>>18542787
actually obtaining direct experience of god is pretty hard but proving that something beyond material life exists is pretty easy, if you have a good head on your shoulders it's not hard to trace the breadcrumbs until you find legit people and practices that will demonstrate it for you. for example i found a guy who could remotely induce a state of ecstasy in me from 2000 km away. i've also learnt a divination method that allows me to predict when other people will use violence against me (happens to me more often than you'd expect, it sucks).
there's tons and tons of proof of the 'supernatural' if you keep your eyes open (although technically speaking the term 'supernatural' should only refer to god, not to souls/angels whatever so it's slightly inaccurate here, but i am using it colloquially).

>>18542787
Funny, that's how I feel about theists and theism.

>>18542787
There's a small chance atheism isn't true, but it most likely is. One thing that's for sure is that all the world religions are false.

>>18542799
holy shit, meds time.

>>18542787
The way most atheists put it, atheism can never be true. Because it's not a claim, but a lack of belief in one.

>>18542868
>There's a small chance atheism isn't true, but it most likely is.
Likelihoods based on?

>>18542799
>i found a guy who could remotely induce a state of ecstasy in me from 2000 km away.
Remote controlled buttplug up your ass
>i've also learnt a divination method that allows me to predict when other people will use violence against me
Being suspicious of minorities

Checkmate theists. Try harder.

>>18542787
no partiality

>>18542868
>holy shit, meds time.
it would be meds time if i had random unpredictable episodes of uncontrollable altered states of consciousness. when there is a predictable and observable cause=>effect relationship there's nothing to medicate for.

>>18542787
Life cannot arise from non-life.

>>18542787
there's definitely a god (simulation argument and all that). it's just probably not any of the ones humans have written about.

>>18542953
>it's just probably not any of the ones humans have written about.
i suspect you probably don't know much about many of those.

>>18542963
Probably more than almost anyone on this board. Religion and holy texts is one of my autistic interests.

You have to be retarded to buy atheism

>>18542886
>Likelihoods based on?
Zero evidence of God or spirits or anything supernatural whatsoever?

>>18543017
There's lots of converging testimonial evidence across cultures, centuries and even continents. If you're looking for something more specific, we can definitely discuss that, but so far it seems you just pulled likelihoods out of your ass and slapped an argument from silence fallacy on it.

>>18542886
>Likelihoods based on?
Desire to be a woman

>>18543017
Everything which exists is evidence of God.

>>18543016
Materialism is demonstrably true anon

>>18543033
Demonstrate

>>18543033
Retarded comment

>>18543034
I punch you in the face, you start crying like a pussy and your face is deformed. q. e. d.

>>18543040
Outstanding. Btw dualism is demonstrably true:
I punch you in the face, you start crying like a pussy and your face is deformed. q. e. d.

As it so happens, idealism is also true:
I punch you in the face, you start crying like a pussy and your face is deformed. q. e. d.

And last but not least... solipsism is true:
I punch you in the face, you start crying like a pussy and your face is deformed. q. e. d.

>>18543058
>other ideologies co-opt materialism and pretend its part of them (but not the full picture, trust me bro)
Yes we know anon

>>18543062
This supports this thesis >>18543016

>>18543062
Neither idealism nor solipsism contain materialism lmao. They contain material. The parody of a worldview you attach to material is your own and they have nothing to do with it.

>>18543065
>w-we don't contain materialism, it's material
>totally different thing you see
Lmao

>>18543069
>materialism and matter are the same thing
Again, supports this >>18543016

>>18543079
>I posit that made up shit doesn't exist
>REEEEE PROVE IT
This is all it comes down to at the end of the day.

>>18542868
>One thing that's for sure is that all the world religions are false.
Your hubris precedes you

>>18543069
>can't tell material from materialism
Low quality bait.

>>18543082
Begging the question

>>18543085
Explain the difference then
>inb4 you start invoking made up bullshit
>>18543087
No not really, just a base fact of reality

>>18543094
>Explain the difference then
Between matter and a theory about matter?

>>18543098
No between material and materialism

>>18543099
Ohhh okay I think I understand where you're coming from now.

Materialism is a theory about matter, Anon.

>>18543101
>Ohhh okay I think I understand where you're coming from now.
Me too, he’s coming from his freshman high school classes

Wait people still pretend to care about this libtard boomer's opinions?

>>18542932
> there is a predictable and observable cause
Thats the realm of science now. Therefore it should be put to the standards of a scientific study, replication, bias removal, noise removal.
This is also an extraordinary claim. If your claim is true and can be proven by science, you will be a very famous person

>>18543032
If everything is evidence, nothing is evidence.

>>18543032
What is your definition of god and does it include you not liking when people masturbate in the privacy of their own home
>>18543021
>Testimonial evidence
There is more testimonial evidence for fucking aliens. If this is evidence of anything it's that human social language and cognition is heavily unreliable and biased towards hallucinating causes and things that are not there (at least that's the most logical explanation for these phenomenons that doesn't require any more ad hoc unproven hypothesis to work)

>>18543021
Pedro the taco truck owner believing he saw the face of mother maria in his refried beans this morning is not evidence of the supernatural. There is zero (0) actual evidence of anything supernatural, ever. Nothing. Just testimonies from schizos. If I tell you that iron exists, I can show it to you. Prove it to you. I can demonstrate what it is and what it does. You can detect it with your senses. But if you tell me God exists, there is nothing. Just "trust me bro". "Trust me bro" is not evidence to anyone but a fool.

>>18543032
Nope. You presuppose that God exists and created everything, and therefore everything that exists must be evidence of God. That's not how it works, at all.

>>18543083
I'm sorry to burst your bubble anon, but there was never a talking snake that told a man made from clay and a woman made from his rib to eat an apple that made a deity go apeshit and curse humanity. That quite literally never happened. You're far too old to believe literally in fairy tales that make less sense than Shrek.

>>18543101
>Materialism is a theory about matter, Anon.
So is idealism and dualism and so on. You haven't explained shit, explain the difference between material and materialism

>>18542932
>
we need to medicate you against that one guy.

he can't be getting away with this.

>>18543281
Incoherent
>>18543286
>What is your definition of god and does it include you not liking when people masturbate in the privacy of their own home
Huh? You people are retarded
>>18543297
Correct, that’s not how it works, that’s a strawman. I presuppose that God exists, and you presuppose that God exists since 1. It is impossible not to do so, the existence of God being necessary and 2. The knowledge of God is inescapable. You’re presupposing God exists right now by thinking in logical terms, because only the Christian God can give the ground for laws of logic.

>>18543783
I see that you are braindead.

>>18543786
God bless you.

>>18543793
Praise Satan

>>18543016
Atheists are literally the highest IQ demographic.

>>18543783
Presuppositionalism is literally formally invalid, dumbass. No, the christian god is not the necessary precondition for the "laws of logic". You literally don't even know what logic is.

>>18543796
Satan sends his agents to tempt you to sin and then runs to tell on you and demands God punishes you.

>>18542787
Athiesm is an irrelevant ideology. Athiest Europeans are finding out why the elaborate historical structures their ancestors constructed were necessary. Athiesm will not exist in 100 years

>>18543967
This is extreme cope. In reality, there will be no religious people in less than 100 years.

>>18543970
Athiests do not reproduce anywhere near replacement level. Christians and Muslims (!) do. I can dismiss athiesm as simply a non factor in the civilizational conflict and conversation. It will matter just as much as pagans now do.

>>18543997
>Athiests do not reproduce anywhere near replacement level.
This is both not true, and also not relevant. The spread of ideology does not have anything to do with birth rates. Christian and muslim children are all apostatizing and becoming atheists.
> I can dismiss athiesm as simply a non factor in the civilizational conflict and conversation.
You can try, and you'd be wrong. Atheism is increasing faster than any religion and christianity and islam are dying.
> It will matter just as much as pagans now do.
There are literally more pagans on earth than christians and muslims combined lol

Why are you christians so fucking retarded?

File: a5143393acd96784c99695c0f(...).png (267 KB, 1022x832)

267 KB PNG

>>18544002
The spread of ideology has everything to do with the core demographic of the ideology reproducing itself yes. You should be honest in acknowledging that "conversions" (lol) to athiesm have plateaued too. The core demgoraphic, limp weak excess eaters in utopian industrialized societies has been maximized, and isn't having kids. Uh oh! You've bought in to the spiritual equivalent of a fast fashion trend.
>There are literally more pagans on earth than christians and muslims combined lol
Betraying yet again that athiesm destroys a love for one's own society and people. I do not care about China and India. "He who hates me loves death"

>>18544011
>The spread of ideology has everything to do with the core demographic of the ideology reproducing itself yes.
No it doesn't, as then atheism wouldn't have spread in the first place, retard.
>You should be honest in acknowledging that "conversions" (lol) to athiesm have plateaued too.
They haven't, atheism continues to grow faster than any religion.
>The core demgoraphic, limp weak excess eaters in utopian industrialized societies has been maximized
This is not the "core demographic", the largest share of atheists in the US are in the south
> Uh oh! You've bought in to the spiritual equivalent of a fast fashion trend.
You're fucking retarded and don't understand basic math.
>Betraying yet again that athiesm destroys a love for one's own society and people. I do not care about China and India. "He who hates me loves death"
I don't care about your arbitrary metrics. Paganism is objectively more common on earth than christianity and islam. Atheism is growing faster than either christianity or islam. Neither religion will exist in 100 years, honestly they probably won't exist in 20 years. As technology and AI continues to increase it's only going to further reduce christianity and islam because it disproves their core metaphysical claims about humans.

Anyway, you're literally retarded, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually have a double digit IQ.

>>18544021
Athiests demonstrably vote for policies which allow mass migration of the dumbest zealots from the most savage religious societies at replacement levels. I'm genuinely curious what you think the future of athiesm is in France and the UK. "Athiest" is code for fighting the now non existent ideological boogyman of politically influential Christian clergy, while having a guilt complex towards everyone else who don't view you with anywhere close to the respect the most repressive Christian state would.

>>18543783
>I presuppose that God exists, and you presuppose that God exists since
>You’re presupposing God exists right now by thinking in logical terms, because only the Christian God can give the ground for laws of logic.

This is about the level of theological philosophy that you will encounter in any debate with a lay theologian. It almost always starts with "let's assume without out any defense that I'm right" and always devolves into handwaving because of an incomplete, overly broad, or just plan incorrect understanding of a theological framework.

Also the idea that logic doesn't exist without, specifically, a Christian God is nonsensical. The idea that because someone uses logic in a debate is somehow proof of a Christian God is absurd.

>>18544034
God is analagous to the necessary conditions for human thought to have real meaning and the ability to actually guage reality. Without a baseline guaranteed by X, and X can be whatever you want, you might as well say we're dealing with dream logic which could change moment to moment, which is not a serious conversation. The thousands of times this has been redone athiests have not produced any X.
>This just pressuposes a supreme being
If it's impossible to say that discussions have meaning without pressuposing X either X exists or the conversation is meaningless.

>>18544045
Just say you don't know what logic is instead of writing out all this nonsense.

>>18544055
>still can't do it
What exactly is so hard to understand that a dream world constructed by your brain isn't actually what's being talked ablut?

>>18544061
Can't do what? You literally don't know what you're talking about.
Watch the first 7 minutes of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzvmnArG_U

>>18544061
Meaning is use. Magicalist theories of semantics are just a result of a severe misunderstanding of linguistics.

>>18543297
>There is zero (0) actual evidence of anything supernatural, ever. Nothing. Just testimonies from schizos.
How did you gain access to their diagnoses?

It's simple to make statements you know nothing about when you just make up what they're about and who they're from lol

>If I tell you that iron exists, I can show it to you.
And I can refuse to look. Would it prove iron doesn't exist? No. And yet, you're out here claiming there is zero evidence without ever practicing a mystical discipline which is supposed to show you.

>>18543600
Materialism is a theory about matter. That is the difference. Note that the sentence contains both "materialism" and "material" and how they relate to each other. And that the relation is not one of complete identity.

>>18542787
Out of all the religions out there, the jewish cult of Athiesm is the least likely to be true.

>>18544094
You have mental retardation.

>>18544090
Post a video of you using your mystical discipline to levitate.

>>18544098
I don't practice levitation. Post a video of you making iron. Lmao we can all set retarded goalposts.

>>18544096
Dude, I am not an athiest.

>>18544107
That's why you have mental retardation (atheists are the highest IQ demographic).

>>18544106
Yeah I know you can't lol. The best you can do is predict when you're going to feel like you're being gangstalked.

>>18544110
They clearly aren't as they are slowly DYING.
Probably degenerate vermins seeking to justify their hedonism by adopting the jew religion of Athiesm.

>>18544116
Yeah you got me good there, I can't uhhhh ... l-levtate..?

>>18544118
>They clearly aren't as they are slowly DYING.
Atheism is growing faster than any religion
>Probably degenerate vermins seeking to justify their hedonism by adopting the jew religion of Athiesm
Christianity is literally a jewish religion while atheism is the biggest threat to judaism and all other religions. You are only further showing that you have a low IQ

File: 2017.png (30 KB, 649x441)

30 KB PNG

>>18544124
>Atheism is growing faster than any religion
My nigga, atheism grew like 2 percent points in 15 years lmao. The irreligious are growing, most of whom aren't atheists.

>>18544123
>ummmm why are you asking me to do supernatural shit that can be proven to be real?
Every time with you freaks.

>>18544130
>My nigga, atheism grew like 2 percent points in 15 years lmao
Atheists are over 20% of the global population at this point. Your chart is ten years old.

>>18544134
>yeah I could check through the methods
>but how about you do the method and I just tell you if I'm impressed enough
Every time with you faggots.

>>18544135
Again, that would be irreligious people, not atheists.

>>18544143
>you have to try practicing my schizo shit, I bet you'll also start feeling like you can tell when's the next time you're going to have a tantrum over being gangstalked
lmao

>>18544156
>no I won't check
All you had to say, "evidence seeker".

lmao

>>18544159
Its curious how all your third worlders have superpowers that conveniently cannot be demonstrated to be real. You'd think at least one of you could fly or throw magic missiles, but it's always palmistry or schizophrenia.

>>18544177
>bring up superpowers
>find it "curious"
you're arguing against yourself atp

>>18544180
>no please don't call them superpowers, that makes them sound silly
lmao

>>18544183
Wow you actually didn't notice that nobody talked about superpowers except you. My man, this doesn't even pass the bar as a trolling attempt, much less as a regular thread. I concede on completely everything and take back any appeal that you should seek evidence where evidence is said to be. What you're doing now is good enough.

>>18542799
>it's not hard to trace the breadcrumbs until you find legit people and practices that will demonstrate it for you. for example i found a guy who could remotely induce a state of ecstasy in me from 2000 km away. i've also learnt a divination method that allows me to predict when other people will use violence against me (happens to me more often than you'd expect, it sucks).
It's certainly not hard to find people making claims like this on the internet, but they never seem to be able to prove their abilities in real life even though it could make them famous.

>>18544188
>STOP CALLING MY SPIDEY SENSE A SUPERPOWER
>THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!
topkek

>>18544067
>The chain holding a chandelier to a roof isn't endless if you understand what patchwork reasoning is
Everyone understands what patchwork reasoning is. 99% of an answer infinitely approachimg but never touching 100% is not actually arriving at truth. If you cannot conceive of a solution but hope one exists without a supreme being that is faith. The fact is that the chandelier is attached to a roof, but you're not actually just denying that it's a specific roof (God) but that there is actually a roof. Increasingly complex explanations expanding infinitely but never arriving at an actual alternative to definitionally the only possible solution is obviously insane.

>>18544177
But we can fly, and we can throw magic missiles. We can also move objects with our minds, and transmit messages of light and sound all around the planet to eachother. We can breath underwater, and we can move mountains. Amazing.

>>18544195
>hehe supernaturalism is true because planes exist hehe
Book move, supernaturalists love this line.

>>18544199
You have just defined supernatural as "fantasy". I don't share your definiton. My definition of supernatural is self evident, and I have experienced it.

>>18544210
>hehe I defined the supernatural as phones and planes, so their existence proves I have the same capeshit superpower as marvel's peter parker
Peak shit.

>>18544213
It's how language works Anon. You don't even know what I fully believe, and yet, because of a word I choose to use, you feel the desire to insult me without context.

>>18544221
>the way language works is that when I define the word "supernatural" a certain way, I suddenly gain literal marvel capeshit superpowers

>>18544213
By the way, I don't define the phones and planes as supernatural, but the supernatural does control them, and the supernatural did create them. They didn't just evolve without any supernatural choices being made.

>>18544226
>phones and planes aren't supernatural but they still prove I have literal marvel capeshit superpowers

>>18544224
I dont define the word. Words are determined through consensus. I don't agree with your definition. You don't care what my definition is, because you're not interested in communication. You're not here to share information. You're here because you're hungry.

>>18544227
Straw is heavy. Some day, it will break your back. When you want to know what I believe, let me know, and I'll tell you. Until then, you're just eating yourself.

>>18544233
>consensus can give me literal capeshit superpowers from marvel comic books

>>18544233
>>18544237
The funny thing is that you did the obscurantist bit where you try to goad people into dragging more concrete information from you while you vaguepost and now you're crying because I didn't bite.
You could've chosen to write a clear overview of your beliefs, clearly define your terms and then clearly argue how that justifies your belief in you having spidey sense.
You chose not to do that.

>>18544045
>God is analagous to the necessary conditions for human thought
You're doing the handwaving away thing that I mentioned before. You're starting the debate with a dogmatism fallacy of requiring, without evidence, that you are correct in your argument. Then you're doubling down by saying that logic and debate can only be had because we accept your statement above.

>>18544242
>funny thing is
I could have, but you're not here to communicate. You're here to eat, and your words express your motivations.

>>18544254
>I could have
But you deliberately chose not to from the moment you dropped your first post. You're explicitly admitting that, so your outrage is also merely performative.

>>18544257
>outrage
Anon. I'm not here for emotional reasons, like you. Rage and laughter has nothing to do with it. I'm not hungry. I'm curious. I know what I believe, and you don't. Like I said, I'm willing to share my thoughts with you, but you have to ask for them. But again, that's not why you're here.

>>18544274
I already told you I know what your bit is lol. It doesn't work on me, you'll have to find someone else who falls for it.

Athiesm is the stupidest jewish religion I ever heard of.
No wonder it's followers are slowly dying out.

>>18544189
some are very famous, just not in the circles you frequent.
>>18543273
is it? so if you swing an axe at a tree and then the tree falls, you need scientists to tell you there is a causal connection?
apparently there was a 2014 University of Virginia experiment where they put people in a room and told them to wait, but that they could also press a button to shock themselves. let's say you press that button, and then get shocked - do you need a scientist to tell you that there is a causal connection between pressing the shock button and getting shocked?
similarly if i ask a guy for a spiritual transmission and then suddenly at a random point throughout the day i enter a spontaneous state of ecstasy, and if he can do this reliably every time i ask him to, it seems that there is a causal connection there.
i do not know how much fame there is in something like this, and i imagine most people don't care - that person certainly didn't give me the transmission in for pay, fun, or just the heck of it. it was for spiritual purposes.
separately from that of course there is also the matter of the will of the scientific community and also what methodology is used. generally speaking the scientists that are interested in 'testing' stuff like this are interested in doing so in order to disprove them, not in order to find out the truth. and for their purposes, there are tons of chumps and charlatans they can expose, constantly 'decisively refuting' claims about such matters, without ever needing to engage with legitimate spiritual masters. and if they did want to engage with them, what tools do they have to study their abilities, when generally science focuses on material research that by definition cannot detect immaterial forces?

>>18544349
...you pavlov'd yourself into having an orgasm when you think of some guy thinking about you? That's some real William Burroughs shit.

>>18544366
if your little fanfic about me is true, then i am an extremely weird guy with an extremely weird and basically unheard of ability
but what if your little fanfic is not true? uh oh. that would be trouble, wouldn't it?

>>18544381
That's basically what you said though. You tell a guy to think about you and then on the same day you feel ecstatic.
An experience shared by many women worldwide.
Did you not realize all this time, anon? You're in love.

>>18542799
>for example i found a guy who could remotely induce a state of ecstasy in me from 2000 km away
Teledildonics?

>>18544387
based retard. i love you too anon. do you feel my love pressing against your male G-spot yet?
>>18544389
no, that's a separate technique i use on your mother.

>>18543783
You're mentally ill. You've made a claim with no evidence, and I have dismissed it. That's it and that's all.

>>18544090
Alright. Provide evidence that God exists. Go ahead, I'll be waiting (forever).

>>18542787
Dawkins is generally based, despite his redditor fans being unbelievably cringe.

>>18544411
>Alright. Provide evidence that God exists. Go ahead, I'll be waiting (forever).
The Bible. Your wait is over unless you forgot the difference between evidence and proof.

>>18544433
not him but the bible isn't evidence either it's a set of claims and assertions

>>18544440
Yes, that's what testimonies are made of. And you might find testimonies to be a completely uncompelling pieces of evidence, but they are factually evidence. If there exist methods you would find more convincing, I am more than happy to discuss those, but atheists usually bail the moment methodological questions come into play.

>>18544442
evidence in court yes but that has a totally separate set of truth standards compared to an intellectual inquiry.

>>18544433
Words in a book are not evidence of something existing. Or else the Sonic the Hedgehog comics mean he actually exists, which I don't think you believe, unless I'm speaking to Chris-chan. You have unlimited tries, so go ahead and try again.

>>18544444
A trial is an intellectual inquiry, Anon, hence the literal arguments and evidence.
Now if you think claims with metaphysical ramifications ought to be examined by separate standards, I would probably agree with you. And if you insisted that those standards should be based in science, I would partially agree there too. It's just that science doesn't work via "idk impress me and maybe I'll change my mind". We make predictions and select specific criteria that will pivot us from the null hypothesis to the tested hypothesis. Those don't exist.
You're asking for evidence you couldn't even in theory recognize. I could hand you the Holy Spirit in a tin can and you'd ask me how that is any evidence... and I'd be powerless to answer because if you don't set criteria, no artifact can serve as evidence to you.

>>18544442
>Your honor, I have written a book that I'm innocent, therefore I am clearly innocent.
>Well that settles it, court adjourned *smacks gavel*

>>18544454
You commited two non sequiturs
> Or else the Sonic the Hedgehog
Those aren't testimonies, thus unrelated example
>Sonic the Hedgehog comics mean he actually exists
If we imagine they were testimonies, no, that wouldn't "mean" that. It would be evidence, but not proof. I will kindly remind you again to remember the difference.

>>18544460
I didn't write the Bible. Notice all the acrobacy you have to perform to deny that testimonies are actually evidence.

I remember at uni during the height of Dawkins' fame feeling strong second hand embarrassment when I saw a third year student sitting on the floor just beside the lecture theatre door reading the god delusion.

>>18544463
Meanwhile, I constantly feel embarrassed for the adults who believe in the skydaddy

>>18544467
Sucks to be you I guess

>>18544461
So... you've got nothing more? Just the fairy tale book? Remember, you have unlimited tries. If you've got something actually compelling, let's hear it.

>>18544469
>If you've got something actually compelling
See >>18544458 Science doesn't work via "idk impress me and maybe I'll change my mind". Ask Dawkins.
Your goalpost was met and if you're still unsatisfied, the ball is in your court.

>>18544468
Found the skydaddy believer

>>18544433
>The Bible
That one's already been falsified. Got anything else?

>>18544470
I'm not seeing any evidence in that post.
>Ask Dawkins.
Dawkins' books' existence explicitly and definitively defeat your own argument, since your argument is "words in a book are evidence that God exists". Well, Dawkins also wrote words in a book explaining that God doesn't exist. So, what now? They cancel each other out, do they not?

>>18544478
That is a gross misreading of the scholarly literature. It is fitting it should happen in a Dawkins thread though.

>>18544485
>>[Post about evidence following from criteria]
>I'm not seeing any evidence in that post.
What are your criteria?

>Dawkins also wrote words in a book explaining that God doesn't exist. So, what now?
So now you tell me how that's a testimony.

>>18544458
>I could hand you the Holy Spirit in a tin can and you'd ask me how that is any evidence...
personally i would consider that evidence, but having a real encounter with the Holy Spirit would not be the same as having a written account claim that it supposedly is real and active.

>>18544495
What misreading? I haven't even said anything about why it's been falsified.

>>18544498
>>I could hand you the Holy Spirit in a tin can and you'd ask me how that is any evidence...
>personally i would consider that evidence
Respect for including the often left-out word "personally". Though I'm not sure why you expect an encounter with the Holy Spirit to have an epistemologically conclusive character to you. What does the Holy Spirit look like that you'd go "ah yes, that's God". What do you expect it to do that would give you clarity? You probably imagine that it will be super impressive (and I see why), but we are after ' intellectual inquiry' after all...

>>18544501
The misreading that would lead you to discard testimonies. We can discuss the same thing that gets discussed in threads like these ad naueam - oh but they weren't written down until later, oh but they are too similar, oh but what if we imagine Q... but at the end of the day none of those (or their sum) "falsify" the Bible in any relevant sense. If you must try it out though, go ahead.

>>18544513
>What does the Holy Spirit look like that you'd go "ah yes, that's God". What do you expect it to do that would give you clarity?
well now we are getting into serious specifics that almost no one ever gets to, like "if you had a supernatural experience how would you know that it's actually god and not some kind of lesser psychic phenomenon". it's a real and rudimentary level of argument that most people don't care for. but the crucial thing is that most people arguing this point would not concede that any non-material layer of reality exists. so if you can provide these people with an encounter with an intelligent and powerful spirit being, they would concede the argument (as it would invalidate their premises).
as for my personal standards these don't really matter because i am not an atheist, but i am also not a christian.

>>18544495
Anon, please stop seething and deflecting and playing semantics and just show me evidence that God exists. The Bible is not evidence that God exists, and I can prove that - The Bible explicitly states that Yahweh is the only God. If words in a book are to be taken as factual, according to you, then that means every other holy text is also evidence of those gods existing, which disproves The Bible.

Now, the evidence, please. I'll give you one more chance before I mark you off as a total waste of time (like every other religitard). Work for the (You).

>>18544513
It's been falsified because it predicted a second coming of jesus with his daddy on the clouds during the lifetimes of the bible authors, but never happened, so the prediction failed and the bible was falsified.

Matthew 24:30-31,34
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mark 9:1
And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Matthew 26:64
Jesus replied (to the high priest prosecuting him). “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Matthew 10:23
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31
What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

>>18544513
>>18544531
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Romans 13:11
And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

>>18544366
>anon has a clear claim of someone doing something blatantly supernatural and repeatable
> instaid of claiming that anon is just pulling it out of his ass
> instead of claiming that maybe their is something different in the situation that anon didn't explain
> inmidiatly tries to go for low effort mokery.
>doesn't even consider this as evidence , even for a moment.

how telling.

>>18544524
Completely agreed. And I hate to play the blame game, but it's necessary to make this point clear - it's the atheists bringing this rudimentary level of argumentation into the God debate. Theists across all history were fine engaging in mystical practices and using discernment without explicit criteria to draw conclusions. And the conclusions seem to converge a fair bit. But this seems to just not cut it for atheists, who insist on approximating a scientific approach. And setting specific criteria is part of that approach... but they can't do it. It's a perfect trap - insisting on a type of evidence they are powerless to actually test. And the only alternative is that they, by sheer accident, will be swept into an experience that would happen to conform to their personal idiosyncratic expectations of divinity. For people having the worst possible tools to evaluate evidence, atheists certainly ask for it a lot.

>>18544526
>just show me evidence that God exists
See the Bible.
>The Bible explicitly states that Yahweh is the only God
Correct, He is the only who truly holds that title. All other beings are minor spirits and ought not to be considered gods.
>If words in a book are to be taken as factual
Not what "evidence" means. Please do look it up.

>>18544531
>this generation
The Bible refers to "generation of the righteous", as is in the Psalms.
>“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
And they saw it a few verses later.
>From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One
So not "in your lifetime" but "now". Figure out what goalpost you're trying to falsify, Anon.
>Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
And he did come. And they did not at first recognize him
>1 Corinthians 7:29-31
Perhaps your only valid argument. I concede that Paul might have been too eager.

>>18544542
>And they saw it a few verses later.
They didn't
>And he did come.
He didn't.
>The Bible refers to "generation of the righteous", as is in the Psalms
What?

There's no sane denial of these blatantly falsified predictions, sorry.

>>18544548
>They didn't
>He didn't.
Ah, my bad... Is that what you expected me to say? lol

>>The Bible refers to "generation of the righteous", as is in the Psalms
>What?
You're reading a demographic attribute into "generation" that matches our current usage but not necessarily the Biblical usage.

>>18544542
Another low IQ waste of time.

>>18544556
>Is that what you expected me to say?
It's what a sane person would say when they realize their delusions have been falsified, but you are already too invested in your failed religion to think honestly about it. I just feel sad for you.

>>18544562
Feel sad then. I'll be here reading Mark 9 where Jesus tells people they will see the Kingdom and then shows them Transfiguration and life after death immediately after. Completely unrelated passages, I reckon.

>>18544570
>confusing the mountain hallucination story with the second coming
I can tell you've just given up on thinking. There's no hope left for you.

>>18544580
>he thinks Mark 9:1 says "the second coming"
You're about to feel even sadder.

>>18544583
The previous verse:

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Do you think jesus would be okay with you lying to yourself like this?

>>18544588
Nooo may I be forgiven, a statement about Mark 9:1 didn't also apply to Mark 8:38.... lol

>>18544609
>lol
Nervous laughter is a common symptom of a mental breakdown as your faith crashes and burns in front of your eyes.

>>18544622
It's also a common symptom of catching someone shifting goalposts... and still not meeting them.

lol

>>18544632
Ah, you poor deluded thing... Here, let me quote my bible falsifying posts again just so you can look at them once more and drown even further in your despair as you try to interpret them as delusionally as you can
>>18544531
>>18544532

>>18544641
I've replied to these and you responded that you're feeling sad and impied you thought it said "second coming". I'm humbled by your empathy, perhaps I will one day experience it the same way, but currently it does not drive me into despair that you found ways to misunderstand multiple verses. Maybe one day though. You never know...

PS: See how >>18544531 specifically mentions Mark 9:1? Weird, huh? (<- lol)

>>18543928
Not an argument.
>>18543923
Retarded belief

>>18543928
>Presuppositionalism is literally formally invalid
Why does formal validity matter?

File: 1767581295617529.jpg (75 KB, 968x853)

75 KB JPG

>>18542799

>>18544954
>Why does formal validity matter?
Because without formal validity your argument is literally irrelevant and on the same level as whatever bullshit a toddler says

>>18544538
>instaid of claiming that anon is just pulling it out of his ass
> instead of claiming that maybe their is something different in the situation that anon didn't explain
You completely missed the simplest explanation - anon is unknowingly creating the "effect" himself through the expectation that it will happen. The problem is that he knows in advance when he's supposed to feel the supernatural ecstasy.
The way to test something like this would be to isolate anon and the supernatural guy for a month with no access to outside communication, then tell the supernatural guy to target anon on some specific days that you decide on, and then ask anon on which days he felt the effect during that month.

>>18542787
I’m fine with god but I see no proof that jesus is special
>>18542942
life itself is made up of non living material

>>18544349
I think it's neat how you think. But I don't think you understand how causality works and how to test it.

Cool idea though I like your creativity.

>>18544349
That's a lot of words to say that actually it's either not testable or not proof of a spiritual realm.
Pasolini films can reliably make me extatic, although I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with the spiritual realm, despite his ways of generating emotions being auite mysterious

>>18542886
>it's not a claim
"There are no supernatural beings or all-powerful deities in existence" is a claim that could be true or false. Technically someone that believes in woo and thinks ghosts are real could be an atheist, but that's a minority position

>>18545116
That explains why nothing makes sense without formal validity, it does not explain why it objectively matters, i.e. what its basis is. Under your worldview why does logical, formal validity mean anything?

>>18545116
>>18545477
To clarify and make the point, we are talking about logical validity because we are talking about formal logic. According to Anon, my argument is invalid because it is formally invalid, however, according to his worldview laws of logic do not and absolutely can not exist, because they are not material objects. So if we buy the assertion that my argument is formally invalid (which it isn’t), then who cares, because under his worldview that doesn’t mean anything anyway, it means my argument fails to satisfy the arbitrary rules of some man-made game, so what? In his rebuttal to my argument he proves it to be correct, because he has to abandon his own presuppositions and borrow my worldview just to argue against it.

>>18542787
>We all want atheism to be false because atheists are incredibly annoying
atheists are far less annoying than religious people

>>18545558
t. ranny

>>18544953
>Not an argument.
Yes it is
>Retarded belief
No, it isn't.
>>18545477
>>18545493
You are, again, showing that you don't know what logic is. No, buddy, no one is "Borrowing from teh christian worldview" by using formal semantics. You are profoundly retarded.

>>18545493
>according to his worldview laws of logic do not and absolutely can not exist, because they are not material objects
Literally never said this nor is it my position. You, again, show you are a retard who doesn't actually know what you're talking about.

Agnosticism is the real default position. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend like lack of evidence proves something does not exist, or to ignore an entire tradition of natural theology stretching back to ancient greece just because you're mad at Christianity.
Atheists are just immature people who got mind raped by their evangelical upbringing, and are eternally lashing out against it (in ways very similar to american evangelicalism, mind you)

>>18545571
I was never raised christian or religious at all.

>>18545477
>>18545493
An argument that just proclaims "I win!" (presuppositionalism does this) is not a real argument. This has nothing to do with muh formal logic

>>18545571
Do you afford this same agnosticism towards other obvious bullshit that people believed for a long time? Do you think that maybe cannibals really did transfer the spirits of their enemies slain in battle when they eat them? How about headshrinkers, do you think they really capture the person's spirit? Do you think ancestor spirits are real? How about the wolf spirit, when a shaman eats psychedelic mushrooms, is that real? What about rain dances, do you think hey, maybe dancing around a fire while waving a totem pole actually does influence the weather? All of this stuff has been believed for much longer than the major world religions. Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. That's an impressive pedigree. Surely you consider that all equally valid.

And how about obviously provably false things, like the moon and sun worshipers who thought they were deities? Do you "just not know" even though it's provably false? When we know that the moon and sun are bodies in space and not deities? Should those people be afforded the benefit of the doubt?

Come on, anon. People don't resurrect from the dead. Magic does nothing. Praying does nothing. Snakes don't talk. Humans weren't created from clay. You know this. You're a fully grown-up adult, aren't you? There's no way you actually believe in fairy tales. Being an "agnostic" is just being an intellectual coward, plain and simple. You're afraid to admit to yourself that it's all bullshit, when it's extremely apparent. Because you want it to be true. But it just isn't. It's time to let go.

>>18545571
Agnosticism isn't a position at all unless the question is "do you know?".

>>18545599
Taking theistic arguments seriously is qualitativey different from taking every claim about the supernatural seriously.
>People don't resurrect from the dead. Magic does nothing. Praying does nothing. Snakes don't talk. Humans weren't created from clay. You know this. You're a fully grown-up adult, aren't you?
Ok, but none of that has any bearing on the existence of God, those are merely anti-religious/superstition arguments, not atheistic ones. It doesn't seem like atheists can tell the difference, despite the fact that they like to imagine themselves as intelligent and more rational than the average person. Also, those are not arguments at all, it's the intellectual equivalent of nagging, and going
>Come on bro, you don't really believe this do you bro? it's ridiculous bro, c'mon
>>18545617
"I don't know/it's unknowable" is definitely a position. It's one that no one from either side likes and that people tend to try to browbeat people out of, but it's still a position.

>>18545699
>"I don't know..." is definitely a position.
It is when the question is "do you know?"

>it's unknowable
Agnosticism doesn't propose an epistemological limitation.

> It's one that no one from either side likes
You're not experiencing pushback because people dislike you or the things you say. You're experiencing pushback because you're answering a different question than the one being asked. The question isn't "do you know?". The question is "do you believe God exists?". What you know or don't know is completely besides the point.

>>18545728
I am well aware that you can have a weak atheistic position where you don't think god exists while also recognizing you don't actually know, and that you can believe without knowing that, I just have no opinion. What you're doing is that nu-atheist meme of trying to force agnostics into picking a side by framing it a certain way and redefining what agnosticism means.
>BUT DO YOU BELIEVE???
I certainly think it's possible in some capacity. Fuck off with that reddit shit. I don't know whether or not god exists like you don't know what I ate for breakfast.

>>18545833
>I just have no opinion
And hence no position. And that is fine, you don't have to pick one.
>you don't know what I ate for breakfast
And I take no position on it.

>>18542801
spbp

>>18545699
>Ok, but none of that has any bearing on the existence of God, those are merely anti-religious/superstition arguments, not atheistic ones. It doesn't seem like atheists can tell the difference, despite the fact that they like to imagine themselves as intelligent and more rational than the average person.
There is no difference. Believing in undetectable deities = superstition.

superstition:

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

>Also, those are not arguments at all, it's the intellectual equivalent of nagging, and going
>>Come on bro, you don't really believe this do you bro? it's ridiculous bro, c'mon
Yes, anon. The Bible is no more based in reality than any other story with talking animals or magical occurrences. If I met a grown man who still believed Santa Claus flew around the world on a sleigh and delivered presents to billions of children in a single night once a year, I would treat him the same way I'm treating you right now. You believe in something ridiculous and childish. You should keep repeating back to yourself what you believe until it sounds as foolish to you as it does to a rational person:
>I believe humanity was created from clay
>I believe in talking snakes
>I believe in talking donkeys
>I believe a man had superman strength because his hair grew long
>I believe in foreskin magic
>I believe in the magic of ritual animal sacrifices
>I believe in the magic of ritual human sacrifices
You believe all this stuff unironically as a grown, educated man in the 21st century. That's embarrassing, anon.