All you would have to do is prove God is real to stop it, but you can't.All God would have to do is reveal himself, but he won't, because he doesn't exist.Enjoy Atheism.Forever.
>>18449068Atheism is just as much of a leap of faith as theism in that asserting God(s) doesn't exist is just as unfalsifiable as asserting otherwise. Agnosticism is the only logical perspective but most can't handle that kind of ambiguity.
>>18449068Enjoy hell
>>18449072Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist. Atheism is the lack of belief of God until it is proven.
>>18449085Atheism DOES assert that God doesn't exist. Entertaining the possibility God might exist is Agnosticism.
>>18449092What is Atheism?Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
It's possible to believe something in the sense of viewing at as overwhelmingly more likely than alternatives or as a preferred default assumption in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary (e.g. for simplicity, Occam's razor) without claiming certainty about it. In fact absolute certainty isn't a requirement for most beliefs. E.g. Do I believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow? Definitely. So far it always has and there's no reason I'm aware of to expect it will change any time soon. But should I claim absolute certainty that it will? No. It's still conceivable that it won't for some extremely obscure reason. Maybe the matrix will glitch and the sun will go out for a day. I don't have a formal proof that such a thing couldn't happen, and even if I thought I did, I could be mistaken. But does that mean I should call myself an agnostic about whether the sun will rise again tomorrow? No, that would be silly.The idea that self-professed atheists must claim absolute certainty about their belief or they should abandon it for the thoroughly vague and middling position they call agnosticism is imo a tactic by theists trying to control debate and erase their opponents on the level of language instead of arguing honestly. And it doesn't help that the concept of god is itself very vague so that, while it has a prominent archetype in the Abrahamic religions, theists are able to shift away from that motte to various increasingly abstract deistic or pantheistic notions of God that are hardly distinguishable from any notion of atheism except in the word-choice.
>>18449129>theists are able to shift away from that motte*bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacyI'm afraid I will never remember the difference without having to double check each time.
>>18449135There should be a word for the inverse of this fallacy where, instead of retreating from your own bailey to your motte, you try to force your opponent out into a bailey that they never claimed, because theists do both. They redefine their own position to be as minimal and defensible as needed (abstract deism and pantheism) while insisting on redefining their opponents' position to be as hard to defend as possible (atheists must think they have a formal logical proof of God's nonexistence, taking "God" in the broadest sense allowable, that they couldn't be mistaken about.)
>>18449110Without a definite rejection of all divinity existing, what you call "atheism" is really agnosticism
>>18449192
>>18449194i have always hated this, because they are hair-splitting distinctions."I think god doesn't exit but I don't know if I think that" nigga you're agnostic you're not super duper gnosto-theist.
>>18449201It isn't "I don't know if I think that." It's I think that but I don't know it. If theists applied the same rule to their own group, nearly everyone who isn't visibly psychotic would have to call themselves an agnostic. "Oh, you have faith in God but you aren't continually aware and certain of his supposed existence every moment like a schizo hearing voices might be? Sorry, you're actually an agnostic and the god of your religion will send you to hell for unbelief."
The Bible proves God exists and wants us to read it. https://truthischrist.com/seven/https://truthischrist.com/elton-anomaly-823543/https://truthischrist.com/70x7-kjb-code-jesus-is-the-son-of-god/https://truthischrist.com/golden-sequence-kjv/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
>>18449236>picrel>Jews avoid the black plague because Leviticus 15 tells them to wash themselves when they're sick>It wasn't until late in the eighteen hundreds that surgeons and physicians learned to wash their handsThis is an argument for Judaism, not for Christianity. The goyim might've gotten on board with washing faster if their holy text didn't have the son of God himself healing sick people by touching them left and right and telling the Jews off for criticizing him for not washing his hands.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207%3A1-23&version=NRSVUE
>>18449068I dunno, I hope hubris kills us all.
>>18449072> asserting God(s) doesn't exist is just as unfalsifiable I got proof
>>18449298Arguably disproves classical theism, doesn't disprove Momus, the minor Greek god of satire, or the indifferent clock-maker god of the deists.
>>18449312>"gods" are a natural kind
>>18449072You're too retarded to have a philosophical conversation. You think that agnostic is a completely separate category, between theist and atheist.You're literally parroting your cult talking points.
>>18449201You're retarded. Knowledge is a sub-category of belief. You can believe something without having knowledge of it.You can believe in god, without meeting the requirements for knowledge or think that knowledge of god is even possible.And that's different from someone who believes in god and knows that god is real.
>>18449312>doesn't disprove Momus, the minor Greek god of satireYou'd use a different argument for that, not that you believe in Momus.>or the indifferent clock-maker god of the deistsEasier to disprove than the others. There's no evidence and no reason to believe it. They're just unwilling to not fit in with the others around them. "Oh no, I totally believe in god. We just know nothing about god, and all he did was start the universe and then did nothing else." Empty concept.
Every religionfag is just coping with death
>>18449474Death doesn't actually exist, you just cycle through lives.
>>18449485Cope
>>18449485>You don't die bro you just forget everything including your experiences and memories and loved ones!>Thats totally not dying bro!
>>18449474It is for a the majority of people I think. If you were to ask someone the question "Would you still worship God if he was real but heaven wasn't" you would mostly get coping retards trying to dodge the question entirely but you do sometimes get genuine responses from religious people, either "yes I would still gladly worship God even without reward" and "no I wouldn't". Judaism leaves Sheol/"The world beyond" entirely ambiguous for this very reason. They understand that believing in God purely for the promise of an afterlife is a terrible and selfish reason to be religious, and many Eastern religious philosophies and even some more esoteric schools of Christian Theology also teach or at the very least consider universal annihilationism
>>18449361It IS a completely separate outlook, yes
>>18450083NTA but agnosticism is a form of atheism, it's not really a middle ground, a true middle ground would be apatheism
>>18449068>>18449072>>18449085Both atheism and agnosticism are naturalist positions thus not creationist positions. There are only 2 available ontological primitives for how the universe/existence arrived (naturalism or creationism), TRUE DICHOTOMY NO POSSIBLE 3RD POSITION - disjunctive syllogismBoth atheism and agnosticism are positions of non-positions, the difference is agnostics say they dont have enough information to make the callBoth positions are still in contradiction with conservation of mass, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. The law of entropy proves matter and energy had a starting point, and isn't infiniteif atheism were true P then it would be supported by natural laws and natural science Q. not Supported Q atheism not true P. If P then Q not Q therefore not P. -modus tollensThe existence of information is not matter nor energy. All information is traced back to an intelligent source>God is empirically and scientifically proven
