
>brainlet just say this to not feel the crushing and unyielding blow of uncertainty
>need to pretend everyone around them is just as retarded
Loving every laugh.

>>83694910
It can also denote possession. I thought it was some gay double meaning bullshit.

>>83691920
>he thinks atheists care enough to make these threads

>>83692262
By that autistic rabbit hole logic, how can you prove YOU exist?

>>83692459
Atheists mostly hold that all magical or unprovable beings don't exist without substantial evidence. If one of them did, it wouldn't be supernatural...now would it?
>anon doesn't even know what an agnostic atheist is
^literally master race here.

>>83692125
The guy you are arguing with got it wrong.
It's not that you are the source of what you perceive as objective reality (as what would be the line of reasoning that sprouts from saying "I'm the only thing that exists")

I'm sure you are referencing Descartes' evil demon. In this case, it isn't that you are the source of your own perceived reality, but rather that there is no way to affirm that the source of your perceived reality is reliable and/or an actual representation of objective reality. Sense experience cannot affirm the validity of sense experience.

Solipsism's dumb for the reasons described below but this train of skepticism is not

>>83688103
And how did you feel about the sequel?
>>83688541
You Americans have a weird view and relationship to Christianity

>>83692125
this is way to heavy for 4chan

>>83694941
Context is very important in those cases. That doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.

>>83694723
>"hey can you prove you exist?"
>"nah".
>"woah okay, good enough for me!"
KEK

>>83694778
>The "proof denies faith" argument is sound, actually.
In which way and angle do you mean?

>>83695012
What you are describing is casual pleb-tier atheism wich is mostly just positiveism.

>>83688103
The fact this got a sequel is proof that it's exactly the opposite.

>>83694611
>Christianity was never meant to be the subject of a low-budget feature film featuring the Newsboys™ and the cast of A&E's Duck Dynasty
This was inevitable. You fucking humbled along for a few hundred years and now you look more like a joke to western society than anything. Sure is different when you can't rape kids into submission or kill off your detractors without hundreds of you getting plastered on the internet, amirite?

Gonna be fun when the whole organized religion collapses.

>>83695147
You have no clue what you are talking about in the slightest, do you? No.

>>83695215
*humbled not humbled

>>83695249
Fuck autocorrect

BUMBLED

>falling for this shit /b/-tier bait
holy hell, /tv/, how far you've fallen

File: 1448737037814.gif (3MB, 322x178px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 322x178px

>>83688103
>Abrahamic gods

>>83695280
>not deliberately taking the bait and twisting it into an actual conversation

>>83694907
>By what authority are you describing firstly the nature of God and secondly that he even exists. I'm refuting the metaphysical claims of Christianity you seem to know Gods implicit nature

Not him but the authority in which Christians are describing is revelation in scripture. The implicit nature of God is in scripture and Christian theologians base God's attributes from scripture and context outside of scripture.

>An immoral preachment, one of many. There is terrestrial suffering for which no recompense is sufficient, divine or otherwise. You're saying or rather the Beatitudes say that a child who is routinely raped in sex trafficking circles will get a reward in heaven, and the going through of it will have been worth it.

The girl that is routinely raped will not gain salvation through her earthly suffering as some sort of cosmic compensation. Nobody is deserving of salvation no matter how righteous and not matter how righteous we are and no matter how much we suffer. We all fall short and it is only through faith in Jesus, the works in our lives as a refelection of faith, and (ultimately) the Grace of God.
Salvation=/=compensation

>>83695231
What is it that I said that was wrong, anon?

>>83695324
IKR

at least Dharmic religions tangible benefits

>>83693852
Why do (american) atheists always do this? Why do they equate belief in god with being a part of an organized religion? Your shit tier arguments all revolve around the idea that a person who believes in god is a traditional Christian. You do realize that there are a shit ton of forms of faith that suppose that god had no active interference in the natural world? Same goes for you >>83693883

Learn the terms, read and get a grasp on some nuance.

>>83688103
>You only grow out of atheism, never into it.
woah, thats not true.
most kids have at least one christian parent, its extremely common that kids grow out of christianity and into atheism

>>83695499
>organized religion
This is such a dumb fucking term. Religion is inherently organized. "Unorganized religion" is just fucking spirituality.

>>83692459
>Atheism and Theism are both really stupid ideas and unscientific.
>Agnosticism is much better

if there was a 95 IQ starter pack this sentiment would definitely need to be bundled in there

>>83692459
If want you jam science into this, then you need to think agnostically and act atheistically.

File: Ruddbong.jpg (34KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 650x366px

>>83695499
Not american yah cunt.

>>83695453
(Cont) According to the beatitudes, you are saved through persecution if you are persecuted for upholding Faith in Christ and righteousness

>>83695453
>We all fall short and it is only through faith in Jesus, the works in our lives as a refelection of faith, and (ultimately) the Grace of God.
Salvation=/=compensation

Dropped.

>>83695463
You called an actual atheistic position "pleb-tier", as if that is even remotely correct. You have a grossly simplified understanding of atheists if that is the case.

File: evolutionary tree of religions.jpg (718KB, 1318x912px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1318x912px

>>83695499
Because the part of the thread the poster in >>83693852 was replying to was about Christianity (before he brought it up) - and I supported his points with a sciencey image quote and an ironic "Preach It!" (because I've been posting here on 4chan far too long).

Don't worry though, we don't exclusively focus on xtianity to the detriment of our own unbelief - we're all too well aware that all the other religions are utter bovine excrement too. We are equal-opportunity disbelievers.

>>83695499
>atheists
>have shit-tier arguments
They literally walk out of the gate with a leg up; they don't believe shit without evidence.

>>83695499
Buddy it doesn't matter, believing in all of that regardless, is illogical and would be a point of contention. I feel like you have never talked to a real atheist in real life.

>>83695629
I have not over simplified atheism and I am not saying atheism in and of itself is pleb tier.

All I said that casual Positiveism is pleb tier epistemology

You're honestly an insecure twat if your initial response to your belief structure being called "pleb-tier" is bitching about how I "just don't get it, man"

>>83695629
>You called an actual atheistic position "pleb-tier", as if that is even remotely correct.

This statement is nothing but asshurt bitching that doesn't actually discredit anything I have said

>>83695612
Ohhh?

>>83695709
But you just called it Positivism, when it wasn't. I'm convinced you don't know how words work.
>teehee you just mad bruh XD
Get over yourself, faggot.

>>83695754
>"y-you open filter!"
>no
>"TEEHEE YOU JUST ASSMAD TEEHEEHEE"
This one of those, "if you kill your enemies, they win" scenarios?

>>83695810
Stupid autocorrect "pleb filter"

>>83695709
Atheism isn't a belief structure by the way. But nice meme, moralfags and christfags love to drop that line for some reason.

>>83695754
>discredit calling something a pleb-filter

>>83695786
Epistemological positivism is that belief and rational is only justified through empiricism and sense experience

When you simplify atheism as being

> all magical or unprovable beings don't exist without substantial evidence.

If you dogmatically state that all things unprovable to sense experience don't exist, then one is only left to think that you don't find anything outside of sense experience to be justifiably believed.

>>83695810
No.
What you said in that comment was nothing but bitch
An "if you kill your enemies, they win" scenario would imply that that comment did anything to effectively refut what I have said, which it didn't

>I think your belief is pleb-tier
>"n-no it's not. H-how dare you"

>>83688103
>Sand Religions
I don't have an image dismissive enough.

>>83695951
>You simplified atheism
I did nothing of the sort, I gave you one of the root or primary statements one would make under atheism. You can draw parallels to epistemological positivism (as weak as your attempt is), for they do share some functional similarities. But you are literally the only one talking about Positivism.
>If you dogmatically state that all things unprovable to sense experience don't exist
Fucking Christ I honestly hate metaphysics students like yourself. Look, nothing I said is out of bounds of an atheistic worldview: that the world is consistent, has laws and things that exist can be proven to exist. If they do not, is something is invented out of human imagination and there has literally been NO proof for that thing to exist, I don't see how it is dogmatic at all to assume it doesn't until evidence is provided. You want to go into this epistemological run around like the autistic faggot you are.
>then one is only left to think that you don't find anything outside of sense experience to be justifiably believed.
Nice twisting of my words. I said, in slight hyperbole, that all things you can't prove by human sense or experience or natural means, don't just magically poof into existence on the assumption of "maybe" they exist.

That goes for ghosts, gods, demons, gremlins, bigfoot....whatever.

I really find you people who get hung up on this "woah burh, what about like, outside of muh experience bruh?" to be goddamn detestable. We live in a natural world and unless you have proof you can go fuck off.

>>83695848
Stop with this "atheism is a lack of belief" meme
There is all the difference in the world between having a "lack of belief in X" and saying "X doesn't exist" .

To claim God's nonexistence is an objective attribute of God.
Only aptheists have the claim of "lack of belief" because they don't claim any objective knowledge in relation to God.

>>83696009
You really all salty about this, aren't you? Look, calling something "pleb filter" is an underage's attempt at an argument. As in, it's not an argument at all.

File: 1471133404633.gif (1023KB, 324x181px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 324x181px

>>83696097
>Stop with this "atheism is a lack of belief" meme
No, because that's exactly what it is. Holy shit, are you really this stupid?
>There is all the difference in the world between having a "lack of belief in X" and saying "X doesn't exist" .
Is this what they are teaching you kids now in Sunday school? Anon, if I have a lack of belief that X exists, I don't believe X exists.
>To claim God's nonexistence is an objective attribute of God.
Literally, what? This makes no sense.
>Only aptheists have the claim of "lack of belief" because they don't claim any objective knowledge in relation to God.
Right...because they don't think God exists...

Wew lad, is this baby's first argument with an atheist?

>>83696118
I understand that it isn't. If you would have originally stated this instead of bitch about somebody calling an atheistic world view "pleb tier", then I would have backed off since that comment wasn't an actual argument to begin with. The only thing in that statement that could have been refuted was me calling casual atheism "positivism" which you didn't do in your initial response.

>>83695499
>Why do they equate belief in god with being a part of an organized religion?
Gee Billy, maybe it's because 90% of the american people decalre they do adhere to an organised religion and you are not the norm.
Stop pretending to be shocked.

>>83696203
I think you believe that any criticism is "bitching". You must lose a lot of arguments.

"casual" atheism, whichever priest gave you that term, is not "positivism" as atheism is inherently NOT epistemological or deals with any sort of metaphysics in any way.

Stop using words you don't understand and stop complaining when people make fun of you for saying silly things.

>>83695280
>not enjoying the doubt to counter-bait and shitpost
basic 4chan etiquette

File: 1476081285135.gif (1MB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x213px

>>83696097
>There is all the difference in the world between having a "lack of belief in X" and saying "X doesn't exist" .

>>83696097
>Stop with this "atheism is a lack of belief"
Do they not have dictionaries in Dumbfuckistan?

>>83694641
>ultimate standard for morality
>murdered a bunch of children to smite 1 asshole

>>83696181
> Anon, if I have a lack of belief that X exists, I don't believe X exists.

This is true. However, atheism is not simply saying "I don't believe God exists". Agnostics and apthiests also don't believe in God, but atheism is the claim the God does not exist.
Saying that God does not exist is claiming objective knowledge in relation to God.
If God does not exist, then God's nonexistance is an objective attribute to God just as Frodo's nonexistents is an objective attribute to Frodo.

>>83696331
You don't understand anon, you just can't question his motives. I know what you're thinking though, "isn't that just a copout explain away answer?" Well, no...you see...faith...and uh...mysterious ways...and he big God and you small man...so uh..

>>83696337
>However, atheism is not simply saying "I don't believe God exists".
Why? Who are you to say that?

File: 1478119757348.gif (34KB, 194x198px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 194x198px

>>83696337
>Saying that God does not exist is claiming objective knowledge in relation to God.
Holy shit bud. No. This is backwards as fuck. Are you baiting me?
>If God does not exist, then God's nonexistance is an objective attribute to God
This literally makes no fucking sense in the slightest. "If something doesn't exist, it's nonexistence is an objective attribute to that thing that does not exist".

CHRIST STOP. IT HURTS MY HEAD WITH ITS AUTISM.

File: 1471434382370.jpg (47KB, 398x356px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 398x356px

>>83696337
>If God does not exist, then God's nonexistance is an objective attribute to God
I feel like I'm having a goddamn stroke with you.

>>83696275

He's right about that, though. Maybe not "all the difference in the world", but certainly a logically significant difference .

If I say, "I do not believe that X exists", I can also say, "I do not believe that X does not exist" without contradicting myself. Between the two, it can be surmised that I believe only in the uncertainty surrounding X's existence, and will venture no further with a positive claim in either direction.

If I say, "I believe X does not exist", following that with the statement, "I believe X exists" is a contradiction of my previous statement.

>>83696407
>He's right about that, though
No, he isn't and virtually none of this is correct.

Please...my brain can only take so much autism. Where do you kids learn about logical proofs?

>>83696407
saying "I have a lack of belief that God exists but I do believe God exists" is the fucking contradiction in his statement, you clod.

>>83696407
>If I say, "I do not believe that X exists", I can also say, "I do not believe that X does not exist" without contradicting myself.
THIS IS LITERALLY A CONTRADICTION! NONE OF THIS IS CORRECT!

>>83696250
1. What you initially said was not criticism

2. I originally got the phrase "casual atheist" from a nhilist friend of mine that explained the difference between classical atheistic existentialism, nihilism, and new-age Dawkin branded atheism.

3. If you believe anything at all (even empiricism), then you are adhering to some epistemological presupposition.

>>83696493
>I originally got the phrase "casual atheist" from a nhilist friend of mine that explained the difference between classical atheistic existentialism, nihilism, and new-age Dawkin branded atheism.
I didn't know it was possible to see some high voltage of unabashed autism in one sentence. I think I am seriously smelling toast now.
>If you believe anything at all (even empiricism), then you are adhering to some epistemological presupposition
No you aren't, that's not how any of this works.

You need to be over 18 to post here.

>>83696493
>I don't know what presuppositionalism is or means

File: einsteinquote1.jpg (75KB, 636x345px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 636x345px

>>83696097
It really isn't. _You_ might need to define and believe that atheism is just some kind of another belief system, in order to support your own, but it means disbelief, an absence of both belief and the need to believe. We do not believe in god, gods, pantheons, little loci spirits of the wood/stream/caves, etc, or in the supernatural and spiritual at all. We do not 'believe' in science either - we accept it as the best tool for exploring the physical world.

Gaining the impression that you also struggle with the concept of zero being a number too.

>>83696488
Agnostics also don't believe God exist yet do g claim that God objectively doesn't exist.

>>83688103
this is bait btw

>>83696551
>Agnostics also don't believe God exist
You don't what Agnostics even believe; they believe they don't/can't know a deity exists. That's not the same as not believing a deity exists.
>yet they don't claim that God objectively doesn't exist
Exactly, kiddo. They claim to not have the knowledge of a god(s) either way.

Please use a dictionary next time you stray from /lit/.

>>83696439

Oh, this should be great. Please, go ahead and demonstrate to me that there is no difference between uncertainty and a positive claim.

>>83696472

Nobody has made that statement as far as I can see, certainly not in the post I replied to.

All I've said is that "I do not believe in X" and "I believe that X is not" are, in the English language, not equal statements. This is undeniably correct, and I thought I made it pretty clear as to why that's the case.

It is possible to believe in neither the existence nor the non-existence of object X, or, in other words, to be uncertain about its state of existence. A classic example of this uncertain condition is the oft-misunderstood example of Schrodinger's cat, or the electron.

It is not possible to believe that X both exists and does not exist, since this is an inherent logical contradiction.

We're really just getting into semantics, I understand that, but this is of course why logic is best expressed in mathematics than written languages.

File: WIkAk.jpg (123KB, 750x637px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 750x637px

>>83696565
We know. it's just fun dragging the god botherers through the ropes once again.

>>83696535
You do have to accept that science at some point is based on belief. I do not say this as a means to discredit science (I'm an engineering major at Uni). However, sense experience does not affirm the validity sense experience, only that which can be perceived in sense experience. So, at some point, you are only left with the option to have faith in something outside of sense experience (God) affirms sense experience or have faith that your sense experience is a reliable reflection of objective reality.

>>83696608
i'm athiest also but that spergy snarkiness of yours is furthering their fedora dweeb meme

>>83696600
No, YOU are getting into semantics and not making correct logical proofs at all. I'll explain this again, the following logic is a contradiction:
>If I say, "I do not believe that X exists", I can also say, "I do not believe that X does not exist" without contradicting myself.
^THIS is a contradiction my friend. You can't say you do not believe X exists and then logically follow that you do not believe X does not exist together. They are not compatible with each other as statements. It is not logical. It is a contradiction.
>but this is of course why logic is best expressed in mathematics than written languages.
You can't even figure out what a contradiction is. You have a long way to go before you can write these out as mathematical proofs.

Everything else you said was the same autism you keep spewing out. it's all wrong. I'm assuming you just don't like that answer.

>>83696584
If agnostics believed that God exist, then they would be religious.
They do not believe God exist but do not claim that God objectively does not exist.

>>83696650
>You do have to accept that science at some point is based on belief.
Here we go with this "meet me in the middle" argument. I "believe" the lights turn on when I flick the switch, the difference is that my "belief" is structured under the concept of test-retest-ability of turning the light on and off.

I'm not blindly believing things without evidence, as much as you want to pretend your bastardization of science is that.

>>83696686
Fucking hell, man:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

>>83696650
>However, sense experience does not affirm the validity sense experience
Right, and water doesn't necessarily affirm that I can get wet. Fuck off. Only you and a handful of presuppositionalists argue this new brand of moralism.

You change tactics every 10 years but the arguments stay the same.

>>83696674

>They are not compatible with each other as statements.

Yes they are.

That's what I've explained. To "believe" is to "be certain". I can lack certainty about both the existence and non-existence of X. Thus, I can say, "I do not believe that X exists, but I do not believe that X does not exist either," without contradicting myself. Ultimately, it expresses that "I am uncertain as to the existence of X, I believe nothing about it,"

Meanwhile, stating that "I believe that X exists, and I believe that X does not exist" is a contradictory statement.

What you're failing to understand is the significance and meaning of the word "believe", and that is exactly why arguing in a written language is a minefield of syntactic and semantic blunders. Which is exactly why I said that logic is best expressed in mathematics.

Are you a dumb native English speaker, or just hampered by the language barrier?

>>83696650
>are only left with the option to have faith in something outside of sense experience (God) affirms sense experience or have faith that your sense experience is a reliable reflection of objective reality.
See, this opens up the most autistic bag of worms because logically following then, anything I could possibly fathom could exist. It's a loop...it doesn't end. It eats itself forever and doesn't answer a fucking thing.

It's circular reasoning where you hope opponents eventually get trapped into non-answers and then swoop in and default to "durrr hurrrrr dat means GOD, gotcha!"

It's embarrassing. Stop doing that.

File: 1496704315262.png (42KB, 655x509px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 655x509px

>tfw grew up in church my whole life
>everything was taught to me at an age where I was impressionable and took everything as fact without question
>it's all normal to me just because I grew up with it
>realized that if I ever had to defend any belief I wouldn't be able to since there's no logic involved and it's simply "that's what I was told"
>started noticing cases where christian rules seem to be established by culture and not backed up by the bible (eg swearing is inherently a sin)
>church members speak in tongues regularly but everyone recites their pattern of repetitious syllables the exact same each time, and it always happens to be syllables from the english language despite the fact tongues are meant to be "spiritual languages"
>it's just like how when you're hypnotized and "recite a past life", your brain just constructs the memories it expects to be there out of miscellaneous things already in your head
>tfw can't say any of this to them because they'd just get mad at me or think I'm influenced by the devil or something
>but I can't stop going to church because I live with my parents and the church community would keep trying ways to get me to come back
>huge amount of guilt regarding any sexual activity, never thought I had experienced sexual attraction for anyone and was maybe asexual
>figuring out maybe I've just been a repressed gay this whole time
>tfw questioning everything I ever thought I knew

File: IMG_0957.jpg (303KB, 566x1334px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 566x1334px

>>83696705
I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle
I'm not saying that the light will not turn on if you flip the switch since it is within empiricism

>>83693360
>implying you have to subscribe to the belief of an almighty god in the sky to be a good person and treat people as you would like to be treated.

File: IMG_0958.jpg (292KB, 463x1321px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 463x1321px

>>83696705

@christians
Why did you choose to believe in god? How do you justify your faith in something that literally cannot be proven by its very nature?

File: O_JZ3n-H.jpg (12KB, 180x251px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 180x251px

>>83696792
>That's what I've explained. To "believe" is to "be certain". I can lack certainty about both the existence and non-existence of X. Thus, I can say, "I do not believe that X exists, but I do not believe that X does not exist either," without contradicting myself.
Holy shit you have to be baiting me now. This is still a contradiction, yes.
>it expresses that "I am uncertain as to the existence of X, I believe nothing about it,"
First off no, that's not what you are saying. Also again, you can't be both uncertain something exists and at the same time believe nothing about it. The uncertainty IS what you believe.
>Are you a dumb native English speaker, or just hampered by the language barrier?
"Palpable" doesn't begin to describe this ascended levels of irony. I'm literally in Zion right now.

>>83696705
>bastardization of science

I study and research the same science as everybody in my field, anon

>>83696824
>>83696847
Not quite sure what the argument here is.

>>83696881
>peddles presuppostional arguments
>thinks atheism is a belief
>hides behind layman understands of epistemology
>muh metaphysical "you can't know bruh, da senses" argument
No, you don't. I pity any university that holds you.

>>83688103
Why do adults believe in magic and wizards?

>>83696887
Objective knowledge is impossible without some sort of faith
This is what separates radical skepticism from casual atheism which holds that there is something can be objectively known (the emperical world).

>>83696941
Because it makes them feel good and everyone knows we are going to die. There, pretty much the answer.

Solipsism is the final blackpill

File: flintstones heliocentricism.png (1MB, 1381x590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1381x590px

>>83696941
Simpler explanations are easier to take in than the effort required to understand things properly.

>>83696919
Yes I do
I'm an empiricist

>>83696948
>Objective knowledge is impossible without some sort of faith
Oh here we go with this. I don't agree with you in the fucking slightest.
>calling something casually atheist.
Does it like, frighten you or something? The prospect of living in an empirical and objective world? I can never figure out what tickles the assholes of you people so much. Is it that then you are forced to accept hard realities of the universe around you?

It has to be a personal issue, since your arguments are weak and pathetic to begin with but then you always default to this same loop.

>>83696991
Read >>83696987

>>83696987
>I'm an empiricist
Keep pretending, now let the big boys play for a while now.

>>83697003
Not an argument, though. Also for the second time, you are not an empiricist with these sorts of positions.

>>83696948
>Objective knowledge is impossible without some sort of faith
You missed the century where this was a popular argument, anon.

>>83697065
>atheists would become trumpfags
what universe do you even live in?

>>83696868

>This is still a contradiction, yes

No, it isn't. Do you really have this much difficulty with the definition of "believe".

Let's walk you through the example of a person who is uncertain of X's existence.

They do not believe that X exists. This is undeniably correct.

But they also do not believe that X does not exist. Again, undeniably correct.

For that person, both "I believe in X" and "I disbelieve in X" would be untrue statements. They neither believe that X exists, nor that X does not exist. They are uncertain.

>The uncertainty IS what you believe.

This is true, but not really related to what we're talking about. That would be an entirely different statement, albeit a much simpler one. The point we're discussing, though is whether one can logically entertain both a lack of belief in the existence of something, and a lack of belief in its non-existence. Which they can.

Seriously, what is your issue with the definition of "belief"? Belief requires certainty, and a positive claim. Lack of a positive claim constitutes uncertainty, but making two contradictory positive claims constitutes a paradox.

>>83697065
Most trump voters were religious

>>83697004
Fucking hell, anon.
Yes I am an empiricist. I believe the world runs by objective laws that human sense experience can reliably measure and make predictions based off of.
However, source of belief in Empiricism comes from is the difference between you and I. You believe that sense experience is self affirming (which is based off faith) and I believe that sense experience is affirmed by something outside of sense experience (which is also based off of faith).
What I have said is not my disbelief in empiricism but rather that any thaught system that believes in knowledge requires some faith to be consistent so that it doesn't fall into itself to the point where nothing can be accepted.

To any rational person in this thread: Why debase yourself arguing with literal retards?

>>83697081
>No, it isn't. Do you really have this much difficulty with the definition of "believe".
>Let's walk you through the example of a person who is uncertain of X's existence.
>They do not believe that X exists. This is undeniably correct.
>But they also do not believe that X does not exist. Again, undeniably correct.
>For that person, both "I believe in X" and "I disbelieve in X" would be untrue statements. They neither believe that X exists, nor that X does not exist. They are uncertain.
You are the definition of autistic with this. There are only so many ways I can say the word "no". I explained to you why it's wrong...

At this point I'm just repeating myself. Have this last (you). Hope it was worth it, acting retarded and all...

>>83697026
I do not hold these positions where nothing can be known.
I have made a point from epistemological nihilism (which I'm not an epistemological nihilist)

>>83697116
I don't know, for those who actually love knowledge and hate how America is literally run by disinfo now, you have hope that you explain how logic works, or how words work...

You have hope.

>>83697051
Epistemological nihilism is still a thing and is a relatively modern thing desu

>>83697081
>The point we're discussing, though is whether one can logically entertain both a lack of belief in the existence of something, and a lack of belief in its non-existence. Which they can.
No, they can't. That's the point here. You are either baiting me or legit stupid.

>>83697116
Bc casual atheists are ignorant to Christian philosophy

>>83697112
>You believe that sense experience is self affirming (which is based off faith)
You people are seriously annoying, it is a faith BASED ON EVIDENCE. You believe the sun rises in the morning because there is evidence of it doing so.

You are literally hung up on this fucking autistic as all shit point.

>I believe that sense experience is affirmed by something outside of sense experience
>Yes I am an empiricist.
NO YOU AREN'T FUCKING KILL YOURSELF ALREADY

>>83697184
>muh Christian philosophy
nobody fucking cares, christfag. It's not applicable to conversations about logic, science or math.

>>83697112
>you coming to conclusions based on your senses, this is based on faith teehee
>but it's obviously not the same as basing conclusions on magical and unproven external forces, but yeah it's based on faith
>totally the same
Neck yourself fucking hard and fast.

>>83697112
>faith in things you can prove and test
>same as total faith in unproven mechanisms you wish to be true
Maybe one day you realize how retarded this sounds.

>>83696991

The world can be as objective as it likes, but the fallibility of the human brain requires that we have faith in our senses and cognitive functions to report anything even vaguely resembling that objective reality. You can disagree that it qualifies as "faith", but anything beyond solipsism is a wide spectrum of trusting unreliable sources, a spectrum that slides all the way to full-blown fanaticism at the deep end.

It's just a fact of life, it's philosophy 101. Obviously, most people can agree on a workable model of reality, and the scientific method can allow us to reach some exceptionally narrow windows of uncertainty, but there always remains the possibility that you are a brain in a hyper-dimensional jar. Always and forever.

What you're calling "objective and empirical" facts are best viewed as pragmatic axioms, which means that while they aren't necessarily arbitrary, they are ultimately just assumed. Viewing them as certainties is for brainlets.

>>83697204
There is no evidence that senses experience is reflective of objective reality outside of faith that it does.
Yes, the sun might rise in the morning, but that is based off of what is within what can be empirically proven.
Your logic in "proving" Empiricism is circular.

>>83688103
>dude the only reason people don't believe in God is because they're big meanies and not because they are able to apply a minute amount of logic and critical thinking to the question of whether there is any reason to take literally 2000 year old sand nigger fables about a wizard in the sky who loves Jews
Reminder that there are literally millions of people who believe Noah literally transferred all of the worlds billions of single celled organism and bacterias on his ark

>>83697277
>but there always remains the possibility that you are a brain in a hyper-dimensional jar.
Prove this even matters, is even remotely true or testable...or fuck right off.
>Viewing them as certainties is for brainlets.
You are literally acting like a brainlet with this Philosophy club freshman attitude.

You grow out of it eventually. I am seriously triggered by your types of people, who say shit like "all of this world that I can test, is just "ultimately assumed" since I have to adhere to some beyond autistic endgame of 'maybe' every iota of knowledge is not correct". It's extreme anti-intellectualism that masks as philosophy but offers nothing in terms of serving pragmatism at all.

Saying "these objective laws I can test and retest, are all just assumptions" doesn't serve any higher truth at all.

Get out already.

>>83697277
Thanks
I'm running a little low on sleep and I don't think they were getting what I was saying.

>>83697130

>I explained to you why it's wrong...

No, you didn't. You just said, "b-but that's a contradiction" in a variety of ways and threw a few insults.

>>83697170

If you don't understand how that is possible, you might be a machine.

If you are uncertain whether X exists, and I ask you, "Do you believe X exists?", your correct answer would be "No". Yet, if I ask you, "Do you believe that X does not exist?", your correct answer would also be "No".

You lack certainty, which is a precursor to belief, and hence you do not believe that X exists, while at the same time also not believing that X does not exist.

This is so weird, every time it comes up, all these people obsessed with denying that agnosticism is logically possible.

>>83697307
>There is no evidence that senses experience is reflective of objective reality outside of faith that it does.
I can't even imagine how fucked in the head you need to be in order to function like this, as an absolutist.

But then, sometimes I forget that people with actual mental issues come to /tv/, who believe the shit they spew.

>>83688103
HAHAHA 234 POSTS FUCKING AMAZING

File: IMG_0959.jpg (508KB, 1600x911px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1600x911px

>>83697353
Pic related
This is pretty basic stuff

>>83697366
>If you are uncertain whether X exists, and I ask you, "Do you believe X exists?", your correct answer would be "No". Yet, if I ask you, "Do you believe that X does not exist?", your correct answer would also be "No".
you just rewording the contradiction doesn't mat it any less so.

Both ends of each statement, contrast with the second part. You can't be uncertain of X, ask if you believe X exists and then logically follow with "no". Neither can you believe X does not exist and then again, follow that with a "no" if you were uncertain X existed in the first place.

You honestly do not know what you are talking about. Both of these, again, are basic contradictions that fucking children could understand.

No hope for you if you don't.

>>83697353

>Prove this even matters, is even remotely true or testable...or fuck right off.

Philosophy isn't for you, stick to engineering.

>It's extreme anti-intellectualism that masks as philosophy but offers nothing in terms of serving pragmatism at all.

Philosophy doesn't exist to serve pragmatism. It is the study of thought, and the entire purpose of solipsism is simply as an interesting thought experiment. It reminds you that nothing (that you believe, at least) is certain, which is a reminder that does in fact serve a very practical purpose from time to time. Seriously, stick to engineering.

>>83697371
>I can't even imagine how fucked in the head you need to be in order to function like this

Philosophy scary
Descartes is a witch

>>83697401
>I misunderstood Socrates and what The Cave meant, let me then apply it to a conversation I don't equally understand

>>83697437
This is Plato, not Socrates...

And the purpose is what >>83697426
said in that nothing you believe in is an absolute certainty.

>>83697426
>Philosophy isn't for you, stick to engineering.
I'm not that retarded "engineer".
>muh solipsism...
is for brainlets and bafflingly autistic even by philosophical standards.
>It reminds you that nothing (that you believe, at least) is certain, which is a reminder that does in fact serve a very practical purpose from time to time.
Sure, for things that are (currently) uncertain. It is okay to believe some things with concrete evidence, are in fact certain though. Taking this to the autistic extreme just drives free thinking into the fucking dirt and you can't learn or know anything.

I hate that, absolutely hate that extreme. Which that "engineer" was doing. It's anti-intellectual. I don't go drown myself in the ocean because I like to drink water.

>>83697483
>This is Plato, not Socrates...
KEK, The Allegory of the Cave is Socrates telling the story of the cave, within the narrative. I see you didn't read it, Plato (within the text) I'm pretty sure attributed the concept TO Socrates, of which he is then writing about.

>>83697494
>"engineer"

>>83697426
Not him but interesting point on solipsism, human consciousness / thinking is a product of language, and language can only be achieved through socializing between two or more minds. Meaning the fact that you can think to yourself "all that I know is that I exist" is evidence of the fact that other minds exist.

>>83697483
>nothing you believe in is an absolute certainty.
I don't necessarily believe this is true of all things absolutely, that's just as devoid of thought as to believe in the opposite extreme. I think you keep fucking peddling this as if extreme uncertainty MUST be true to human knowledge. As if strides in science and technology aren't worth fucking shit because "well, durrrr you see, maybe...maybe nothing is real bruh?"

Being a realist is the only thing that makes fucking sense in an immediate world you exist in. Fantasy and delusion are just that.

>>83693360
This is revisionist nonsense.

>>83697422

>You can't be uncertain of X, ask if you believe X exists and then logically follow with "no".

What the fuck are you smoking? Of course you can, anything else would be incorrect.

To demonstrate:

Alan believes that X = ?, and cannot lie.

If Brad asks Alan, "Do you believe that X = 1?", Alan will answer, "No."

If Brad asks Alan, "Do you believe that X = 0?", Alan will answer, "No."

Note that Brad is not asking Alan, "Does X = 1?", or "Does X = 0?" because Alan's answer in both cases would be, "I don't know." That's the obvious contradiction you keep getting hung up on.

The key is the word "believe". It's a word that's very significant to the argument at hand, and you keep skipping over it.

Theists believe that God = 1
Atheists believe that God = 0
Agnostics believe that God = ?

Therefore, agnostics can answer both "Do you believe that God exists?" and "Do you believe that God does not exist?" with "No."

>>83692154
>WHY DO YOU HATE YOUR DOG?
>I don't have a dog

>>83688103
Are american protestants even christians?

>>83697576
>Therefore, agnostics can answer both "Do you believe that God exists?" and "Do you believe that God does not exist?" with "No."
I like how you go to such great lengths to write this out and are still laughably wrong about it. Also, nice reductionism with this "God equals 1 to theists but 0 to atheists" pseudo-logic.

>>83697622
He's right you're wrong, kill yourself and shut up already

>>83697576
>Therefore, agnostics can answer both "Do you believe that God exists?" and "Do you believe that God does not exist?" with "No."
But...no...

>>83688103

i know you're just shitposting, but actually believing in christianity or any religion for that matter is pretty much the most retarded thing you can do. the fedora meme is also old as fuck and stupid and i'm agnostic not atheist anyway.

>>83697639
He's no. He just keeps rewording the same contradiction over and over again. Nice try though, samefag.

>>83697641
....... what......
did.........
you........mean.........by.......this.....?

>>83697663
That you are absolutely retarded about logical proofs? Or you have been trying to trigger me, in which case it worked.

>>83697660
It's not a contradiction, it's indecision. A contradiction would be to say "I don't believe in God, but I believe in God" while this is saying "I cannot know if God is or is unreal, therefore I do not believe or disbelieve in him". Is this really like rocket science to you?

>>83697533

The problem with solipsism is it slips in with, "The achievement of language could just be the perceptual appearance of socialisation masking the independent formation of language within the mind,".

I agree with the anons who've so vehemently hated on solipsism, but it does hold an impregnable argumentative position, which serves to frustrate everyone by reminding them that their positions aren't quite impregnable.

>>83697494


>is for brainlets and bafflingly autistic even by philosophical standards

Look, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not advocating it as a philosophy by which to live your life. But it does effectively undermine any possibility that actually objective truths may ever be subjectively knowable.

It simply demonstrates that all human knowledge sits on a sliding scale between "astronomically unlikely to be untrue" and "deluded fantasy", and for a mature human being this idea doesn't "drive free thinking into the dirt" so that they "can't learn or know anything".

>>83697556
I do not believe this, do not find it at all practical when in a scientific context, and I do not believe that strides in science and technology aren't worth shit.
I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of making a point in uncertainty and faith.
Asking to "prove" God is rediculase as God is something that exists outside of empiricism and is (in Christian philosophy) responsible for the validity of Empiricism. The closest one can get to even attempting to prove God's existence is by first proving that creation (reality as observed through sense experience) exists. And even then, there is an uncertainty.
You read any major Christian scientist or even theologians like Thomas Aquinas, and there is going to be some rhetoric about the observation of God's creation.

>>83697752
>I am uncertain of A
But do you believe A exists?
>I am uncertain, I will not say A does not exist, since I am uncertain of A's existence
So you wouldn't say you believe A does NOT exist?
>I do not know A, I am uncertain of A therefore, I cannot hold that A does not exist

Please fucking stop already, you are the one who doesn't get this.

>>83697622
>>83697641

"I don't believe you" is not a sound rebuttal.

>Honey, it's not what you think it is... It was... an angel! Yes, god made me pregnant! Oh, what a miracle!
>Uhm, uh-huh, wow, well o-okay, I-I guess... for a second there I thought you cheated on me again... So when will I finally get to do it with you, Mary? I mean we're married for chrissake... sorry.
>Don't be silly. You're my lil hub-hub and I love you.

>>83697797
ridiculous*

>>83697831
I've explained this about 10 times now, piece by piece...

I broke it down constantly for you/him.

>>83697783
>. But it does effectively undermine any possibility that actually objective truths may ever be subjectively knowable.
But it doesn't. You just believe that.

>>83697783
>The problem with solipsism is it slips in with, "The achievement of language could just be the perceptual appearance of socialisation masking the independent formation of language within the mind,"
I get what you're saying but that would lack consistency considering that any human who isn't taught a language basically never progresses past the mental state of an animal. If my mind can develop language on its own, why can't the "fake" minds my mind creates do the same?

>>83697827

Congratulations, you get it now, although I'm still a little mystified at why you phrased that post as though you were somehow disagreeing.

File: melgibson-ahw_20110422000603.jpg (107KB, 240x360px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 240x360px

>>83688541
This. Protestantism is shit-tier. Based Catholics have been making kino since the dawn of cinema.

>>83697797
>Asking to "prove" God is rediculase as God is something that exists outside of empiricism and is (in Christian philosophy) responsible for the validity of Empiricism.
It's almost like it's illogical and autistic to do so and needing to rewrite the entire fucking world in order to do that, really shows who needs to reach.

>>83697889
Anon, you were not saying the same thing.

>>83697797
>You read any major Christian scientist or even theologians like Thomas Aquinas
lol I see no modern value in doing so.

>>83697574
Fundamentalism is more revisionist than this stance
Christian theologians since the beginning of the church have defferetiated between poetic literature and historic events in the Bible.

>>83688103
Somebody in this thread give me a quick argument for rejecting empiricism and embracing a belief in magic and abrahamic fairy tales. I'm ready to hang up the fedora.

>>83697651
>but actually believing in christianity or any religion for that matter is pretty much the most retarded thing you can do
Now this is wisdom XD

>>83697892
>a crazy, drunk, wife abusing, anti-semite
>who makes torture porn
Yeah, look how "based" Catholics are.

>>83697962
Explain the virtue of unironically believing in magic-tier shit?

File: IMG_0960.jpg (75KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 350x263px

>>83697936
>the Big Bang
>classical physics
>no modern value

>God's Not Dead has actually converted atheists

Not entire surprised, I guess. Just disgusted.
It's hard to understand why the myth persists that all or even most irreligious/leftist people are even remotely intelligent.
At least the stupid among religious conservatives never made a habit of trying to claim they were geniuses by virtue of their beliefs.
I guess they claimed the moral highground but the leftists do that too.

>>83697982
>The Big Bang
>attributing this theory to Christianity
You are joking, right?

>>83692459
Nope. Sitting on the fence is just as bad as theism. The true way is nothing. What you see is what you get. Logic and rationality always wins. You aren't just dead, you're fucking dead and never coming back.

>>83697986
nice thinly-veiled /pol/isms here. Almost thought you had a real opinion.

>>83697878

>but that would lack consistency considering that any human who isn't taught a language basically never progresses past the mental state of an animal

Again, solipsism can be true and this can still be a trick of your perception, just for the sake of argument.

It's an insidious worm of logic that cannot be eradicated, that's all it is. There's no point taking it seriously, but it's worth having it as a cognitive tool.

>>83697876

>You just believe that.

You're going to have to be more specific about your issue with what I said. Yes, I guess it's what I believe ABOUT solipsism, but I don't believe IN solipsism, if that's what you're saying.

I have no issue functioning as a thinking human being, nor with gauging reality according to my senses and the collective responses of other humans and objects I perceive. I believe in the scientific method, and I even believe that there are some things about this world that are objectively true, and that some people might know them, even me.

However, I have to trust that my mind isn't lying to me about all that, and as a result there's no way for me to objectively verify any of my beliefs to the absolute degree, only ever to a point "beyond all reasonable doubt" which may well be unique to me alone.

>>83697996
It was a Jesuit Priest, Georges Lemaître, that first proposed the theory.

>>83698011
>However, I have to trust that my mind isn't lying to me about all that
I'm saying the extreme of this is a never-ending rabbit hole that never ends anywhere.

>>83698024
That hardly qualifies as "being able to put this as a win for Christianity", as then they promptly rejected the concept for decades. He's not credited with our modern understanding of the theory.

>>83698000
>You aren't just dead, you're fucking dead and never coming back.
That's not logic and rationalism, it's a nihilistic belief (aka faith) based on some strange lust for total self-annihilation.

>>83697955
Most Christians don't reject empiricism
Only young earth creationists reject it

>>83698029

Yeah, I don't disagree, and I guess that's the value of the whole idea - it serves to point out that at some point you have to decide when to stop chasing the rabbit, i.e. decide on a specific model of reality that works for you. If you don't, you may well end up in a strait jacket and a padded room, mumbling "Cogito ergo sum" for the rest of your life.

>>83688103
My personal diary desu

>>83698049
The Catholic Church did not and has never rejected new scientific discoveries
>Inb4 Galileo and Capernicus myth

>>83698051
You okay there buddy? Do you know what you're talking about? I was being literal.

>>83690450

>This is what the fedora actually believes

>>83698081
>The Catholic Church did not and has never rejected new scientific discoveries
You are pretending to be retarded again, right? This is brainwash-tier autism. Absolutely incorrect.
>Inb4 Galileo and Capernicus myth
who brainwashed you?

>>83698055
>Most Christians don't reject empiricism
If you take any portion of the Bible literally, you do.

>>83698085
>I was being literal
As opposed to being figurative?

>>83698114
>This is brainwash-tier autism

I'm not weighing in on this debate, but I want you to know that you can just say "brainwashing" when you mean "brainwashing". No memes for memes' sake.

>>83698081
>In my Christian-approved revisionist history class, Galileo and Capernicus were not persecuted for their beliefs. They were offered candies and lollipops! This is just an evil lie spread by those big bad secularists blahh! The Church has never rejected new scientific discoveries and there is no proof they ever did

File: 1478972822352.jpg (44KB, 647x594px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 647x594px

>>83698146
>you can just say "brainwashing" when you mean "brainwashing".
wut?

>>83698146
Th-thanks dad

>>83698189

Also, brush your teeth

>another thread ruined by atheists and their total hate for humanity

>>83698217
>it's the atheists that make these threads
>it's the atheists who ruin everything
>it's the atheists who have total hate for humanity
>atheists

>>83698224
It's not my fault the film assumes every atheist hates god.

>>83698114
https://blog.oup.com/2011/01/galileo/

>>83698224
yes?
it's atheist that have been devaluing human life for decades using "science" to justify it
remind me who supports abortion because "lol it's just cells and life is nothing special anyway!" or trivialize life because "we are nothing compared to the universe and its age"

>>83698303
we have all seen this bullshit blog before, christfag. You kids pull it up everytime you make this wrong point.

It's wrong. It's just some Christian revisionism.

>>83696815
Don't be cry, you are free now anon

>>83698340
Prove it wrong

>>83698330
>atheists devalue human life because science is a thing
this is like, a parody of a Christian argument. But it sure is convenient that you can dehumanize people you theologically disagree with by pretending they all "devalue" human life. I'm not here to do a morality test for you, I'm a good person.
>muh abortion reeee!
No atheist says "life is nothing special", and the abortion argument is a complex issue that you faggots like to oversimplify because thinking about it in any other way makes your brain hurt. It also gnaws at your sperg that the choice to abort isn't up to me, or to other people for that matter. We aren't the ones getting pregnant.

But I know you will have some weird issue with that argument, your kind always does.

>>83698382
>prove my independent blog piece that runs in complete contrast with literally ALL historical record
>written by a christfag
yeah, no thanks. I don't prove negatives.

File: IMG_0961.png (134KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 750x1334px

>>83698398
Cite me a noticeable historian that claims that the church suppressed Galeleo in some "heliocentric vs. scripture" conflict
It's not proving a negative, it's refuting a point out in front of you

>>83698450
Notable*

The funny thing about these threads is that it's all the obnoxious internet atheists who are now (pretending to be) obnoxious internet christians

Nobody else has ever changed their beliefs

>>83698450
>Cite me a noticeable historian that claims that the church suppressed Galeleo in some "heliocentric vs. scripture" conflict
All of them that aren't theologan bloggers.
>It's not proving a negative, it's refuting a point out in front of you
YOU made a statement, you haven't proved it to be true. So yes, the burden is still on you to prove it.

Showing me a picture of that singular blog again doesn't strengthen your argument. We both know you have no real historian that believes this.

So again, who brainwashed you to think that? Do you also fancy The Greatest Story Never Told? Do you just believe in all sorts of contrarian positions? I was 13 once too.

File: 1494922077174.jpg (67KB, 1024x962px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x962px

>>83698357
But I'm not free at all
I still go to church every sunday with my parents despite not really believing it
Even though the logical side of my thought process is now thinking that some things are okay, the illogical emotional side still makes me feel guilty about it because I was brought up with that way of thinking and those brain processes don't just go away overnight
The thing that's making me think I'm gay or at least bi is that I saw for the first time in 6 months this uni friend who I used to be physically close with (hugging, resting on etc), but it turns out he was gay all along and now he has a bf and they were kissing and holding hands right in front of me
but even if I wanted that, I couldn't have a long term relationship with a guy without family finding out - and when that happens, they'll probably just get really sad and feel like they don't know or trust me anymore - which would completely destroy what's currently a civil and respectful family dynamic where we never fight

The problem is even though I'm feeling all of these things, the consequences of acting on them publicly seem to have far too great an impact on the staple relationships in my life to justify actually doing it
It's like I need to move town and drop all contact with most of the people in my life but I don't have a job that could pay for that

>>83698450
>GUYS THIS ONE CHRISTIAN "HISTORIAN" REAFFIRMED MY BELIEFS! SEE! FOR THIS POINT I'M NOT PLAYING THE PERSECUTED CHRISTIAN CARD!
>I'M PLAYING THE REVISING HISTORY TO MAKE US LOOK GOOD, CARD!

File: Agnostics.png (541KB, 775x457px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 775x457px

>>83692459

>>83698499
Literally cite one historian

File: teaser_orig.jpg (185KB, 720x1093px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 720x1093px

>>83688103

>>83698520
>cite me one scientist that accepts gravity exists
This is the corroborated and established historical fact, anon. My position isn't disputed outside of your fringe bloggers or faux historians who are really just masking their own religious agendas.

YOU are making a claim that runs in contrast against an entire collective of historical documentation and the only thing you can produce is a blog...

Get the fuck out of here. Support your claim with something more substantial (you know, like a consensus?) Or get out.

>>83693919
Jesus wasn't actually like that, he was pretty cool and wanted people to give their money away. Go to the Vatican and see the excess they live their lives in and they would fit that comic
All Christians are pretty shit at being like Jesus desu

t. atheistfag

>>83698390
>No atheist says "life is nothing special"
except you do that all the time, especially here on 4chan and you don't have to openly say it when your actions do it for yourself
and I never said that science is the problem, only that your interpretation is used to devalue human life constantly
>we are not the one getting pregnant
and? society takes decisions for other people all the time. with your retarded logic instead of the law judging criminals it should be the victims doing that because they are the ones suffering the act.

>>83698591
>except you do that all the time
Oh? I didn't realize you spoke for me.
>you don't have to openly say it when your actions do it for yourself
Shit, are we friends? I didn't realize you knew me. Yeah, I actually just straight up eat unborn babies. I keep that on the DL though.
>only that your interpretation is used to devalue human life constantly
Except that isn't the purpose of science at all, kiddo.
>with your retarded logic instead of the law judging criminals it should be the victims doing that because they are the ones suffering the act.
LOL you want to make what women choose to do with their own fetus, punishable by law? Why don't you regulate your cock then? Or the semen inside of your urethra? Get it at the source, let's make it illegal to masturbate.
>society takes decisions for other people all the time
We don't make decisions for people bodies and their reproductive parts, no.

How you don't see that concept as an invasion of privacy and personal freedoms really is the thing that worries me.

>>83694778
faith is dumb and illogical and if you believe based on faith rather than evidence and reasoning you are bad and should feel bad

Also, requiring belief based on faith means rational people won't believe in God, which means more people go to hell, which is incompatible with God's omnibenevolence

>>83698591
>with your retarded logic instead of the law judging criminals it should be the victims doing that because they are the ones suffering the act.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.

>>83698520
I'm still waiting faggot >>83698554

Well?