>>18519415
Oh yeah, well then how do you explain white people? Checkmate.

>>18519415
There is, and his name is Donald J. Trump.

File: jpeg.jpg (163 KB, 1500x1500)

163 KB JPG

>>18519415
Unfortunately, this only works if you deny all metaphysics. Which outwardly you might, but inwardly I know you do not.
You have a point that is perhaps not possible for humans to understand God. But that's the most you could be right about.

>>18519415
Enjoy Tartarus

>>18519428
The whole world is just physics, including our brains.

>>18519428
I don't think you know what metaphysics is, if you think people deny it. People just deny your understanding of it.
Part of metaphysics is existence, time, etc. No one's denying those things. They deny your retarded understanding of it. Which is based on Aquinas' understanding of Aristotle's metaphysical understanding of reality, combined with the Neoplatonic metaphysical understanding of reality.
We've advanced our understanding of what is and what isn't, in the 2000 years since then.
I've found that theists don't understand what metaphysics is, and will generally claim that it's something more like "divine physics" than what metaphysics actually is.
To deny all metaphysics, means you would be denying existence, which is utter nonsense. No one does that outwardly or inwardly.
People could understand god, because people created god. No gods have ever done anything, because they never existed. A complete understanding of god will come from human psychology and philosophy, and nowhere else.
>>18519956
Physics is just the label we give to describe natural processes. Everything is just natural processes. There's more to everything, than what we currently understand about reality.

File: 1776478587575105.png (774 KB, 1473x1061)

774 KB PNG

>I believe in God, after all, why wouldn't I believe in myself?

>>18519415
>there are no gods.
Proof?

>>18519972
>I don't think you know what metaphysics is, if you think people deny it.
>Physics is just the label we give to describe natural processes. Everything is just natural processes.
Why are the spambots on this board trying to create the impression that every atheist is a 70 IQ imbecile?

>>18519415
Enjoy the Duat, fag

File: atheist arguments.jpg (190 KB, 828x875)

190 KB JPG

>>18519415
Reminder that atheists believe they know it better how these "gods" are supposed to look like than the very people who actually practise their religion.
And call it a "lack of belief"

>>18519415
>There is no God
>There are no gods
These are two very different claims.

>People have psychological reasons to make up gods
People have psychological reasons to deny them too. Atheists aren't winning over base instincts, they are giving in.

>There's no evidence for any gods.
There are plenty of reports. What you're probably trying to say is there is no material evidence for gods. Which you don't actually know because you never set criteria for what counts as evidence for God or gods. You're really just saying "I've never seen what I can't recognize."

>Religions contradict each other
Yes, different institutions have different narratives. Luckily for you, nobody asked you to reconcile different religions. The question at hand are gods or God, not the institutions that aim to reach them.

Now because it's not 2010 anymore, the average atheist should already be aware that not only "positive" claims have a burdnen. All of them do. OP, how are you expecting to fill your burden besides
>suspecting motivations
>"I never seen what I can't recognize"
>institutions disagree
?

>>18519415
God is the extension of hierarchy. Can't have that and egalité.

>>18520051
It's you who's the 70IQ imbecile. "Metaphysics" isn't a separate class of causal relations that goes beyond regular old physics. The "meta" literally refers to a certain part of Aristotle's writings being physically placed on a shelf "beyond" (next to) his writings on physics.
If someone says "physics is all there is", he's making the ontological (metaphysical) claim that there is nothing beyond physics. None of that is contradictory.
Btw the guy you replied to perfectly preempted this by saying that you retards don't know what metaphysics is.

File: brainlet15.jpg (22 KB, 460x455)

22 KB JPG

>>18520121
>"Metaphysics" isn't a separate class of causal relations that goes beyond regular old physics.
No, really. This has to be some kind of a psyop. It makes no sense that every single atheist on this board is borderline schizophrenic and profoundly retarded.

>>18520121
>If someone says "physics is all there is", he's making the ontological (metaphysical) claim that there is nothing beyond physics. None of that is contradictory.
Sure, that's a vacuous metaphysical stance that boils down to:
>it just heckin' is this way, ok? b-b-b-because it just is
Roughly equivalent to a jungle nigger's physics.

>>18520134
The godcel's mistaken conviction that "metaphysics" means "supernatural shit" could be corrected if the godcel picked up any basic introductory book on philosophy. Sadly, the godcel isn't very good at reading and prefers to watch youtube videos made by some guy who calls himself Basedcrusaderzoomer2001.

>>18520148
>The godcel's mistaken conviction that "metaphysics" means "supernatural shit"
You're suffering from literal schizophrenia.

>>18520069
Reminder that christians don't actually read their book and will regularly claim things that completely contradict it like saying jesus came to bring peace when he clearly said he came not to bring peace but a sword.

>>18520149
Go calm yourself down by watching the latest Basedcrusaderzoomer2001 video, anon-kun.

>>18520143
>that's a vacuous metaphysical stance that boils down to:
>>it just heckin' is this way, ok? b-b-b-because it just is
/thread
The absolute retard doesn't know the difference between making metaphysical claims and having a metaphysics framework to support them. His take boils down to the idea that metaphysics doesn't necessarily go beyond physics because his metaphysics is devoid of any rational content.

>>18520154
Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to keep lashing out at hallucinated characters. I don't believe in God. I never claimed metaphysics has to be about "supernatural". I'm millennial. Now go take your meds as prescribed.

>>18520075
No, both statements are equivalent to saying there are 0 gods.

>Atheists aren't winning over base instincts, they are giving in.
Correct, their beliefs actually match their physical sensations instead of making up grand lies to compensate for the shortcomings of their senses.

>Which you don't actually know because you never set criteria for what counts as evidence for God or gods.
Physical evidence that isn't clearly forged like stained blankets and crying statues.

>different institutions have different narratives
Not just different, contradictory and not just different institutions, the canon in every religion has contradictions which is why different sects and institutions can even pop up in the first place.

>>18520157
Notice how you are lying retard who is just projecting since you aren't actually a doctor who is qualified to make the diagnoses you are attempting to make and even if you were, you would be violating all of your oaths by doing it anonymously to someone who you have never even met let alone inspected in a medical setting in a way that you can draw a medical conclusion.

>>18520157
>I never claimed metaphysics has to be about "supernatural".
Then why did you sperg out when he guy said this:
>I don't think you know what metaphysics is, if you think people deny it.
>Physics is just the label we give to describe natural processes. Everything is just natural processes.
?
Those are perfectly reasonable claims.

>>18520163
>you are lying
You're in full-blown psychosis mode and I also note your concession of these posts:

>>18520143
>>18520155

>>18520169
No, you're in full blown, "I was embarrassed in debate, so I will larp as a medical professional and devolve into non-sequitur name calling" mode

woke retard tryna stand out. sad.

>>18520176
I accept your repeated concession of:

>>18520143
>>18520155

You may now continue lashing out schizophrenically against fictional characters.

>>18520180
I accept that you have been embarrassed so your emotions are compelling you to be incredibly personally confrontational and fallacious to try to cover up your shame.

>>18520180
Nta, I accept your concession of the fact that these:
>I don't think you know what metaphysics is, if you think people deny it.
>Physics is just the label we give to describe natural processes. Everything is just natural processes.
don't contradict each other. At least you learned something today!

>>18520134
The atheists on this board win almost every argument, moldovan schizo. You're also profoundly unintelligent.

Imagine being so fucking dumb you don't grasp that if something is just a logical derivative of physics, then it falls under physics. Metaphysics deals with questions physics doesn't answer, like what basic features of reality underlie a sensible physical framework and what must be true for Physics to even make sense as a pursuit.

>>18520185
I accept your repeated concession of:

>>18520143
>>18520155

You may now continue lashing out schizophrenically against fictional characters. Also notice how your lack of a PFC forces you to reply to this, even though I am no longer reading your psychotic fits.

>>18520196
>lalala I'm not listening
Kek the absolute state of Mexican teenagers.

>>18520194
>if something is just a logical derivative of physics, then it falls under physics. Metaphysics deals with questions physics doesn't answer
that doesn't exist, chud. everything is nature and nature is just a label we give to physical stuff

>>18520158
>No, both statements are equivalent to saying there are 0 gods.
No, there being no God doesn't mean there are 0 gods.

>[Atheists'] beliefs actually match their physical sensations
What does God's existence physically feel like? You are once again addressing datapoints that you have no way of recognizing.

>>probably trying to say... material evidence
>>you never set criteria for what counts as evidence for God or gods.
>Physical
So... material?
>that isn't clearly forged like stained blankets and crying statues.
Great! We have moved on from "material evidence" to the much more specific "real material evidence".
See, we can endlessly roam around the concept of what "material evidence" means. Physical, real, repeatable, logical, conclusive, verifiable... the list is long. And when we've fully gone through it, some of us will have a much clearer idea of what "material evidence" in general means. But chances are good nobody will still be able to set a single criterion for what counts as evidence for God. As is the case so far.

>>different institutions have different narratives
>Not just different, contradictory
They could be completely inverted for all I care, it makes no difference to the question at hand.
>the canon in every religion has contradictions which is why different sects and institutions can even pop up in the first place
Did you write this knowing that you're misleading the reader or do you actually believe the reasons behind sects popping is well represented as "contradictions" in canon?

>>18520196
>the schizo runs the moment he's called out

>>18520155
>The absolute retard doesn't know the difference between making metaphysical claims and having a metaphysics framework to support them.
Why doesn't a collection of metaphysical claims make a metaphysics?

>>18520075
>should already be aware that not only "positive" claims have a burdnen
This is not true and I have no idea where you got this from. The one making the claim does indeed have the burden. You are committing the fallacy of burden shifting.

>>18520194
>logical derivative of physics
No, physics is about what you can directly measure, the indirect derivative logical deductions you have to make based on measurements are what make them meta instead of just physical measurement. Imagine not understanding how prefixes work, wait... you don't have to imagine that, you experience that.

>>18520223
>The one making the claim does indeed have the burden
That's what he said, retard. Denial is a claim.

>>18520226
No, retard, the one saying "there exists X such that..." is the one who has to prove it. The one saying "there does not exist X" does not.
I don't know where you fucking retards got this idea that the burden of proof for positive claims isn't real, but it very much is in philosophy. This has nothing to do with your boogeyman of new atheists, who haven't been relevant for 20 years.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-14 at (...).png (138 KB, 616x537)

138 KB PNG

>physics is about what you can directly measure, the indirect derivative logical deductions you have to make based on measurements are what make them meta
Why is every board overflowing with subhuman IQs?

>>18520223
>The one making the claim does indeed have the burden.
Agreed. >>18519415 is a claim.

File: brainlet3.jpg (79 KB, 585x399)

79 KB JPG

>The one making the claim does indeed have the burden
>The one saying "there does not exist X" does not.

>>18519415
The existence of gods is not observable today nor there is any recent, properly documented evidence. But all ancient historic sources agree that gods exist and they interact with people.

The most logical answer is that there are no gods today but they existed in the past.

>>18520232
The one making the positive claim of the form "there exists" is the one with the burden, not the one "there does not exist".
The fact that I forgot to write "positive" doesn't mean anything. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim of existence, not the one making the claim of non-existence. This is completely standard in philosophy and does not have anything to do with your new atheist boogeyman.
>>18520230
>>18520233
You lose every argument on this board, shit for brains

>>18520236
>The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim
>Doesn't include my claims, though
>This is completely standard in philosophy
Proof?

>>18520236
>The one making the positive claim of the form "there exists" is the one with the burden, not the one "there does not exist".
I see.

There exists no godless universe. Welcome to theism.

>>18520241
>The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
>>18520243
That's positive claim. "there does not exist a unvierse where god does not exist" = eliminate the negations = "there exists a universe where god exists". You now need to prove it.
The fact that you don't know how to to a contraposition is your own failing.

File: Bible Prophecy + confirmi(...).png (169 KB, 1874x822)

169 KB PNG

>>42513232
>no evidence

The Bible is evidence, no one without extremely detailed information of what will happen thousands of years later could have written it.

https://truthischrist.com/seven/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHq06-XWcxo&list=PLFIc5Y7xpsJJq3G4Q8b60ZDacfE8SCRt6&index=35

https://carm.org/is-there-historical-evidence-of-jesus-miracles

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=PCsPy4CY6hI

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBGjBMwQxqo&list=LL&index=2

https://youtu.be/3RIBIHymSX8?si=Z9cfXiVENSbho5gq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdWZ4_EsPw


Isaiah 41:21-24: "Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come here- after, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you."

Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)

>>18520248
>the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies
Right. That would be you when you claim there is no God, not the one who dismisses your unfounded assertion.

>>18520217
>No, there being no God doesn't mean there are 0 gods.
If there is not even a god, then how many are there, if not 0?

>What does God's existence physically feel like?
Depends on the god, the biblical fire god is said to feel like an inner light/fire accompanied by words that create a halo or tongue of fire over the prophet.

>So... material?
Yes an omnipresent god would be material since material is everywhere.

>"real material evidence".
Yes evidence should always be authentic rather than a forgery, the fact that you don't automatically assume that evidence should be authentic speaks volumes to your mindset and why you belief obvious lies that you can't verify with your own senses.

>it makes no difference to the question at hand.
So if it doesn't make any difference whether your idea of god exists or actually doesn't exist, why are you trying to defend it so hard given you don't actually care?

Sects definitely form because of contradictions in canon, primarily for christians it the contradiction where some passages imply peter and his succession will lead the church, others that imply paul was given the privilege, and others that say everyone is equal and there is no leader since all are children in christ, what misleading do you think is occurring?

>>18520251
No, "there is no God" is the denial.

>>18520256
Notice how your severe mental retardation precludes you from understanding a simple sentence.

Also note how your lack of a PFC will force you to reply to me again, even though nothing you write will be read by anyone.

>>18520230
I don't know why come to this board instead of staying over at the sharty and why do you still think sharty posting is a valid counterargument when you don't ever actually add anything by doing it?

>>18520248
The goalpost was "there does not exist". If you now want to propose exceptions to your own rule, we can definitely dive into that, but you're gonna have to consult a LLM because this does not actually logically follow:
>"there does not exist a unvierse where god does not exist" = eliminate the negations = "there exists a universe where god exists"


Anyway, to cut a long exchange short, something being a so-called "positive claim" or a "negative claim" are semantic qualities, not logical qualities. If your understanding of burden changes based on semantics and culturally defined starting points (ie. universe as dependent or independent), you simply don't understand logic as a discipline.

>>18520259
Are you retarded? Do you not know what "denial" mean?

>>18520259
I did read it.

>>18520250
I guess star trek is evidence Q actually literally exists since no one without extremely detailed information about a future filled with iphones and 3d printers could have imagined the star trek universe.

>>18520262
It means theres an odd number of negations statement. It's not culturally defined.

File: verdict.jpg (123 KB, 1024x1044)

123 KB JPG

Do the mindless automatons who insist negative claims carry no burden of proof ever stop to reflect on the reasoning behind the norm they're appealing to? How do you even justify a "burden of proof" in a way that excludes negative claims?

Are these "people" too stupid to grasp the difference between being on the receiving end of an unsubstantiated assertion vs. subjecting others to it? Are they just blindly following a rule whose substance they can't grasp? What goes wrong with such "minds"?

>>18520254
>If there is not even a god, then how many are there, if not 0?
It doesn't say "a god" it says "God".
"There is no Moon" doesn't mean "there is not even one moon".

>>What does God's existence physically feel like?
>Depends on the god, the biblical fire god is said to feel like an inner light/fire accompanied by words that create a halo or tongue of fire over the prophet.
That is how a prophetic experience of God feels like. What does God's existence feel like? His being in the universe at all?

>omnipresent god would be material since material is everywhere
Non sequitur. Is information material? Is gravity? If yes, at that point your definition of material is stretched so far that pretty much anything passes.

>the fact that you don't automatically assume that evidence should be authentic speaks volumes to your mindset
I was mocking you, Anon. I automatically assume all that long laundry list of what "material evidence" is. It's just not what you were asked and not what's preventing us from evaluating evidence.

>>it makes no difference to the question at hand.
>So if it doesn't make any difference whether your idea of god exists or actually doesn't exist,
My "idea" exists for sure. Whether the deity exits as in the idea is not what the greentext was about. You were discussing institutions.

>contradiction where some passages imply peter and his succession will lead the church, others that imply paul was given the privilege
Paul was at no point cited as given the privilege of leading the Church. He was cited as an apostle to the gentiles. The dispute about papacy is not a textual contradiction about Peter's role, his role is fairly clear. The dispute is about how to follow up on that role, something the passages don't actually discuss so they cannot contradict on it. In this case and in most others, "contradictions" have nothing to do with denominational disagreement. You seem to be holding your hypotheses in a needlessly high regard.

>>18520269
Odd number of negations from what starting point? Again, seeing the universe as by default independent or by default dependent is a cultural induction.

>>18520274
>"There is no Moon" doesn't mean "there is not even one moon".
They do mean the same thing. Holy shit you guys are actually fucking retarded.
It just goes to show what I keep saying, theists do not understand the basic meaning of words.

>>18520277
You think when I deny the Moon, I deny all moons? All moons exist only if Moon exists? Lol

>>18520279
You're making a universal quantifier over "moons".

>>18520282
"There is no Moon" isn't universal whatsoever. The capital M means the term refers to a specific case. Can you guess what case that would be? Hint: I'm on Earth.

>>18520273
>Do the mindless automatons who insist negative claims carry no burden of proof ever stop to reflect on the reasoning behind the norm they're appealing to?
they obviously don't

>How do you even justify a "burden of proof" in a way that excludes negative claims?
by implicitly operating under the schizo axiom that things you have no reason to believe in don't exist up until the nanosecond you're given a reason to believe them. if you have no object permanence, no capacity to entertain counterfactuals, no abstract thought at all, then things not existing is the default stance and you can assert it without justification to the applause of other mental cripples

>>18520273
>>18520287
You are both fucking retarded (if you aren't same fagging) and your rage is meaningless in terms of standard philosophy and burden of proof.

>>18520274
>It doesn't say "a god" it says "God".
So God is not a god?

>"There is no Moon" doesn't mean "there is not even one moon".
Then how many are there if there is no Moon?

>What does God's existence feel like?
You are not God, so that is not relevant, the relevant thing is how can you feel god's existence.

>that point your definition of material is stretched so far that pretty much anything passes.
No, it covers anything that is derived directly from material interaction like speed even though you can't touch speed, you can touch an object at two different points and infer its physical speed and the amount of material it displaces in the process of movement.

>My "idea" exists for sure.
Except you don't even care, so you can't be sure.

>Paul was at no point cited as given the privilege of leading the Church
He said that Jesus magically appeared and told him he would be the one responsible for spreading the message.

>The dispute about papacy is not a textual contradiction about Peter's role
Yes it is.
>his role is fairly clear
But its not clear how he passes that role to future generations and different passages present contradictory messages about that passage of jesus's authority over time.

>In this case and in most others, "contradictions" have nothing to do with denominational disagreement.
No, in this case papists think there is a direct succession from peter while others think that all of jesus's followers can lead themselves to god by studying the bible alone due to passages about god being the word.

File: aalewis fedora.jpg (27 KB, 521x588)

27 KB JPG

>there are no gods.

>>18520287
>by implicitly operating under the schizo axiom that things you have no reason to believe in don't exist up until the nanosecond you're given a reason to believe them. if you have no object permanence, no capacity to entertain counterfactuals, no abstract thought at all, then things not existing is the default stance and you can assert it without justification to the applause of other mental cripples
I've had this discussion with a few of them and this unironically seems to be the explanation. They can't tell the difference between "I don't believe in X", "I have no reason to believe in X" and "X doesn't exist". They seem to have no theory of mind, either.

>>18520297
Everything you say are just repeated insults that atheists first throw at you. It is pathetic.

Are theists really so retarded that they don't understand the notion of a burden of proof? Bertrand Russell explained it 80 years ago:
>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

>>18520297
>They seem to have no theory of mind, either.
yep, it takes a bit of that to realize you can't expect other people to entertain every baseless, low-effort claim a retard makes, regardless of whether it affirms speaker's beliefs or denies the listener's

>>18520294
>>It doesn't say "a god" it says "God".
>So God is not a god?
He definitely is. Luckily this was not the goalpost. You seem to have forgotten what we talked about.

>>"There is no Moon" doesn't mean "there is not even one moon".
>Then how many are there if there is no Moon?
See >>18520285

>>What does God's existence feel like?
>You are not God, so that is not relevant, the relevant thing is how can you feel god's existence.
Again you seem to have forgotten what it is we talked about. You said atheists' beliefs match their physical sensations. For this to be true you must know what the sensation of God existing somewhere and God not existing somewhere are like. Yet you don't.

>>material ... anything passes
>[anything] derived directly from material interaction... like speed
QED

>>Paul was at no point cited as given the privilege of leading the Church
>>He was cited as an APOSTLE to the gentiles.
>He said that Jesus magically appeared and told him he would be the one responsible for spreading the message.
So an apostle? QED

>different passages present contradictory messages about that passage of jesus's authority over time
Please cite.

>papists think there is a direct succession from peter while others think that all of jesus's followers can lead themselves
I'm coincidentally not a papist, but this is an extremely poor narration of the disagreement. Papists think the first among equals is defined by Rome. Non-papists think he isn't. The scripture doesn't address this. You made it up because it sounded believable, you outsourced the critical thinking to me and the result is in: your hypothesis is not viable.

______________________

Let me point out that you still have not set criteria from which we'd be justified conclude God. All your statements about evidence are moot.

>>18520313
You do know he's discussing the problem of unfalsifiability, not the burden of proof, right?

>>18520316
Stop talking to yourself, schizo.

>>18520313
>if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
Literally confirming >>18520297
> They can't tell the difference between "I don't believe in X", "I have no reason to believe in X" and "X doesn't exist".
This mongoloid doesn't notice Russell making a different point from his.

>>18520316
>you can't expect other people to entertain every baseless, low-effort claim a retard makes, regardless of whether it affirms speaker's beliefs or denies the listener's
/thread
That's essentially all there is to it and it's amazing how retards still manage to get filtered by it.

>another thread where theists lose every interaction and display the fact that they do not understand the basic meaning of words.
End this shit board

>>18520318
You do realize he's saying that the teapot believers and god believers fail to satisfy the burden of proof, and thus cannot be taken seriously, right?

>>18520323
No, that's not what is happening.
What happened was one retard make the false and retarded claim that the atheist also has the burden prove show there are no gods. This was explained to be incorrect, and then the low IQ theists trolls started seething impotently and raging at the fact that they don't actually understand basic philosophy, then they started talking to themselves (again) because they can't actually win the engagement with the atheists.
It happens every time.

>>18520328
He makes much more elaborate points than that lmao. None of which amount to "your claim's burden is a-ok if it's semantically negative"

>>18520318
>You do know he's discussing the problem of unfalsifiability, not the burden of proof, right?
Regardless, Russell doesn't even go as far as to justify actively denying the hypothetical teapot, he only says he shouldn't be expected to believe it.

>>18520335
And that is completely fine. Saying you aren't convinced of a proposition isn't the same as to claim the opposite of the proposition is true. That's why OP has a burden, but an average atheist doesn't.

>>18520316
>yep, it takes a bit of that to realize you can't expect other people to entertain every baseless, low-effort claim a retard makes, regardless of whether it affirms speaker's beliefs or denies the listener's
Agreed, so why should I take your religion seriously?

>>18520334
>He makes much more elaborate points than that lmao
Do you or do you not admit that he's saying god believers fail to satisfy the burden of proof and thus cannot be taken seriously?

>>18519415
The first pillar is irrelevant, the second pillar is false, and the third pillar is also irrelevant

>>18520339
What's the evidence?

>>18520336
That's what I'm saying. Even if you want to tie Russell's Teapot to the Burden of Proof, it does nothing to help the retard who brought it up to make his case.

>>18520343
The Holly Bibble

>>18520338
I am satisfied with my answered.

>>18520343
The fact you need evidence is the evidence

>>18520337
>Agreed, so why should I take your religion seriously?
i didn't say you should take religion seriously, but i'm glad we're on the same page that actively denying something is a claim like any other

>>18520347
What?

>>18520317
>He definitely is. Luckily this was not the goalpost.
So if there are no gods, there still is a God?

So if there are no moons, there still is a Moon?

>For this to be true you must know what the sensation of God existing somewhere and God not existing somewhere are lik
No I need to know the description of the sensation and the fact I have never had tongues of fire on my head and voices that prophecy the future.

>So an apostle?
No, to be that he would had to have walked with jesus, not had some dream long after jesus died.

>Please cite.
Matthew 16 vs John 1
>The scripture doesn't address this.
See above.

>Let me point out that you still have not set criteria from which we'd be justified conclude God
You should be able to perform the Elijah test, god will set your offerings of fire if you do it in faith.

>>18520349
You want there to be sound reasoning for your beliefs, but there is no reason for this belief under an atheistic worldview. It presupposes the existence of God.

>>18519415
Enjoy the Hungry Ghost realm

>>18520346
I am satisfied with your concession that god believers fail to satisfy the burden of proof and thus cannot be taken seriously.

>>18520353
No, reasoning does not require god as a precondition.

>>18520362
>No, you’re wrong
Atheist arguments

>>18520364
You didn't give an argument. It is not the case that god is a necessary precondition for intelligibility or logic. I don't know why you idiots keep doing this TAG/presupp shit when matt slick already lost it 20 years ago. Van Till and Bahnsen never had a point to begin with. Get with the times.

>>18520353
How exactly does a need for evidence presuppose an invisible skydaddy? Can you draw out your reasoning for me?

>>18520368
Keep seething
>>18520369
If there’s no God, there is no basis for laws of logic or mathematics, or principles of evidence. There is no reason why I can’t just decide to believe whatever I want and it be equally rational with no justification in an atheistic worldview. But in the Christian worldview we have a justification for laws of logic, they reflect the thinking of God, we have a worldview which provides the principium and makes sense, which nobody else can claim.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-09 at (...).png (705 KB, 708x798)

705 KB PNG

Sky Daddy won.
Banana Sodomy Man lost.
Burden of proof eternally BTFO.

>>18520401
>Keep seething
I'm not.
>If there’s no God, there is no basis for laws of logic or mathematics, or principles of evidence.
Yea, this is not true. An agent is not required for regularity to exist. God is not required for things to be equal to themselves, etc. You're an idiot. And no, there is nothing in christianity that gets you "logic" (you don't even know what logic is).

>>18520409
>An agent is not required for regularity to exist.
That's not what he claimed. Are you retarded by any chance?

>>18520413
He said "If there’s no God, there is no basis for laws of logic or mathematics, or principles of evidence." This is not true. God is not required for the "laws of logic" like identity (thus my statement, "God is not required for things to be equal to themselves, etc), nor mathematics, or any of the other nonsense he claimed. What I said completely applies. Are you retarded by any chance?

>>18520413
Yes, he is. This same individual will constantly spam threads with “No, evolution is directly observed and proven true” and “No, God doesn’t exist and Christianity has been disproved” because he lives in his mother’s basement and lives on welfare so there’s nothing to take him away from his computer. And those are his only arguments, to just constantly declare himself right and you wrong, because he’s very stupid. It’s a pearls before swine situation so he should just be ignored.

>>18520401
>But in the Christian worldview we have a justification for laws of logic, they reflect the thinking of God
So, your "justification" for the "laws of logic" is that they're right because they were right in the imaginary skydaddy's opinion? Can the imaginary skydaddy change her mind and make logic invalid?

>>18520419
I have no idea what you're talking about, but my IQ is substantially greater than yours. I live on my own. Also, yes, evolution is directly observed, and christianity has been disproved. Those are both true statements.
The fact that you low IQ theists can not win any argument is not any fault but the fact that your position is not true. Stop seething about it.

>>18520426
1. God does not have “opinions” 2. God’s nature is unchanging

>>18520418
>God is not required for making things up
Yeah, but he's talking about a logical basis for said things.

>>18520428
To be fair to understand Rick and Morty your IQ has to be extremely high

>>18520430
The claim that logic must exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God is the claim that structures and regularities can not exist unless there is a teleological agent that exists to make things equal to themselves or to stop contradictions from arising in nature. This statement is not true. There is no motivation for the first premise of TAG and the entire presupp script is so low tier that you should be embarrassed for trying to run it.

>>18520429
So skydaddy's is incapable of changing her mind regarding the "laws of logic"? What's preventing her from changing her mind?

>>18520435
>The claim that logic must exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God is the claim that structures and regularities can not exist unless there is a teleological agent that exists to make things equal to themselves or to stop contradictions from arising in nature.
Proof?

What evidence would be required to prove there are extradimensional beings we call Gods?

>>18520436
What stops atheists from transitioning into women?

>>18520439
What do you mean "proof"? God is not required for logic to exist. Prove that he is, as you do not have the argument otherwise.
I understand that you have a profoundly low IQ and you think that you can shift the burden, but the rest of this thread very clearly showed you why this is the case. I understand that for low IQs like yourself it's difficult to learn things, but reading it over several times should help it stick.

>>18520447
>What do you mean "proof"?
I mean prove that those statements are equivalent (protip: they obviously aren't).

>>18520443
The biological constraints on them. You're saying skydaddy has biological constraints on her which make her unable to change her opinions on the "laws of logic"?

>>18520448
Great, then we agree that logic is not a divine conception in the mind of God and God is not a necessary precondition for logic to exist.

The whole idea of Gods is that there are forces beyond our control that likely have extradimensional masters. We can't prove they exist by science because that would require the Gods to be willing subjects to our tests, for which they have no interest i partaking out of pride

>>18520451
What biological constraints? Why can’t those vanish for no reason and how did they prevent your choice to be a woman?

>>18520452
>>18520435
>The claim that logic must exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God is the claim that structures and regularities can not exist unless there is a teleological agent that exists to make things equal to themselves or to stop contradictions from arising in nature.
Proof?

>then we agree
Proof of this hallucinated "agreement"?

>>18520471
If logic does not need to exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God, then there is no teleological agent (God) that is required for logic to exist. So we agree that TAG is false.
If you don't want to define God as an agent, that's fine by me. Then you dont get anything that's relevant for religious beliefs.

>>18520477
>If logic does not need to exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God
You never got close to proving that. You're still stuck at proving this:

>The claim that logic must exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God is the claim that structures and regularities can not exist unless there is a teleological agent that exists to make things equal to themselves or to stop contradictions from arising in nature.

Christianity has been disproved, evolution has been directly observed, mommy bring me more tendies why do these crayons taste so good

>>18520463
What does sexuality of atheists have to do with skydaddy being unable to change her opinions on the "laws of logic"?

>>18520484
Yea, those statements are what it means for logic to exist in the mind of God. That an ultimate personal teleological agent (God) is the necessary precondition for transcendentals.

>>18520491
>those statements are what it means for logic to exist in the mind of God.
Proof?

>>18520492
That is what the TAG argument is. I was originally responding to the guy who was running TAG.

>>18520462
Also, they love anally probing farm owners.

>>18520493
I like how you're getting less and less coherent with every post, like you're trying to prove that atheism is antithetical to basic logical principles.

>>18520497
>I like how you're getting less and less coherent
I'm not. There is nothing in any of my posts that don't directly respond to the claims they are responding to. You're going to have to try harder than this lil buddy.

>>18520499
>The claim that logic must exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God is the claim that structures and regularities can not exist unless there is a teleological agent that exists to make things equal to themselves or to stop contradictions from arising in nature.
Proof?

>>18520501
That's what it means for logic to exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God, you fucking idiot. Are you just incapable of understanding words?
Is this the new theist script?

>>18520501
The mentally ill retard doesn't grasp that under his own framework, "structures and regularities" could still exist even in world that accommodates contradictions, one that operates according to different logical laws than the ones he takes for granted or one with no "laws" as such.

>>18520510
No, retard, I don't take logic to be transcendental. You don't even know what my position is so you can't critique it. You retards don't even know the basic definitions of the words you use.
You guys really need to stop pretending that you're intelligent. None of you are. You're fucking morons, you lose almost every interaction on this board.

>>18520505
>That's what it means for logic to exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God
Proof?

>>18520510
>The mentally ill retard doesn't grasp
You think? Thanks for spelling it out for me.

>>18520516
>I don't take logic to be transcendental.
Then why did you imply there are no contradictions in nature? Non-contradiction is merely a logical principle. Nature is its own master.

>>18520519
>That's what it means for logic to exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God
>Proof?
Again, retard, that's what it means for transcendentals to be divine conceptions.
You guys are so low tier it's embarrassing. Your entire "argument" is to just not understand what words mean.

>>18520522
If you haven't noticed, I never gave what my position is. I simply pointed out that TAG is unmotivated. Just doing that caused the theists to start chimping out.

>>18520526
>that's what it means for transcendentals to be divine conceptions.
That's not what it means. >>18520510 already spelled out why. He also characterized you correctly.

>>18520551
>That's not what it means
Yes, it is.
I also already responded to that directly.

>>18520531
They started chimping out because I used she/her pronouns for skydaddy.

>>18520531
Does nature accommodate contradictions?

>>18520554
>Yes, it is.
Proof?

I don't know why it's so funny to watch mentally diseased people get completely tangled up in their own chatbot-tier rhetoric.

>>18520565
Again, retard, that is what it means for transcendentals to be divine conceptions. No matter how many times you repeat "proof?" it isn't going to change the answer.

>>18520558
Nta, but sure. Look up paraconsistent logic.

>>18520569
>that is what it means for transcendentals to be divine conceptions
Clearly not. The TAG only implies you need God as a logical basis to claim the structures and regularities in nature are necessary. It doesn't imply they couldn't exist at all without God. If they're not necessary, they can exist today but not exist tomorrow. Moreover, since logic isn't transcendental, for all you know, they exist but also don't exist today.

>>18520588
>sure.
Can this belief be true but also false?

>>18520589
Something being universal and unchanging does not require it be transcendental.

>>18520593
>impotent denial of a claim not even made in my posts
Try again.

>>18520592
Did you look up paraconsistent logic?

>>18520598
Yes. So can your belief be true but also false?

>>18520597
>The TAG only implies you need God as a logical basis to claim the structures and regularities in nature are necessary. It doesn't imply they couldn't exist at all without God
Which was my original counter - this isn't true. God is not required for structures and regularities to exist, necessarily or contingently. The premise simply isn't motivated.
Something being universal and unchanging does not mean it must be transcendental.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-21 at (...).png (656 KB, 871x861)

656 KB PNG

>reasoning with mentally ill subhumans

>>18520600
>Yes.
Well then, that shows you how nature can accommodate contradictions.

>>18520602
>Which was my original counter
I don't know or care about your original counters (that are totally in the room with us), but I accept your full concession that these are different claims:

>logic must exist as divine conceptions in the mind of God
>structures and regularities can not exist unless there is a teleological agent

>>18520604
>that shows you how nature can accommodate contradictions.
It does nothing of the sort and that's not what I asked.

Let's try again: can your belief be true but also false? Yes/no?

>>18520603
Yea I dont know why people try reasoning with theists.

>>18520610
>It does nothing of the sort and that's not what I asked
It does. Try looking it up again. Properly, this time.

>>18520352
>>"There is no Moon" doesn't mean "there is not even one moon".
>So if there are no moons, there still is a Moon?
You managed to get it exactly backwards. Please be aware of what you're replying to.

>I have never had tongues of fire on my head and voices that prophecy the future.
The goalpost isn't a prophetic experience. Please be aware of what you're replying to.

>>So an apostle?
>No, to be that he would had to have walked with jesus
Not what apostle means.

>>>different passages present contradictory messages about that passage of jesus's authority over time
>>Please cite
>Matthew 16 vs John 1
Thank you for the chapters, now please cite.

>You should be able to perform the Elijah test
Says who? Am I a prophet?

>>18520356
I didn't concede.

>>18519972
Time is physics.

>>18520608
That is what TAG is claiming. My entire argument, every one of my posts, is pointing out that that is not true which is why TAG is false. I seriously don't understand how you guys can be so confused all the time.

>>18520615
Paraconsistent logics only demonstrate that you can have a nontrivial logic that works with contradictions by limiting the scope of the resulting incoherence. It says nothing about the possibility of something being actually true and false at the same time. You've already conceded this several times by refusing to answer if your belief can be true and false at the same time.

Since you're obviously a mentally ill individual, we can call it a day here. I'll move on to a more intelligent discussion now.

>>18520625
Here's a statement which is both true and false: You are completely retarded.

>>18520235
Why don't you consider the first point about the psychological reasons to make gods?

>>18520250
fuck off with your wall of text copypasting

>>18520639
>Why don't you consider the first point about the psychological reasons to make gods?
Not worthy of consideration. You can make the same claim about anything.

>>18520656
No. People don't have psychological reasons to make everything. They have psychological reasons to make gods. So when you see them talking about gods, it is the best explanation that they made them up.

>>18520667
Your post was made for psychological reasons. Your have psychological motivations for your belief.

File: atheist-circular-reasonin(...).png (25 KB, 500x302)

25 KB PNG

>>18519415

>>18520667
There are two groups of people in the world, those who have seen a spiritual being and those who have not.

>>18520700
Why are you wasting our time with your strawman picture?

>>18520734
Oh yeah? Did Christians see a spiritual being? It's really an amazing coincidence that they happened to be brainwashed by a Christian family. And Muslims, with their metaphysical third eye saw the truth, and they just happen to be brainwashed a Muslim family.. just a coincidence.

Your "special ability" is just being indoctrinated in childhood. And it's a disability.

>>18520149
Why does every materialist on this board invoke psychoanalysis any time someone here is religious? Very Jewish behavior.

>>18519415
God is the Tao, the ongoing story and energetic unfolding of the universe.
Every religion or spirituality that understands and celebrates this is true.

>>18520761
>if some people came in contact with spiritual beings then how come Arabs rely on Muhammad huh???
Outstanding objection. I award you no points.

>>18520752
>no argument

>>18521037
>Arabs are wrog, but my rligin is truuu!!
You're really dumb.

>>18521041
That's exactly your problem.

>>18521111
Anon you have opened my eyes. I do think Arabs are wrong. Therefore I am wrong. It all makes sense now.

>>18521119
How are you better than Arabs? You were indoctrinated as a kind just like them.

* kid

>>18521137
Great question! Firstly, Islam is based on narrative of one single person who stood to materially (and sexually) benefit from his message. Christianity is based on multiple people agreeing and revoking wealth, sex, influence and supposedly also their lives. Secondly, in most points of comparison, Islam is theologically more shallow and appears as a bootleg of Christian ideas, for example in matters of bodily resurrection, which in Christianity pulls together a bunch of different books and ideas, whereas in Islam it just sort of appears with no real context, as though it were copied by someone not understanding the ontological implications. Third, Christians are having experiences of Jesus to this day. Muhammad has never appeared and many of the spiritual experiences Muslim describe (including Muhammad's own) have features that in Christianity mark deceptive spiritual contact instead of a divine one.

In short, I am better than Arabs for historical, philosophical and spiritual reasons. Just because you can't navigate religions, doesn't mean others can't.

>>18521156
Islam actually says that both Jews and Christians were waiting for Muhammad and when they came , they all recognized him, but rejected him, because they were evil.
They also have a story about people offering him money to give up his message, but he rejected. So he wasn't after money - that's what they believe.

Christianity is based on stories written dozens of years after the death of Jesus. The gospels are a bunch of contradictory fairy tales. Christian leaders, including Jesus were collecting wealth from the people. Jesus also congratulated a very poor woman who also gave him money. He gave her nothing. And Christianity is absolutely obsessed with influence, with controlling all people of the world and spreading agressively.

Christianity has the Trinity which doesn't make sense. What the hell is "1 god in 3 persons"?? At least Allah is 1 person.

Muslims see Muhammad in their dreams. Also when good thing happens, they say: "God did it" just like you. They are dumb like you. They have dumb arguments just like you.

>>18521172
What a load of misses and half-truths.

>Islam actually says...
Not a valid criterion. None of my analysis relied on assuming any scriptures are correct.
>a story about people offering [Muhammad] money to give up his message, but he rejected.
>So he wasn't after money - that's what they believe.
He might not have taken money in that instance, but he led entire robbing campaigns with his followers during which he obtained quite the wealth and influence. So your conclusion is sadly unsustainable. He stood to materially benefit.
>based on stories written dozens of years after the death
>a bunch of contradictory fairy tales.
You mean like the Hadiths? Which literally have a ranking from the most reliable to the most dismissable? Again, Islam fares far worse in this regard.
>Christian leaders, including Jesus were collecting wealth from the people.
"Collecting wealth" woah that almost sounds like the Apostles became wealthy. Something you know to be false.
>Jesus also congratulated a very poor woman who also gave him money.
No, she gave money to temple. Jesus wasn't running the temple.
>Christianity is absolutely obsessed with influence, with controlling all people of the world and spreading agressively.
Christianity aims to let everyone know about Jesus. Islam aims to create a theocracy, a caliphate.
>At least Allah is 1 person.
It doesn't actually say that, because "person" of God is a Christian term.
>Muslims see Muhammad in their dreams.
Congrats, not the argument.

In most points of comparison you mention, Islam still works out worse than Christianity. The other ones, like Trinity not making sense to you, are essentially irrelevant.

>>18521211
You assume that Christian narrative is correct and Islamic is not.

He was raiding caravans of people who were his enemies. You act as if the caravan owners were good citizens of the state and Muhammad was breaking the law. But there was no state and no laws and Muhammad had one tribe and they were another tribe.

>You mean like the Hadiths?
Yes, the gospels are not reliable. Similarly to the hadiths.

The trinity in itself doesn't make sense. And even the greatest Christian theologians are giving up on explaining it.

>>18521292
>You assume that Christian narrative is correct and Islamic is not.
That's what I figured you're accusing me of, but none of my points actually require this premise. You can completely disbelieve Christianity and you would still have to recognize that it has more sources, fewer founder wealth incentives and a more complex yet consistent theology.
>He was raiding caravans of people who were his enemies.
Doesn't much matter. He used his followers to amass pretty notable wealth and influence for himself. That is the objective point of comparison.
>Yes, the gospels are not reliable. Similarly to the hadiths.
Right, so you do actually see how this doesn't redeem Islam whatsoever. And when you actually look at the Hadith reliability, like I said, Islam comes out on the bottom.
>The trinity in itself doesn't make sense. And even the greatest Christian theologians are giving up on explaining it.
The explanation is one God in three persons. And there exist volumes of explanations on each of those terms. But none of those explanations are going to make this insight intuitive to you. Luckily, it doesn't really matter in this comparison.

>>18521310
Both have unreliable sources. I don't care much which one is more unreliable.

The wealth was also given to the poor.

My point is not to redeem Islam. My point is that both religions are BS.

"One god in three persons" is nonsense. And theologians can talk nonsense for hours about it, but it will never make sense.

>>18520313
Russell was a state approved lackey on par with Jurgen Habermas with no legit convictions.

>>18520324
You started it.

>>18520316
>theory of mind
Racist presumption

>>18521616
If you don't much care, why did you ask me about it? You obviously did care about why a person would trust one religion over another. It just worries you that if this can truly be done with some level of objectivity, you'd no longer have sufficient alibi for throwing your hands up, proclaiming "well...different people would say different things" and leaving things there. You'd have to actually look into the validity of what they're saying.
>My point is that both religions are BS
See? You basically admit it.
An intellectually compeltely honest atheist starts out with all religions being roughly on the same footing and works up from there, reflecting on historical reliability, philosophical consistency, epistemological methods claimed... Other breeds of atheists artificailly draw a finish line right at this starting point and pretend that an equal footing is actually an insight they gained and that it ought to be maintained. They don't do this in any other realm - not ethics, not politics, not ever... it would be insane for them to claim all institutions and views need be kept on an equal footing there. But for religions, they're satisfied with the starting point being the end.

>>18519415
>religions contradicts each other
That's a lie. What you see are antichrists preaching anti-religious concepts from inside religious institutions. This doesn't mean religions contradict each other.

>there is no evidence of any gods
There is PLENTY of evidente of God, the One without a second. But atheists cannot reason.

>>18520324
Christians won itt actually

>>18521734
this did not happen, but christians are delusional which is the only reason the cult persists.

>>18520273
Atheists think they cannot be attacked for their brain damaged positions. When they are, they can't give a defense for their worldview. They just shut down and pretend the conversation isn't happening.

>>18520075
I had no criteria for what counted as evidence of quantum mechanics before I knew it existed,
The first notions I had of it were contradictory and retarded, yet I have come to the conclusions that all the evidence we have for it is colossal and defies all statistical anomaly.
There is not a single evidence for god that goes beyond the "yeah maybe it could have happened but also maybe it didn't"

>>18519415
>religions contradict each other
So? What does it matter that there are a thousand and one dumb dead pagan cults? They're all wrong.

>>18521740
That did happen actually. Atheists are the delusional ones which is why they think they’re actually women

>>18521791
All religions are wrong

>>18521802
Especially atheism

>>18520069
>Christians is mean
>god is mean

this is why atheists don't take you seriously anymore, i'm tired of catering to you babbling lying faggots

>>18521895
>Christians are mean

>>18520069
Even this list of strawmen arguments are enough to refute christianity, and that's why you losers rage about it.

>>18521796
>20% of the world are trannies
Why are christians so bad at math?

File: 1779829876646919.gif (447 KB, 220x221)

447 KB GIF

>>18521933
nigger...

>>18520616
>You managed to get it exactly backwards.
There is no backwards, if there are no moons there is no moon because the statements are equivalent in regard to the only moon that can actually be seen with the naked eye.

>The goalpost isn't a prophetic experience
Yes it is, the word for actually knowing and experiencing god directly is prophet.

>Not what apostle means.
Yes it is, disciple is someone who follows jesus without ever actually physically meeting him, the apostles are the one who were actually physically in his presence.

>Thank you for the chapters, now please cite.
Listing the book and chapter is a citation, now you don't even know what a citation is and I have to read it to you in addition to providing a citation so you can check yourself?
Matthew: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
John: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

>Says who? Am I a prophet?
Obviously not, you have never directly experienced a god, you don't even know what that would entail, so you have no right speaking as if you do know and when you do make declarations about a god or gods without being able to physically back it up, the bible prescribes that you be slaughtered.

>>18521156
>Christianity is based on multiple people agreeing and revoking wealth, sex, influence
Sure because that is exactly what the Vatican is known for, hoarding 0 wealth, having no sex scandals and never trying to influence other institutions like by planting judges on the Supreme Court.

>>18521310
>fewer founder wealth incentives
No, the christians just claim to not want wealth so they can skim 10% from a lot of poor people and/or use their instead of having to deal with powerful aristocrats and people with the actual institutional power to punish them if they don't live up to their 10% take.

>>18521698
Sure, no contradiction at all in christian's saying christ is the messiah while jews say they are still waiting for the messiah. No contradiction at all in catholics saying you can buy indulgences and salvation requires faith and services while prots say its up to you personally, no indulgences, but faith alone is enough to be saved. No contradiction at all in religions that say there is only one god versus religions that say there are many of them. Good thing you came along to point out that none of these religions have any ideological conflicts, now they can all merge into one religion since there are no more points of contention.

>>18521796
You are obviously desperate to fuck a tranny, but they are still less silly and delusional than you thinking a man's rib actually transitioned into the woman that all women came from.

>>18521947
Jesus already debunked math by feeding 500 people with 1 loaf of bread.

>>18522273
That is just division, how can he debunk math by doing math?

>>18522278
Can you feed 500 people with 1 loaf of bread?

>>18522289
That isn't even the most impressive in history, the largest loaf of bread on record fed thousands.
For an omnipotent magician, 500 seems pretty lazy, why not feed everyone?

>>18522298
If you don't think that's impressive, then why don't you apply to be the next Jesus Christ?

>>18522301
Santa returned my cover letter and job application, but jesus's dad didn't, so I became a reindeer instead of a breadsmith.

>>18522305
The job market for Jesus positions must be very brutal these days.

>>18522310
Not for nepo hires, they are the reason everyone else is struggling.

>>18521767
>I had no criteria for what counted as evidence of quantum mechanics before I knew it existed,
Then you were likely not in charge of evaluating the evidence. You don't do measurements, especially as expensive as in quantum physics, without setting what value counts as evidence for which position. We don't evaluate evidence just on gut feeling. You set precise criteria ahead of time.

>>18522244
>>>"There is no Moon" doesn't mean "there is not even one moon".
>>So if there are no moons, there still is a Moon?
If you don't see how this is backwards, you're trolling.

>the word for actually knowing and experiencing god directly is prophet
Ah so when you said atheists sensations about God match their beliefs you framed atheists as prophets... boy you're not doing yourself any favors here.

>apostles are the one who were actually physically in his presence
Not what apostle means.

>Matthew: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
>John: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
So Peter is the base of the Church and people will become sons of God. The contradiction being....?

>you have never directly experienced a god, you don't even know what that would entail, so you have no right speaking as if you do know
Thank you for defeating your own argument. I am more than certain you don't even understand how you did that.

>>18522249
We are talking about the founders. Plus, yes, most clergy in the Vatican live in relative poverty.

>>18522256
>skim 10% from a lot of poor people
This hasn't been the case for centuries.

>>18522320
Did Jesus fly into the sky?

>>18519428
>God is like real because snowflakes exist. Look at those geometric patterns man, this clearly means that God exists, and by God I mean the Canaanite storm God Yahweh that chose the Jews as his people before incarnating 2000 years ago, dying for our sins and going back from heaven. Yup all of that happened because snowflakes have cool geometry.

>>18522328
Doubt it. He was taken up into heavens.

>>18522332
An angel grabbed him by the leg and dragged him upside down into the sky?

>>18522333
Didn't I just answer a question that covers this scenario?

>>18522320
>If you don't see how this is backwards, you're trolling.
So if there is no Moon, how many moons are there?

>Ah so when you said atheists sensations about God match their beliefs you framed atheists as prophets
No, if they were prophets they would have the physical symptoms that prophets experience, but they don't because only fictional characters and schizos experience external voices in their internal monologue, but only the fictional characters can actually produce anything miraculous based on those voices while schizos can't back anything up.

>Not what apostle means
Then why is Paul the only outlier, why did all the actual apostles actually live with jesus and experience his physical presense?

>The contradiction being
That they can do it on their own instead of having to go through peter's church.

>Thank you for defeating your own argument.
No, you defeated your own argument when you admitted not only have you never even felt the direct experience of god, but you haven't even read the books to know what that experience entails, and not only that, but if there is direct experience, only a special bloodline of prophets is capable of tapping into it, so you couldn't even tap into it if you knew what to do and attempted it.

>We are talking about the founders.
The ones who were all wealthy enough to be well traveled?

>This hasn't been the case for centuries.
What exact year and edict did all denominations of christian decide to end tithing again?

>>18522335
I'm asking for clarification. Was he taken up into his skyhome by an angel who grabbed him by the let? Or did the angel grab him under the arms? That would look a bit gay wouldn't it. Or was it like an alien abduction beam kinda thing?

>>18522336
>So if there is no Moon, how many moons are there?
Any amount. See >>18520285

>if they were prophets they would have the physical symptoms
> they don't
Ah right because they're not prophets...
>...because only fictional characters and schizos experience external voices
You were so close to realizing your non-sequitur.

>>Not what apostle means
>Then why is Paul the only outlier
Because Jesus chose one outlier.

>[believers] they can [become sons of God] on their own instead of having to go through peter's church.
>on their own
Not in text.

>bloodline of prophets
Not in the text.

>wealthy enough to be well traveled?
Lmao

>What exact year and edict did all denominations of christian decide to end tithing again?
Tithing was law. Denominations aren't in charge of the law for quite a while. Edict lol

>>18522338
My answer remains unchanged.

>>18522342
>My answer remains unchanged.
Your refusal to provide any clarification has been acknowledged. I'm going to assume that he was taken up to heaven by an angel who grabbed him under the arms then.

>>18522344
Are you asking for my approval or something?

>>18522342
>Ah right because they're not prophets...
Right, because god doesn't actually exist since there are no actual people who can directly experience god to know how to perform miracles and do it, only fictional people in books about imaginary demons can do that.

>You were so close to realizing your non-sequitur.
You were not close at all to actually making an valid point just because you know the name of a logical fallacy.

>Because Jesus chose one outlier.
So says Paul, but one one else can confirm since it was jesus's ghost only appearing to him alone after jesus died rather than the actual man jesus who went into crowds of people with his actual apostles by his side.

>Not in text.
Wrong, its what John 1 says, it says as many as receive him rather than as many who join peter's church.

>Not in the text
You missed the whole abraham genealogy, 12 tribes, and judah things in the text too?

>Lmao
Yea because poor people totally have their own ship fleets and can afford to travel the whole world spreading propaganda.

>Tithing was law.
It is still required in many cases, you want church services - are you tithing?, you want your kids to go to our school - are you tithing in addition to enrollment fees?... just because it isn't legally mandatory doesn't mean that they aren't still imposing a lot of tithes from a lot of poor people.

>>18522350
No.

>>18522350
Not that anon, but it's pretty clear that your can only defend God in the deistic sense, of an unknown, unseen creator. This works fine with deism, since that treats God's existence, and his plans for creation as a philosophical quandary. But once people ask about a specific worldly religion, in this case Christianity, then deistic arguments fall apart. The bible makes clear statements about the nature of reality that are simply false ,like the existence of the firmament, the way creation was structured, calling the Moon a source of light, etc. People then ask, well if these statement aren't reliable since we've disproven them with the modern scientific method, then why should we follow your specific interpretation of God. Mind you this doesn't disprove God in the deistic sense, but it disproves a particular interpretation that makes incorrect claims. Asking if Jesus flew into heaven and how he did it is a joke since the bible says it, so people will ask how it happened.

>>18522342
>Not in text.
>Not in the text.
You might not read it that way, but the prots that thought the differences were important enough to split off and form a new sect certainly thought so or they would still be papists.

>>18522344
I think he was carried like a princess so that the perverted disciples couldn't look at his balls while he was being taken away.

>>18522352
>there are no actual people who can directly experience god
Source?

>You were not close at all to actually making an valid point just because you know the name of a logical fallacy.
No idea what this means.

>>Because Jesus chose one outlier.
>So says Paul, but one one else can confirm
The other apostles confirmed it. Paul saw Jesus.

>as many as receive him rather than as many who join peter's church
Doesn't say "on their own"

>You missed the whole abraham genealogy, 12 tribes, and judah things in the text too?
Doesn't mean there is a prophet bloodline.

>you want church services - are you tithing?
Nope.

>>18522357
>it's pretty clear that your can only defend God in the deistic sense
I wasn't asked to defend God. I was asked how an event physically took place.
>The bible makes clear statements about the nature of reality
Wholeheartedly agreed. I just don't see that it was addressing the physical nature. The moon being a source of light makes no difference to my salvation. Science is robbed of its victory because if it 'debunks' these verses, then the verses were meant in a way that's irrelevant to begin with.

>>18522360
>prots that thought the differences were important enough to split off
The difference of interpretation was definitely important. It's just not true that it was caused by a contradiction in a text. It was caused by a disagreement about how to follow up on the text.

>>18522357
You're confusing classical theism with deism. They aren't the same thing. Deism says God created the universe and walked away. Classical theism says God is ipsum esse subsistens -- subsistent being itself. Not a being among beings who made the clock and left. The ground of existence that sustains everything at every moment. Aquinas's unmoved mover isn't the first domino in a chain that keeps going on its own. It's the condition for any domino to exist at all, right now. Take it away and everything vanishes instantly. That's not a distant clockmaker. That's more intimate to you than you are to yourself.
>>18522352
"Nobody directly experiences God." This claim is empirically false across all cultures and all of recorded history. The more interesting question is what to make of these experiences, not whether they happen. They happen constantly. Pascal: God gives enough evidence to convince those who are open, but not so much as to compel those who are closed. If God's existence were as obvious as the sun, belief would be forced, not free. You can't love someone you've been logically compelled to acknowledge. The atheist who says "show me proof" usually means "show me proof that leaves me no choice but to submit." God wants love, not surrender to evidence. The barrier is not rational.

>>18522990
>You're confusing classical theism with deism. They aren't the same thing. Deism says God created the universe and walked away. Classical theism says God is ipsum esse subsistens -- subsistent being itself. Not a being among beings who made the clock and left. The ground of existence that sustains everything at every moment. Aquinas's unmoved mover isn't the first domino in a chain that keeps going on its own. It's the condition for any domino to exist at all, right now. Take it away and everything vanishes instantly. That's not a distant clockmaker. That's more intimate to you than you are to yourself.
This is complete meaningless nonsense. There is no "being" that is itself a substance that is required for things to exist as themselves.

>>18522873
>Source?
The fact that only fictional characters in books can actually perform the feats associated with the direct experience such as the Elijah Test.

>No idea what this means.
Yes its quite obvious that you have no idea what a valid point is or how the logical fallacy whose name you know actually applies.

>The other apostles confirmed it.
No, paul said the other apostles confirmed it, they didn't write anything themselves confirming anything about it.

>Doesn't say "on their own"
Wrong according to prot interpretation, by saying "as many as receive him" rather than as many who join peter's church, they are saying that you just have to receive him on your own, not that you have to bow to the authority of peter and his church. Again just because you interpret it one way, doesn't mean that others don't use a different interpretation as the basis of schism.

>Doesn't mean there is a prophet bloodline.
Wrong, it means the bible is specifically tracking a certain bloodline or there wouldn't be so much genealogy effort to prove jesus descended from judah.

>Nope.
Yes, just try renting an auxiliary building from a catholic church without being up to date on your tithing and see if they don't favor people in better standing.

>>18522990
>God gives enough evidence to convince those who are open, but not so much as to compel those who are closed.
Not true at all in the bible, though, god made miraculous fire all the time and walked and talked directly with people, he had physical battles with other gods, turned sticks into snakes in front of people, turned people into pillars of salt, people were obviously possessed by demons and what not, you didn't just freely get to choose, it was definitely thrust upon people according to the bible.

>The atheist who says "show me proof" usually means "show me proof that leaves me no choice but to submit."
No, in the bible, it wasn't atheists, it was prophets who were demanding proof from god and getting it in order to justify genociding rival tribes who believed in gods that were not the god of abraham.

You are just a straight up liar who has never actually read the bible.

>>18522990
>Pascal: God gives enough evidence to convince those who are open, but not so much as to compel those who are closed
Then why did Jesus make Thomas touch his actual physical wounds when Thomas doubted the story he was being told?

>>18524303
Or basically any of the miracles mentioned in the gospels. If you're a 1st century jewish farmer watching a guy walk on water or heal people or multiply loaves of bread it's pretty hard to deny that god is real

>>18524308
In bible lore, regular people could do magic too sometimes, half the apostles did magical things, someone made the sun stand still, another guy knocked over a castle with his bear hands, and there was even a guy who magically made his donkey talk. Most of the people Jesus performed miracles in front of already believed he was special, in many cases they came begging him for the miracle.

>>18524247
>>Source?
>The fact that only fictional characters in books can actually perform the feats
You have to stop treating your hypotheses as facts lmao

>No, paul said the other apostles confirmed it, they didn't write anything themselves confirming anything about it.
Peter explicitly addresses Paul's writings about Jesus. Meaning he is aware of Paul's apostolic activity. You don't really have a leg to stand on, Anon.

>>Doesn't say "on their own"
>Wrong according to prot interpretation
We're not discussing interpretations. We're discussing the "contradictions" in the text itself, which you claimed produce competing interpretations. And the best "contradiction" you could muster was one that's not actually in the text.

> bible is specifically tracking a certain bloodline
Correct. Doesn't mean there is a prophet bloodline.

> just try renting an auxiliary building
Not the goalpost.

>>18524321
>You have to stop treating your hypotheses as facts lmao
No, you have to prove that people can actually summon fire through prayer alone and do the other feats that are physically impossible.

>Peter explicitly addresses Paul's writings about Jesus
No, paul wrote to the galatians and corinthians about how peter totally accepted everything paul said, there are no writings directly from peter or any other apostles that confirm any of it, paul confirms it on their behalf.

>We're not discussing interpretations
Yes we are.
>We're discussing the "contradictions" in the text itself
No, we are discussing how various modern sects of christianity interpreted the text to decide to break off from peter's church instead of there just being one christian church led by peter's successors.

>And the best "contradiction" you could muster was one that's not actually in the text.
No, I mentioned contradictions that lead some people to interpret the church of peter as the only valid one and other people to interpret it as anyone with faith in any church makes it valid.

>Doesn't mean there is a prophet bloodline.
So its just a coincidence that it tracks the bloodline that all the prophets come from?

>Not the goalpost.
Wrong, that is a clear example of a service provided by the church that they will regularly deny to people unless they tithe.

>>18524312
Now that I think about it, there's tons of examples of similar stuff in exodus too, god literally turns moses's staff into a snake to prove he's a prophet. Imagine if the pope just did that, all those people wouldn't have had to die in the european wars of religion

>>18524329
>>You have to stop treating your hypotheses as facts lmao
>No, you have to prove
You claimed a "fact". I don't have to do anything besides point out it's a mere hypothesis.

>there are no writings directly from peter
Except first and second Peter?

>>We're discussing the "contradictions" in the text itself
>No, we are discussing how various modern sects of christianity interpreted
>I mentioned contradictions that lead some people to interpret
Make up your mind lol one second it's about contradictions, the in the text, the next it's about interpretations of the text... Nobody in this thread disputed there exist competing interpretations. What was disputed is that they're based on contradictions. If this your answer on this is final, I will take it as a concession, because you obviously cannot show a contradiction in the text itself.

>So its just a coincidence that it tracks the bloodline that all the prophets come from?
You don't know that all prophet come from this bloodline. You just know it tracks one bloodline and so the prophets discussed are from it.

>that is a clear example of a service
There is the goalpost. You gotta figure out this whole general and particular business, else you will tell me again that denying a specific moon might mean no moons exist.

>>18524338
>You claimed a "fact". I don't have to do anything besides point out it's a mere hypothesis.
No, it is a fact no one is on actual physical record passing the Elijah Test, so you have to give a counterfact that proves that there actually are people outside of fictional books who have succeeded in the Elijah Test, the bible's gold standard for proving you are actually speaking about the one true god instead of just making stuff up about a false god that doesn't really exist.

>Except first and second Peter?
Then why not cite the verse where he explicitly calls Paul an Apostle and confirms your claims? Could it be that it doesn't actually exist and you are lying again since only Paul's writing said Paul was an Apostle?

>Make up your mind lol one second it's about contradictions, the in the text, the next it's about interpretations of the text
Yes, sects keep breaking instead of there being one divine church because different denomination have contradictory interpretations, this was always the claim, you are just trying to sew confusion because you know you are wrong and can't actually use facts, so you have to use chaos instead.

>You just know it tracks one bloodline and so the prophets discussed are from it
Which means the bible is about prophetic bloodlines since it is only concerned with the ones from the bloodline it goes in great detail to document.

>There is the goalpost.
Yes the goal post is churches that withhold their services if you don't tithe and I gave a very specific examples of a very particular service they will withhold from people who don't tithe, I hit the goalpost exactly, you just can't cope with being wrong without lying and playing dumb, sure it is not the only example of a service they will withhold, but I only need one to prove my general point that they will withhold those services unless people tithe.

>>18524353
>so you have to give a counterfact
Nope. I don't have to do anything besides point out it's a mere hypothesis.

>why not cite the verse where he explicitly calls Paul an Apostle and confirms your claims?
Because I didn't claim an explicit verse. Re-read >>18524321

>contradictory interpretations, this was always the claim
For the record, you claimed contradictions in the text itself here: >>18520158, >>18520254
Concession accepted.

>>You just know it tracks one bloodline and so the prophets discussed are from it
>Which means the bible is about prophetic bloodlines
Nope.

>Yes the goal post is churches that withhold their services if you don't tithe
That is indeed the goalpost. And it is false. My family hasn't tithed in generations and we have never been denied a "service". I don't think you really ever presented a point that was anything else but a misguidedly confident hypothesis that simply seems to conform to your other beliefs.

>>18524359
>Nope. I don't have to do anything besides point out it's a mere hypothesis.
If you want to say the hypothesis is false, you have to actually falsify it, but this hypothesis does not exist in a vacuum it is using billions of hours of unaltered pictures and videos that all disprove your hypothesis that the bible is true and miracles are trivial to perform if you have faith in the correct god.

>Because I didn't claim an explicit verse.
You made an explicit claim that 1 and 2 Peter directly state that paul was an apostle and that needs supported by a verse which of course you don't have because 1 and 2 Peter don't say paul was an apostle anywhere at all, is this just another hypothesis of mine that all you have to do is point out it is a hypothesis instead of actually providing your own proof of your own fantastical claims?

>you claimed contradictions in the text itself
And I still maintain that the messages are contradictory and the verses don't agree with each other, there is just no real way to avoid you chalking every written word up to interpretation.

>Nope.
Yup or it would go into detail on prophets of other bloodlines instead of being just dedicated to the one to justify jesus is the prophesied messiah from a long line of prophets.

>My family hasn't tithed in generations and we have never been denied a "service".
What services have you sought? How much child care have you needed, how many times have you had marriage counseling, how many of your family members are buried on holy ground, how many personalized masses have you requested?

>hypothesis
Its not a hypothesis, though, it is church policy.

>>18524386
>>Nope. I don't have to do anything besides point out it's a mere hypothesis.
>If you want to say the hypothesis is false
I'm fine pointing out that it's a mere hypothesis.

>You made an explicit claim that 1 and 2 Peter directly state that paul was an apostle
False. Re-read >>18524321

>the verses don't agree with each other
Please cite. Note that "people will become sons of God" and "Peter will lead" don't contradict whatsoever.

>>My family hasn't tithed in generations and we have never been denied a "service".
>What services have you sought?
Baptism, funeral service (including mass by name), Sunday school, Bible study with the priest ... never heard anyone even mention tithing. It seems you are aware of some policies that have eluded even the priests. I think you're right, we should skip the hypothesis part and just take your statement as fact. To hell with all the evidence to the contrary. Is that how you thought I'd react to your hypotheses?

>>18524390
>I'm fine pointing out that it's a mere hypothesis.
Yes you have devolved to that because you can't actually point out it is false and you definitely can't point out that your competing hypothesis is true or that it even has a single shred of evidence backing it up, let alone billions of hours of videos lacking miracles including many from organizations that specifically test purported miracles workers like spoon benders and other grifters.

>Re-read >>18524321
All I read is you being completely unable to cite any verse in 1 and 2 peter that backs up your hypothesis that peter wrote that paul is an apostle.

>Note that "people will become sons of God" and "Peter will lead" don't contradict whatsoever.
Because, once again, that isn't the contradictory part the contradicting part is that the church is built on peter vs the people can come to god on their own without peter or his church to form their own congregations. How is "peter leading" like the bible said if people are not actually joining his church and are making up their own as they go along?

>evidence
You mean you saying nu-uh?
https://www.academia.edu/122457667/Tithes_A_Non_Essentially_Essential_Practice_in_the_Church
Here is actual evidence of churches that require tithing or coerce/withhold services based on tithing status.

>>18524393
>billions of hours of videos lacking miracles
Extraordinary non-evidence.

>your hypothesis that peter wrote that paul is an apostle.
Strawman fallacy. Re-read >>18524321

>contradicting part is that the church is built on peter vs the people can come to god on their own
>"on their own"
Not in the text.

>You mean you saying nu-uh?
I mean answering the exact question you asked me, after which you pretend you never asked it and it doesn't matter hahah.

>https://www.academia.edu/122457667/Tithes_A_Non_Essentially_Essential_Practice_in_the_Church
>This study explores the significance of tithing ... in the contemporary times in Nigeria.
Your local business isn't my business.

>>18524404
>Extraordinary non-evidence.
No it is actually counter evidence to your claim which is why you refuse to consider it since it is evidence of my claim.

>Re-read >>18524321
I did and nowhere did peter refer to paul as an apostle or call paul's activity apostolic like you claimed, you are moving the goals posts from him confirming paul is an apostle to him saying pauls exists.

>I mean answering the exact question you asked me, after which you pretend you never asked it and it doesn't matter hahah.
I didn't pretend anything, you have no proof of your claims, there is no evidence, you are just disagreeing.

>Your local business isn't my business.
I accept your concession that christian churches are not universally under peter's leadership like the bible prophesied instead each local church is completely distinct and under random leadership, so not only does the bible contradict itself, it contradicts reality.

>>18524412
>billions of hours of videos lacking miracles
> it is actually counter evidence
It actually isn't any evidence whatsoever. You just failed to find a video.

>peter refer to paul as an apostle
>call paul's activity apostolic
>him confirming paul is an apostle
Those are three different goalposts. I know the subtlety will be lost on someone who can't even tell a fact from a hypothesis, but until you actually get the goalpost right, I have no reason to object to any of this with anything besides "Re-read >>18524321 "

>you have no proof of your claims
If you wish to shift the goalpost from "What services have you sought?" to "What proof do you have of the services you have sought?", be my guest. Your dishonesty just serves my point.

>I accept your concession that christian churches are not universally under peter's leadership
I didn't concede.

Let's just briefly review the record:
>can't tell a fact from a hypothesis
>can't tell evidence from its lack
>didn't even know Peter wrote letters
>5 failed attempts at figuring out the "apostle" goalpost
>thinks no moons exist if the Moon doesn't
>proved tithing is official policy by referring to a case in Nigeria
>claims textual contradictions
>concedes about textual contradictions
>claims textual contradictiosn again
>concedes again
Just to check on you - are you sure you're fit to continue? You are terrible at this and even with the benfit of anonymous engagement I feel like this cannot be good for your mental health. Know when to quit.

>>18524418
>You just failed to find a video.
No, I referenced videos where people actively fail to perform feats of faith while invoking their one true god, you are the one who can' find a video of anyone doing what you claim is possible.

>Those are three different goalposts
Yes you kept moving them because you couldn't prove the original goal since peter didn't write that paul was an apostle, he didn't call his activity apostolic, and he didn't confirm he was an apostle.

>shift the goalpost from
Its not moving any goal post, it is asking you to actually provide the evidence you claimed.

>I didn't concede.
You did concede that peter doesn't actually lead christianity and that christianity is just a business rather than some extension of biblical prophecy.

>>can't tell a fact from a hypothesis
No you can't tell when the facts support a hypothesis.
>can't tell evidence from its lack
No you think saying something is evidence
>>didn't even know Peter wrote letters
No I said he never wrote about paul being an apostle like you claimed, only paul wrote that paul was an apostle, you liar.
>>proved tithing is official policy by referring to a case in Nigeria
That wasn't the only case listed on the page, you just cherry picked it probably racism where black people can only do business not run churches.
>>concedes about textual contradictions
The only thing I conceded is that you can say any word is just an interpretation, so pointing out contradictions is fruitless since you will just claim interpretation and say its not in the text.

You have obviously stopped trying to even make a point and broke down to pure non sequitur name calling and must making up lies.

>>18524426
I'll take that as a "Yes, I'm very excited with how this is going and with the time it takes me to even understand what we're talking about." Ok then.

>>You just failed to find a video [of a miracle]
>No, I referenced videos where people actively fail to perform [miracles]
Right. So... you failed to find a video of a miracle.

> you kept moving them
Nope. Re-read >>18524321

> it is asking you to actually provide the evidence you claimed
Yes, that would be the new goalpost. That's what I just said.

>You did concede that peter doesn't actually lead christianity
No.

>name calling
What name did I call you?

>>18522320
the apostles were not killed or martyred nor did they give up wealth or anything. That is a common apologist misconception/lie.

>>18524430
>you failed to find a video of a miracle.
But I did find videos of people invoking the same god elijah did and failing to prove to actually do what faith is suppose to enable them to do.

>Yes, that would be the new goalpost
No its the original goalposts, claims always need proof to be accepted.

>No.
Yes and you called Christianity a business as well.

>What name did I call you?
terrible

>>18524404
>Your local business isn't my business.
Wrong you made it your business when you started speaking for all christian saying none of the churches withhold services based on tithing.

>>18524436
I'm not sure the post you're replying to claims they were killed or martyred. That one I do treat tentatively because while we do have decent evidence of martyrdom being a continuous element of Christianity, we don't necessarily have corroboration of the apostles themselves experiencing this fate. However, they did seem to give up wealth and influence, seeing that Paul was imprisoned and others traveled city to city. You can argue that it takes some budget to afford seafare and that is completely granted, but it's obviously not what we're discussing when we mention wealth and lifestyle here.

>>18524437
>I did find videos of people invoking the same god elijah did and failing
In that case all religion is false. Thanks for the exchange.

>>18524442
I didn't say "none of the churches", I am completely fine with pastor Joe in Tithesville, Alabama establishing a New North East Calvinist Post-presbyterian Church of Seven Dumplings and declaring it a policy for all his 7 congregates that they should tithe. The discussion was on general terms, which is why I was eventually asked if I myself receive services without tithing. And I do.