As an atheist, I win arguments. If I were a Christian, I'd lose arguments.
>>18737808You only win arguments in your head. Atheists are the the dudes at tech meetings that argue for "tech purity" as opposed to practicality and consider themselves the most educated when in reality they don't understand that all tech is just layers of crap created for practicality and no "tech purity" exists.Basically the ackhtually nerd who doesn't even know his own topic well.
Why don't you wanna win the heart of Chako Mathai bro? You care for nothing? Soul rotted nihilist
>>18737814>ok I admit god isn't real but it's practical to pretend to believe he isThat's an atheistic argument lol.
>>18737814>>18737808Has anyone debunked Hitchen's view on Jesus?https://youtu.be/KXAGpCTiGlQ?si=lVnwcS_0yQcEgUkK&t=42
>>18737822I never said God isn't real but that's the level of reading comprehension you have to operate on to be an atheist.And yeah, it's good to believe in God even just based off atheist arguments.
>>18737829Wut he say? CBA to watch that brainlet.
>>18737830Well yeah it was a dramatic exaggeration. Arguments of this kind do not need to straight up posit propositional atheism.Doesn't change the fact that such arguments are not arguments against atheism and can indeed be made from an atheist position.Therefore you lost.
>>18737842No, dummy. >even if resistance training isn't guaranteed to make girls fall in love with you, it is still good for your healthIs not an argument in favor of not lifting to get girls. It's an argument in favor of lifting.But yeah you won here's your trophy, don't get upset.
>>18737848>argument by false analogyYou lost again. The arguments we're talking about are arguments for pretending to believe God exists, not arguments for the existence of God. They are therefore fully compatible with atheism.
>>18737808I don't really care, though. Why are tou telling me this?
>>18737808Hitchens wasn't winning arguments because he was an atheist, he won them by being exceptionally gifted at rhetorics. Unless you regularly delve into arguments that exceed your education, you should be fine "winning" them for Christians too. I can't tell you how many times I've seen an atheist schooled on negative claims also having a burden of proof, on naturalism being unfalsifiable, on how scientific proof actually works etc.
>>18737898The epistemologybro schtick falls apart as soon as someone starts asking you shit like "why do you believe he healed people with his spit"?
>>18737908Not really. The discussion just pivots into "well I would prefer to have reports by someone neutral. As in he saw a literal miracle but didn't give a fuck to follow the miracle worker". If your goal is to "win" the argument, you still have a very decent chance here, you just have to keep the idiocy of this expectation in focus instead of letting the atheist focus on it being a theoretically feasible requirement.
>>18737915That might sound impressive to you when you say it but you're running into a headfirst collision with two different issues.1)People in the West implicitly and instinctively affirm Hume's argument against miracles even if they make an exception for their particular faith tradition.2)He'll just being up the spit again to hammer in how ridiculous the whole thing sounds.Remember, the win condition of debate isn't to convince yourself that you think your own arguments work. Outside of the online epistemologybro scene, those arguments don't really have the same oomph.
>>18737924If OP's concern is "winning arguments", chances are very good 99% of them will be with online degenerates. If your goal will be to convince someone of miracles or even one specific miracle, you will naturally have a tough time, I agree. But if someone challenges you and their basis is "where's that one guy who walked away from a literal miracle worker but still wrote about it", it's a non-case.
>>18737830>calls someone's reading comprehension out>turn "pretend to believe" into "believe" when agreeing with himAre all christards as low functioning as you?
>>18737929>where's that one guy who walked away from a literal miracle worker but still wrote about itShit argument and not very common either imo but it could be strengthened through some sort of internal critique.>The idea of someone who witnesses a miracle worker, rejects him but still writes about him is not ridiculous, it even appears in the Bible (Moses and Pharaoh's magicians etc.)
You haven't won anything meaningful since first gradeWhy lie?
>>18737952It is incredibly common. That's what an independent source reporting miracles means in practice.>rejects him but still writes about him is not ridiculousWhich is why I wrote in >>18737915 that the task of the theist here would be to keep the insanity of that expectation in the spotlight rather than its slim theoretical feasibility. >Moses and Pharaoh's magiciansMoses reports lesser miracles than he himself helps make happen. That just makes the expectation more ridiculous since it would analogically have to be someone more miraculous than Jesus during his ministry writing that...It's a bad position through and through. Playable for the atheist? Definitely. If Hitchens is ever reborn, he would rip it up. But I wouldn't be too worried.
>>18737963>That's what an independent source reporting miracles means in practice.I don't think that's the most common line against miracles desu.>That just makes the expectation more ridiculous since it would analogically have to be someone more miraculous than Jesus during his ministry writing that...Three lines here I think. 1)Argue that this is not a relevant part of the analogy.2)Argue that it doesn't have to be someone actually more miraculous, just someone who has a more miraculous claim to his name than for instance healing the blind with his spit.3)Find another example where the writer is not someone who's claiming to have performed miracles. Isn't there some bad hombre "miracles" in judges or kings? It's been a while lol.
Wrong
>>18737971>>That's what an independent source reporting miracles means in practice.>I don't think that's the most common line against miracles desu.You don't think people ask for independent corroboration of miracles...?>it doesn't have to be someone actually more miraculousI'm aware. I wasn't addresing what it has to be, but what are the grounds the expectation stands on.
>>18737978>You don't think people ask for independent corroboration of miracles...?I do think some people ask for that, I just don't think it's the most common line against miracles. >I'm aware. I wasn't addresing what it has to be, but what are the grounds the expectation stands on.That's what I meant by "doesn't have to be".
>>18737908>The epistemologybro schtick falls apart as soon as someone starts talking about their euphoria and enlightenment
>>18737982By "doesn't have to be XYZ" you meant "the expectation stands on XYZ grounds"...? Why?
>>18737990If you don't get that, then I might've misunderstood what you meant by "the expectation stands on XYZ grounds".
