Generally speaking, who tends win more debates on /his/ about theism, theists or atheists? Has the internet really vindicated theism or is new atheism still a movement to be a part of? https://strawpoll.com/QrgewKmvQyp
Most atheists on here have no grasp of informal or formal logic.
>>18517257Belief is irrelevant to what is objectively true
>>18517257There are few "debates" going on here in general, but I'll have to say it probably averages out in slight atheist favour because of all the KJV fags, Muslims and the enjoyhellfag. >Has the internet really vindicated theismOutside of 4chan? I think it has. During the 2010s atheists would commonly dunk on theists with how burden of proof works. Today, half the time I see BoP mentioned it's someone explaining to an atheist that "positive" and "negative" claims aren't really a thing in this regard. A weird inaccuracy spread by New Atheists so widely that articles had to be published about how this isn't really a thing in logic and how all claims actually have a burden except some conventionally set exceptions.>is new atheism still a movement to be a part of?No, the impotence of that movement was part of the vindication discussed above. The way Sam Harris failed to produce anything resembling his "Moral Landscape" vision, the way Dawkins was exposed as a philosophical-theological midwit, the way thousands of people tried to repeat Hitchens' arguments and realized they only worked due to his outsanding rhetorical skill... The movement fragmented into dozens of sub-groups real quick. Something they used to mock Christians for. And it's not like Jordan Peterson, who challenged New Atheists, is doing great today. But his pushback against this naive atheism is something they (especially Harris) didn't really have an answer for. Despite the fact that Peterson wasn't even a commited theist then.I think this is part of the reason theism and spirituality is growing among Gen Zs. They see that the millenial protests against religion didn't really lead anywhere and that it can't face objections any better than an average priest can face Dawkins' criticism.
>>18517257>>18517266Most atheist here are bad so bad faith and so bad at argumentation. That I would consider taking them as represetation of atheism.Although , I don't exactly remenber how the theist argue , it seems less like they argue and more like they just claim.So my anser is null , because no one can win arguments that never start.
>>18517257No one "wins" debates on /his/, so I'm rejecting your premise. It's just shitposting and shit flinging retards.
>>18517257Agnostic Theist/Agnostic Atheist prove that you can choose to believe, even without sufficient evidence and that atheists simply choose to not believe because they enjoy their immoral lifestyles more than the prospect of everlasting life and bliss. Atheists hide behind intellectual slop as a defense but it's all bullshit, it's a heart issue, not a knowledge issue.
>>18517257If you think the side who has to argue for fairytales can win debates, there's already no hope left for you.
Bruh if evolution is true then how did our vital organs form? You need ALL of them to live and you guys say that it just happened randomly over the course of billions of years. A monkey randomly typing stuff on a keyboard would only result in random garbage.
>>18517569They developed from the more primitive organs present in more primitive creatures who did not (exactly) need them for their current purpose.
>>18517257There is no proof or evidence that a God exists
>>18517257Nice, very disingenuous.
>>18517284Nothing you said refutes atheism or wins any debates. Atheistic refutations of theistic thinking remain unassailable.
>>18517284The problem with this post is this>I think this is part of the reason theism and spirituality is growing among Gen Zs.isn't actually happening. Decline in religiosity has slowed but has not reversed. Gen Z in particular is basically the least religious generation we can measure.>>18517299A diagram that doesn't understand the terms it uses is not proof of anything. You will not find someone in real life who identifies as an "agnostic atheist" who will claim they are choosing to not believe in a God.
>>18517818You definitely "lose" a debate when you can barely get the basics of your own argumentation right, such as the burden of proof. Whether theism or atheism as general positions finally got debunked or not wasn't the question.>>18517830>> theism and spirituality>religiosityNot to be a pain in the ass but those are not the same thing. There is belief in a higher power and there is subscribing to an organized religion and attending services. Both are spirituality and in many cases theism, but only latter is religiosity.
>>18517861>You definitely "lose" a debate when you can barely get the basics of your own argumentation right, such as the burden of proof. Whether theism or atheism as general positions finally got debunked or not wasn't the question.The funny thing is that theism got one-shot by the nu-atheist epistemology too. Modern theists completely internalised the nu-atheist epistemic standard which says that you can't be reasonable in making a claim unless you have straight up completely indubitably proven it to be true. Meaning that induction can be thrown out of the window when it comes to making claims. All of this is ridiculous of course, but for some reason it stuck.It's also the reason why presup became so popular in online debates.
>>18517861>There is belief in a higher power and there is subscribing to an organized religion and attending services.I agree but both of these things are down for Gen Z.
>>18517796Extremely ingenuous, I'd say
>>18517266This is blatantly untrue btw
>>18517257Atheists generally win every debate whether here on /his/ or just in general.There is a reason why basically the 1 thing that all philosophers agree on is that there is no God.
>>18517266I agree with this
>>18518014I have literally never seen an atheist win a debate on here, not once. You are all retarded monkeys eating crayons and crapping your pants, and then you shout “I win!”
>>18517282this, as well as the debate outcome
>>18518049That’s crazy. Anyway, evidence of God?
theists win when it comes to atheism's failure in the modern world, the rise of nihilism, degeneracy, trannies et cetera..atheists win when they get back to the basics "where's the proof"Nietzsche concluded we would overcome atheist nihilism, but clearly this has not panned out. Clearly humans need to be a little superstitious or they start to death spiral. Maybe not God, but certainly something. Maybe just recognizing the value of conscious life, realizing yourself in the past and the future is little different from other conscious beings, since particles are constantly in flux in your brain, changing you second by second. This might be the basis of a new "übermensch religion", a new age religion with more substance and less substances than the hippies with their weed, LSD and peyote.Imagine hippies, but wholesome like a 1950s family. Boomers who realize actually the greatest generation had a point having grown up in the depression and getting PTSD in the war. It is ok to be prosperous and free, just don't turn into a fucking spoiled judgmental self-absorbed brat.
>>18518299Nigga, conceding that religion is just a psychological mechanism is humans isn’t a victory for theists.
>>18518306Atheists are just as irrational though, just in different ways.
>>18518369I literally can't stop thinking about trannies
>>18517257This is anecdotal and for many who evaluate these things subjective as well so it isn't worth much. Everyone can see that the poll results are just going to reflect the general demographic here because hurr my side always right! It's tribal mentality. However as a theist I have to say that the christcucks on this website give us a very bad image. I have not seen one win an argument against an atheist. It's not that they are particularly stupid or anything like that, they are simply unfortunate to have to defend nonsense. Take for example the recent physicalist threads where they were utterly demolished. This resulted in them just running away and never showing their face ever again. Yeah that's not strictly related to debates about theism but it shows the pattern I have observed on here. I mean the best they've got is cum genius lmao so what else is there to say. Actually Catholics in general seem to be the better ones amongst them. Protestants are larping morons who confuse their politics for their religious positions and they are hard core bible thumpers who will deny the obvious fact that the Earth is ancient because it goes against their fairy tales. Anyway theists lose hard because of our demographic representation on here. It's not even close unfortunately
>>18518049>I have literally never seen an atheist win a debate on hereThis is a blatant lie. Atheists win every argument, whether philosophical or scientific.
>atheist: i don't believe in gods>theist: i can't provide proof but i saw a tranny/homo/something i didn't like on the internet and thus atheism has failed modern civilization, we mvst retvrnHere's 99% of all religious debates on this board summed up
>>18518369Transgenderism is inherently a gnostic form of thought, that your true self is being oppressed by physical reality and entirely depends on metaphysical mumbojumbo of whatever it means to “spirituality” be a woman. All of this falls apart under the hard scrutiny of materialist biology.
>>18518400For as long as you insist trannies are real women we will raise it as an example of your irrationality and proof you are actually disingenuous r*dditors.
Theism and atheism are not belief systems. Personal belief has nothing to do with it.They are formal philosophical positions, contrasted with agnosticism. Agnostic means without knowledge, theists and atheists claim they *know* God does or does not exist and can prove it.In debate, a God believing person can actually argue for the atheist case. This kind of thing, arguing in good faith for a position you actually disagree with is a common exercise.
Likewise, there is strong and weak agnosticism.Strong agnostics say it's impossible to know God is real and nobody does, while weak agnostics concede that might be possible to know but that they personally do not.
>>18517257>win more debatesThey both talk past each other in full bad faith, so there's no actual debate happening ever.
>>18517282Belief is how we share our understanding of what is objectively true.
>>18518532>I believe something, therefore it must be true.>I disbelieve something, therefore it must be false.I don't believe your claim.
>>18518426It proves the motivations of atheists and explains their rhetoric. It disproves the predictions of Nietzsche. Just because, alone, it is not a full and complete explanation does not mean it isn't relevant to the discussion.>>18518494Then why are transfolx so drawn to atheism? Why do atheists doggedly defend them even here on 4chan? They could easily say "transwomen are not real women" and force me to look for another example of atheist irrationality, yet apparently they take such a huge issue with this it supersedes the debate.
>>18517284>The movement fragmented into dozens of sub-groupsYou mean to say that a mental framework designed to dismantle mental frameworks actually degenerated itself? Amazing. Who could have ever seen this coming?
>>18518425By definition, an atheist can not "win" an argument. They are a privation of argumentation. All they can do is lose arguments. They have redefined losing as winning, and everything they undo, they see as a victory.
>>18518536>It proves the motivations of atheists and explains their rhetoric. It disproves the predictions of Nietzsche. Just because, alone, it is not a full and complete explanation does not mean it isn't relevant to the discussion.It doesn't prove anything. Atheists don't believe in gods because they don't see any compelling reasons to, theists can't attack that position so they attack irrelevant shit instead.
>>18518536Why are transphobes so drawn to religion? When you answer that, you'll see why trans people are drawn to atheism.
>>18518561This is extreme cope.
>>18518563Define "gods".
>>18518566You're just asserting nomenclature. You observed my behavior, and you defined it. I reject your definition.
>>18518568The plural of god, typically meant as a supernatural entity that has some authority or power over humans and the world and should as such be worshiped by its followers.
>>18518573>assJesus found a young donkey and sat on it
>>18518494There's no metaphysical aspect to it. Trans people just have differently wired brains so there's nothing incompatible about that with 'materialist biology' unless you think brains are beyond biology.
>>18518563>seeOpen your eyes.>compellingChoose to see>reasonWhat you see (like what you hear) is the "soundness" of the argument, not the reason. The reason is only the validity of the argument.
>>18518564>transphobesI suppose an underage girl would be afraid if a grown man in women's clothing waltzed into the women's bathroom with her.Is that the right answer? Or were you implying I am a "transphobe" because I do not believe transwomen are real women? I assure you, my beliefs are based on the facts not emotional appeals.
>>18518604What point do you think you're making?
>>18518582>The plural of godI have said you are gods in the great assembly.Love the lord, YOUR, "supernatural entity that has some authority or power over humans and the world and should as such be worshiped by its followers", with all your heart, and soul, and strength. And lobe your neighbor as yourself. All the law, and everything prophessed, hang on these two commands.
>>18518609>Is that the right answer?So why are transphobes drawn to religion?
>>18518616I'm not making the point, but you are experiencing the point when you open your eyes, and see.
>>18518624Transphobes aren't real.
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
>>18518592Trans people have an evil spirit in them.
>>18518617No.>>18518627>world exists therefore my specific brand of religion is trueLike I said, no compelling reason to believe it.
>>18518628What are you, then, if not real? A bot?
>>18518563>attackTheists choose not to attack, because they are builders. I reject this verb, and the intention of atheists to dismantle mental frameworks. Atheism and anarchy are privations of order.
>>18518635>NoGood luck. You're going to need it.
>>18518641>i choose not to attack>concludes his post with an attack on atheismfunny guy over here
>>18518564>Why are transphobes so drawn to religion? When you answer that, you'll see why trans people are drawn to atheism.I'm pretty sure that the average theist isn't a rabid "transphobe", their position would probably be something like "I don't hate you but I won't tolerate you either" or "I'll pray for you to stop being a fag".
>>18518536>Why do atheists doggedly defend them even here on 4chan?Literally no one on 4chan defends trannies. At most tranny acceptance is just not being socially retarded the same way you wouldn’t greet a fat woman by saying “Hello, neck fat.”>They could easily say "transwomen are not real women" and force me to look for another example of atheist irrationality, yet apparently they take such a huge issue with this it supersedes the debate.I’m literally doing that. Trannies aren’t women. Now when claiming they aren’t women, do you refer to atheistic, material taxonomy like sexual dimorphism or do you cite the Bible?
>>18518649>putting on a sweater when it's cold is an attack on the privation of coldness.I mean, if you want to define it that way, I can't stop you, but that's not how I define it.Like I said. Good luck. Hubris leads to nemesis.
>>18518657You are obviously attacking it by conflating it with something that's meant to be undesirable. That's literally the point I made in my first post, theists can't contend with the position of "I'm an atheist because I don't see a compelling reason to believe in gods" so they have to attack atheism by saying "if we don't believe in gods then these things that I don't like happen."
>>18518650The question wasn't whether the 'average theist' is a 'rabid transphobe', but why transphobes tend to be drawn to religion. The correlation between religion and transphobia is well-known. See https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6830999/
>>18517887Completely agreed. Modernism put theists in a chokehold and New Atheists tried to take the credit.>>18517903Adults under 30 are less likely than older adults to believe in “God as described in the Bible,” but more likely to believe in “some other higher power or spiritual force.”>https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spiritual-beliefs/You're right that if we look for a single number that says "Gen Zs are experiencing a faith boom", we will not find it. The numbers are very mixed, but the fact that they're letting go of religion without letting go of spirituality, which was not necessarily the case for millenials.
>>18518671>If you disagree with me, you're a transphobe!>There is a correlation between transphobes, and people who disagree with me!
>>18518723Can you actually answer the question? Why are transphobes drawn to religion?>>18518717That data disagrees with you, actually. The age group with the highest non-believers in any higher force or spiritual power is the 18-29 group. Notice that as the age group increases, belief in biblical god increases, whereas BOTH belief in spiritual powers and disbelief in spiritual powers decrease.
>>18518754>belief in spiritual powers*belief in non-biblical spiritual powers
>>18518635>compelling reasonI'm glad to see that you are looking for both compulsion and reason, and not just reason.
>>18518790What does compulsion have to do with a compelling argument?
>>18518796What compels you?
>>18518668Demolition serves a purpose, but I don't go around saying that demolition is more important than building. The goal is to build, not tear down.
>>18518754>The age group with the highest non-believers in any higher force or spiritual power is the 18-29 group.Show me, I'm not seeing that in the data.
>>18518801Bad weather compels me to go inside, the government compels me to pay taxes. Be more specific.>>18518806To build what?
>>18518818It's the third image in the article you linkedhttps://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/12/PR_2023.12.07_spirituality_2-03.png
>>18518830Ah I guess you're right
>>18517257>who tends win more debates on /hisNo one wins these debates. We're all losers.
>>18518819>To build what?A mental framework of good judgment that is guided by truth and life.
>>18518957What do you mean by good judgment that is guided by truth and life?
>>18518819What do you mean by bad weather?
>>18517257The internet cannot vindicate theism. Theists are just people who were indoctrinated in childhood and the internet cannot change this. First you get indoctrinated when you are a little kid and then you make mental gymnastics for the rest of your life. That's what religion is all about. And it is not justifiable by reason. Religious belief is a psychological illness. And there was never any "new Atheism". Atheism is just Atheism.
>>18518632Spirits don't exist.
>>18519139In fact, the internet has only furthered the atheism.
>>18519166Absolutely! For example in the Arab world, Atheism used to be unthinkable. Now Arabic YouTube is full of Atheists and and also "refutations of Atheism".
>>18519163Then what do people mean when they say that they have team spirit?
>>18517569>You need ALL of them to liveNo.
>>18518299>degeneracyDoesn't exist.
>>18517257What about Gnostic Theists and Gnostic Atheists?
>>18517282Define "objectivity"
>>18519512BE. AGGRESSIVE!BEBEAGGRESSIVE!
>>18519075Extreme or unpleasant weather like snowstorms, pouring rain and hail.
>>18517257Theists rape their children so they can go to a cafeteria when then die.
>>18517299Do you really think that someone cynically applying Pascal's wager and choosing to believe will actually get heaven as a reward. This reduces God to a system of rules and behaviours that you should follow to get a reward in the end.
>>18518642>If you don't believe in heckin based and trade Yahwe you're gonna burn in magic lava forever
>>18520653Hubris leads to nemesis.
>>18518967Judgments that are truly pleasing to life, such as eliminating agents of deception and death.
>>18519830So spirits do exist.
>>18521483>agents of deception and death.Like religious people
>>18521490Most religious people are not agents of deception and death.
>>18521483What deception?>>18521509Do you think most atheists are?
>>18517257>Has the internet really vindicated theismI genuinely apologize for mocking reddit fedora atheists. The internet is fucking unusable with meme LARPing christfag zoomers from third world countries now. Bring them back, please.
>>18517257>Has the internet really vindicated theism or is new atheism still a movement to be a part of?This is a false dichotomy. New atheism ended 15 years ago, but atheism has continued and continues to increase faster than any religion. It is not the case that with the end of new atheism, atheism in general ended. Atheism has only gotten stronger since new atheism ended. Modern atheists are far stronger debaters than the new atheists were.
>>18517257>still only 23 votesThis board really is only a handful of people, isn't it?
>>18522642I’ve always said that new atheism or any other kind of ”active atheism” is a self-obsoleting movement, that also has a rather small sweet spot for its existence in the first place.If you live in a society where religion is strongly enforced, it won’t have room to live, and if you live in a society where religion doesn’t intrude in your daily life, what’s the point in anti-religious debate?It was an understandable position in the Bush-era America, but as the society secularized even more, there’s very little that would make it interesting to people anymore (and DESU it was relatively niche even in its peak years). If there is an ”endgame” for atheism, it’s not masses gearing up for debate against religions, it’s that masses don’t really even think about religion anymore.
>>18522642No, it's not a false dichotomy. New Atheism either survived or fell. Whether atheism as a whole survived wasn't the question.
>>18522879Then I guess it didn't fall. The point of new atheism was to increase the rate of atheism, which happened and continues to happen.
>>18522884"A 2023 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 4% of Americans in the United States self-identified as atheists.This is an increase from 3.1% of Americans in 2014."
>>18522884There were many more points, most of which failed to materialize (see >>18517284). Increasing the rate of atheism is a mixed one because while the rate does factually increase, the increase in USA is almost at the margin of statistical error: +1 percent point 2007-2014, +1 more in 2014-2023. If I were to pick an example of a successful movement, this wouldn't be it...
"New Atheism" was never much of a unified thing apart from atheism in itself, so you can't say really say that it fell or didn't fall. Theists just really like having the label around so they can assert that some variety of atheism fell, died, is in terminal decline, etc. and jump for joy on its imaginary corpse. (Meanwhile actual atheism has only been increasing.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism>Dawkins writes in the introduction to the 10th anniversary edition of the book: "I don't object to the horseman label, by the way. I'm less keen on 'new atheist': it isn't clear to me how we differ from old atheists.">Thomas Zenk likewise argues that New Atheism is an umbrella term rooted in public discourse and cautions against using it uncritically as an analytical category; he also notes that the label does not necessarily correspond to the self-identification of those to whom it is applied>In the context of international politics, the principles of New Atheism establish no particular stance in and of themselves. P. Z. Myers stated that New Atheism's key proponents are "a madly disorganized mob, united only by [their] dislike of the god-thing".>Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry, wrote that the only "new" thing about New Atheism was the wider publication of atheist material by big-name publishers, books that appeared on bestseller lists and were read by millions.
>>18522890>>18522893about 30% of the US are religiously unaffiliated about about two thirds of that group (so 20% of the overall population) claim it's because they don't believe in God>When asked directly why they are not religious, two-thirds of “nones” say they question a lot of religious teachings or don’t believe in God.https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/Also, theism and spiritualism isn't growing among gen Z. Gen Z is the most atheistic generation ever. About one-half of Gen Z identity as atheist or agnostichttps://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/generation-z-future-of-faith/I think a lot of the theists are older people while the younger are more atheistic.Also, around the world, Christianity is the fastest dying religion. There are about 6 apostates for every convert overallhttps://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/03/26/around-the-world-many-people-are-leaving-their-childhood-religions/
>>18522910>religiously unaffiliatedThat's not the goalpost you set. In >>18522884 you specifically write " increase the rate of atheism". Religiously unaffiliated people are not overwhelmingly atheists, see picrel.>spiritualism isn't growing among gen ZSpiritualism alone is. The source you provide doesn't address it, it focuses on Christian institutions for the most part.>6 apostates for every convert overallThat is not "overall", that is the net score for the US. Worldwide, Christianity will be the number one religion for a while.
>>18518653>Literally no one on 4chan defends trannies.Are you aware that there is a board dedicated to all sorts of faggotry and sodomy?
