It's impossible to refute atheism as it is impossible to refute theism. Grow up faggot.

>>23614727
>It's impossible to refute atheism
wrong

https://mega.nz/folder/8uJE2QJS#PdLH8uLX_vpMNdWfy8R0ew/folder/0yYkCaSI
If i may ask which religion are you?

Most atheism overlap with naturalism and materialism philosophy. Also Phsycalism. So you need to refute above to refute atheism.

File: 1696430928408309.jpg (600 KB, 700x6826)

600 KB JPG

>>23614707
Common sense.

Most atheism overlap with naturalism and materialism philosophy. Also Physicalism. So you need to refute above to refute atheism.

>>23614707
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by David Bentley Hart

The kalam argument is stupid, everything that begins has a cause, but not God, because he just doesn't, ok? Its premises are self-refuting

>>23615070
Atheists believe the universe created itself with no cause. They already believe in God they just won’t admit it though a childish aversion towards religion. Their beliefs have been tainted from the start by personal conditioning of the behavior of religious persons around them. Humans are imperfect creatures and just because they believe in god or Christ or whatever doesn’t mean they can’t be corrupted. Yes religious people can be dumb just as all humans have a tendency to be. The teachings should always be taken on their own merit.

Secondly the atheists will say that creation or nature itself is what changes things. They point to evolution, in a famous example the finches beak changes as needed to get the food source. What causes this change? If there was no intelligence behind this working how does the beak know to change? If there was no intelligence dictate change that finch would beat its beak impotently to own demise. But there is an intelligence that sees, and that intelligence says this is not working we must change. You may say it is the birds own brain that chooses this. How would that birds brain know the shape it needs to be? So far the birds brain only knows its current state, to choose a change the birds mind would need to know of a possible future state. Would an isolated brain in an insignificant bird really be capable of such a thing? There is an overarching intelligence that is in all things that sees and knows all that facilitates the constant ever changing nature of this material world. Is there a word to describe an intelligence which created itself and is behind all actions in the world? Again The atheists readily admits creation started itself and there must be an intelligence that dictates workings behind the shadows but they call it nature or the universe and refuse to call it by its name God

>>23614707
You would first have to find books that refute evolution, psychology, and neuroscience collectively. God luck.

>>23615103
Further more, there are immutable laws that govern this reality. The laws of physics and thermodynamics and such etc. There is mathematical precision operating behind the scenes here that cannot be changed. How was this decided? How is it that the laws of physics always work a certain way? For balance and order seems to be the most agreed upon view. But there it seems that creation has a tendency towards order then and not chaos. Chaos is temporary and falls back to order as a natural state. What can produce order and precision other than an intelligence? The atheist will pussyfoot around again and simply say oh it’s a natural aspect of the universe. Again admitting to God without actually doing so. So to reiterate the atheist view of creation , it created itself, decided upon laws that govern it and produces order and precison, but the crux of their argument is it did this on it own with no kind of intelligence to oversee such complicated tasks. They already believe everything a theist believes in regard to creation, however the theists knows for there to be a creation there must a creator. They simply remove this last step and say oh it happened like that randomly lol. This is why they are childish and their arguments revolve entirely around discrepancies or impossibilities in the Bible. Educates theists know these to be allegorical stories passed down since ancient times. Stories containing the truth and nature of this reality written in code as to not be profaned by the masses. To take them literally either for or against is for fools.

>>23615103
Evolution is a combination of selection and random mutation, the brain is uninvolved. You're mistaken about the basic claims. Wikipedia's introduction looks OK, try there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
You don't have to agree with this stuff but you need to understand it to critique it properly.

>>23615103
>If there was no intelligence behind this working how does the beak know to change?
This is a good point, but it does not imply that there is an "I" behind the event, because an "I" is not necessary; we may interpret effects as having causes, but this is simply going by how our own brains work. Given that anesthesia shuts down the nervous system and with it any experience of time, it's not unreasonable to believe that cause and effect is simply a byproduct of our brains rather than something characteristic of the universe.

In other words, it would be wrong to call it an "intelligence." Rather, it could simply be a matter of physics. The universe may be shaped in such a way that, like planets orbiting a sun, it simply magnetizes and moves according to patterns of energy. Adaptation occurs then, not because of an intelligence, or an "I," but because they must, and nothing external to themselves is compelling them to do so.

Where might this universe come from? It's a reasonable question, but might not be a correct one. Again, cause and effect may just be a byproduct of how our brains work — that means beginnings and ends would be, too. In that case, the universe didn't "come from" anywhere, but always was. Why? Again, this is a question that makes sense for our brains, but may not make sense outside the scope of our local organic realities.

That image starts with the religious outlook, though, i.e. God creating the universe ex nihilo.

>>23615103
And how does any of this mean that a book written by some desert people thousands of years ago was factual and true?

>>23615228
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause

>>23615234
>The universe began to exist
Not necessarily. See >>23615214

>>23615234
And how does any that mean that a book written by some desert people thousands of years ago was factual and true?

>>23615250
A god that would create the universe would naturally communicate with his creation

>>23615103
>Atheists believe the universe created itself with no cause.

What seems to be a problem? Maybe they keep spawning all the time. However, not much data available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection

>cause
>no cause
Implying the nature of causality itself cannot change at some point.
Implying it's not first and foremost a terminological problem. But retards keep trying to assert their linguistic puns and concept overloadedness as proof.

>They already believe in God they just won’t admit it though a childish aversion towards religion
"If Unmoved Mover, then Semitic Desert Demon". Uh-huh.

>If there was no intelligence behind this working
What is intelligence, dolt? It's an attempt to cheapen the computational costs, quick and dirty.

If there WAS an intelligence behind this working, then that intelligence is SUBJECTED to some kind of evolutionary filtering that necessitated that cost-cutting to fit the time-constraints.
The question then is: what could cull the gods to develop intelligence (i.e. to force them to fucking start skipping data)?

Otherwise, the hypothetical god-thing is as intelligent as a Big Bang. Which renders the whole contention with atheists moot.

>If there was no intelligence behind this working how does the beak know to change?
How the fuck do you know what 'know' even is?

>>23615256
Why? And even if it was true, why would it be your tribal god and not another?

>>23614707
The term "atheism" is subversive as it implies theism to be the norm, while it's clearly not.

File: 1622241337784.png (99 KB, 500x500)

99 KB PNG

>>23615103
>the finches beak changes as needed to get the food source. What causes this change? If there was no intelligence behind this working how does the beak know to change? If there was no intelligence dictate change that finch would beat its beak impotently to own demise. But there is an intelligence that sees, and that intelligence says this is not working we must change.

>>23615185
The brain is uninvolved? So when the female selects a mate her brain is uninvolved? So there is an intelligence that chooses for her? Her brain is as you say uninvolved how does she know who to choose then? Instinct? What do you think instinct is? A mystery force behind life that governs what it should do. What could that be?


>>23615135
All material things can be seen to be in a constant state of flux and change, all is temporary as stated by eastern traditions. Evolution does not disprove God, this is a false dichotomy made by powers that be to force midwits into sides since conflict and disorder is what they thrive on. Evolution is the system of constant change that is an inherent attribute of this world. “Evolution” is a system designed and operated by God. Psychology also does not disprove God, most religious texts are psychology at its core only dressed up in stories. Most biblical stories are of this nature. Psychology itself has its origins in religion. Any science you may put forth was designed by God and the study of it is the study of Gods works.

>>23615281
Evolution, psychology, and neuroscience collectively indicate that "reality" is a byproduct of and contingent on the individual organism's biological structure, which has no final form. It's just an idea, in other words, and "God" would be too in that case.

>>23615135
>200K of homo sapiens
>took 10K years to go from fire to shuttles on Mars
>rest of 190K years was pure OOGA BOOGA
how retarded do you think people are randomness worshipper?

>>23615325
So Jesus is basically God's cheat code?

>>23615214
You bring up excellent a point and your post was well thought out. I would argue that the patterns of energy work based on a preconceived plan by a superior intelligence. For what decides these patterns of energy? The energy itself? How did this energy come into being? It created itself and chose for itself its own nature and attributes?

>>23615228
This is a bad argumment based on false presumptions. The false presumption here being that only one book must be true. The truth of the matter here is all religious texts are like nature itself and are in constant change as man changes. The truth gets passed down through eons and manifests itself many ways though different men and different cultures. The one things which seems to be a “spiritual” law is that the truth can never be just revealed to man but the point of life is for man to discover it. The truth goes through if n many forms many books many stories by they all contain similarities and are all different faces of the truth. Man claiming theirs is the one true book and fighting over it is man’s doing and is a result of his inherent flawed nature. Man inherent flawed nature stems from the gift of free will which is the ability to go against Gods will. Nothing in nature can go against gods will, no plant or beast can ever go against its nature or Gods will all of nature is though constantly changes is always perfect no matter how brutal it may seem to the bewildered and frightened mind of man. But man can and does go against against the will of the One. His claims of his book being the one truth is such an example.

>>23615281
>So there is an intelligence that chooses for her?
It's really pathetic when one tries to explain complexity and non-linearity of a dynamic system via intentions.

>“Evolution” is a system designed and operated by God.
Or everything is a random dog's dream, even you and I. That, however, doesn't change shit about anything in the slightest. Hence, it is but a minor terminological underdetermination over some vague empty gibberish. (Unless you are trying to pull the "If Unmoved Mover, then Semitic Desert Demon" scam)

>>23615330
Jesus is God's input device. Just like you need human eyes to perceive films (flicker-fusion threshold, i.e. inability to differentiate frames at certain frame-rates),

An all-knowing god would still fuck-up in situations where one constructively needs ignorance (i.e. not-knowing) to comprehend something.

>>23615234
And how does that mean that anything in the bible is factual and true?

>>23615330
Do you happen to be one of those that believe that if you rub a cross or menorah hard enough old bearded man skydaddy YHWH Djinn will come out and fulfill you 3 wishes?

>>23615301
By that logic the individual organism also itself is just an idea. There’s no reality then who is the individual perceiving it? Are they real? Are all things simply the dreamt illusory manifestations of a singular source?

>>23615256
Massive leap from "everything has a cause" to what you just stated. You lost me, I'm going with atheism

>>23615334
So according to you all religions are true because they draw from some higher truth? What when they conflict with each other then? Like christianity and gnosticism

File: blindo.gif (420 KB, 498x373)

420 KB GIF

>>23614707
>magically magically magically
Rich coming from the people who believe their fairy tale is literal truth and the many other very similar fairy tales believed just as strongly by other dumbasses elsewhere in the world are total lies (the ones who think there's some truth in every faith are even more pathetic- why worship or assert anything in the first place if it matters so little?).
You're the people who have to invent stories for why things are the way they are instead of actually reasoning things out. No different from the liberals who self-impose mountains of academic gobbledygook in order to explain away gaps in achievement instead of having the balls to face the obvious but unpleasant reasons.
Religion is COPE, plain and simple. You're too weak and feminine to face things as they are (life is terminal, the world is unfair and devoid of inherent meaning, etc.) so you comfort yourself with lies (hey, if the whole congregation believes, it can't be wrong, can it?) and cloak them in old mysticism and unfalsifiable, emotional authority. The whole thing is about personal comfort and unquestionable institutional hegemony; both are very Jewish, effete, and embarrassing.
>inb4 "tell us where the universe came from big guy"
Who gives a shit? What's so bad about admitting we don't know, especially when it has zero bearing on our existence? Saying "God did it" is exactly as unsatisfying as "we don't know" but more pretentious.

>>23614707
Its not possible to refute atheism because atheists, on the surface at least, assert nothing. But when you dig down into the roots, they are usually just gay vulgar materialists who believe the universe operates according to Newtonian laws (just ignore Newton's occultism and obsession with the Bible). The best way to go forward is to prevent a theology that will fry their bird brains. e.g. Spinoza's notion of God as unlimited substance, Paul Tillich's necessary being etc any kind of monism, pantheism, or panentheism will cause them to go ape shit.

>>23615234
>Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Not according with phisics

>>23615396
>blah blah
all this effort to relive yourself of responsibility and abstractions in your life

just be honest with yourself that you are a hylic that came from the ground and will return to it and let those who posses innate ability to perceive spiritual do their mysticism

>>23615399
>phisics
same physics who makes up dark matter and imaginary numbers to support their failed models? no thank you

>>23615380
>By that logic the individual organism also itself is just an idea.
"Suppose some future intelligent observer uncovers fossilized Homo sapiens but finds no trace whatsoever of our globe-spanning prostheses alongside. Quite rightly, all that this intellect would observe is a petrified primate. Possibly one with a peculiar posture—as well as a grotesquely enlarged brain-capsule—but nothing more than a simian, nonetheless. (Our deep future palaeontologist would have no clue, Blumenberg notes, of how radical an effect this glabrous imp had had upon the history of life and earth systems.) 35 This simple Gedankenexperiment lets us know that ‘the human’ has already left its own cerebrospinal system (that ‘living fossil’—that ganglion stack hailing from the Paleozoic sea-bed). Our self-image includes far more than our bones. We live and think and have our being ex situ; *Geist* moves inwardly only *ab exteriori*. Yet Blumenberg is quick to note that this entails that the actual ‘flesh-and-blood’ human is now no more than a *parasite* within its ramifying prosthetic nexus and branching everted plexus. Citing Alsberg’s conviction that artificial exteriorization triggers somatic atrophy, Blumenberg notes that parasites, also, gradually lose their own organs of self-sufficiency by way of piggybacking upon inputs from the host-organism. ‘Man likewise becomes a parasite within the technological sphere of life’: foregoing sensory ‘reality-contact’ (Wirklichkeitskontakt)—undergoing attenuation of its indigenous nervous chronotope—in pursuit of artefactual-ectopic replacements. ‘The question is, whether there will be a persisting residuum, or limits to the degeneration of our resilience’, he observes."

"This glorious retreat inward via exoskeletal externalization was by no means the end of our problems, however: aside from the ‘internal friction’ of risk endogeneity, such an inward-coiling autocomplexification makes the human like a hermit-crab lost in its own exponentially expanding shell. The lines between parasite and host, means and end, blur. As Marx foresaw, technologization leads to a reversal of ‘subject and object’—a ‘thingification of persons’ and a ‘personification of things’. Are we the cuckoo or is it our swelling prostheses? We become more our self-projection than ourselves. Whatever the case, in exteriorizing absolutely everything, we become ever more lost in our own labyrinthine shell—a carapace of radically extended cerebrospinal arcs."

>>23615398
>just ignore Newton's occultism and obsession with the Bible
Don't forget that Darwin also renounced his life work in the end, same as Pasteur.

These people worship people who disagree with their own works, and we are stuck with obviously failed dead end theories.

>>23615234
So God has a cause too? This argument is incredibly retarded because it implies infinite regressivity. It makes more sense that the universe just is as the uncaused cause because the universe is basically a void with some matter here and there, something funky is bound to happen somewhere given how incomprehensible vast it is, it certainly makes more sense than a God who hates shellfish revealing himself only 2000 years ago to a bunch of Jews in the desert

>>23615405
>let those who posses innate ability to perceive spiritual do their mysticism
lol okay manjeet, if it makes you feel better who am I to stop you?

>>23615337
Fool, intention is the driving force behind all movement. Nothing is done without the intention to do so. Your atheistic definition of evolution states in your own words , through selection and random mutation. Yes a species selects mates based on perceived needs. How do they select? You just said the brain is uninvolved? So there must be some force behind this selection? You defaulted to some mishmash of words to avoid answering. You expected a complicated answer to something that you yourself complicated. The truth is the beast operate on instinct. They choose mates based on what they feel they should choose. Again what do you believe instinct is you never answered. As for random mutation, funny how these random mutations always perfectly correspond with the animals environments and needs, not quite random then is it?

>>23614998
>potential
no such thing, it's a social construct

>>23615448
>Voltage is a social construct
you learn something new every day

>>23615432
Single celled organisms have no brains, yet they reproduce. Do you think they have souls?

>>23615450
note carefully to whom I replied and what about

>>23615454
does that make an ontological difference?

>>23615432
>Yes a species selects mates based on perceived needs. How do they select?

"More precisely, they achieve metastability. To paraphrase Wiener, living organisms are metastable Maxwell demons whose stable state is to be dead."
"Given that intellect tends towards environmental manipulation, then,any sufficiently advanced intelligence becomes entirely indistinguishable from its own environment. 29 ‘Brains’ the size of gas giants, neutron stars, or even entire globular clusters would be only the very beginning of this tendency"
"What we perceive as cosmological constants could just as well be neurotic stereotypies as ludic deliberations. What if physics is sedimented catatonia rather than petrified play? Andmemory need not be of intelligent origin: physics may indeed be a sedimented mnemeplex, buta pile of garbage is as much a ‘chronicle’as a score-sheet; indeed, most memories aren’t designed (let alone pleasantly ordered); whatever their medium, they don’t have to be ‘directed’ in order to perpetuate and persist"
"rather than background noise being revealed as intelligently structured signal, insteadsignal is revealed to be noisesuffering from a prolonged (yet ultimately unsustainable)self-delusion that comes to call itself ‘structure’. Such ‘delusion’, of course, is conceptualized along the lines of an auto-repressive tendency and is inwardly registered as*trauma*"

"temporality becomes a global secretion of the CNS: a dendritic ejaculate, a product of innervation, an offshoot of being immured within a nervous system. 8 This ipso facto means that alterations to nervous systems are transportations in time."
"This‘time-sickness’afflicts organisms altered by intervention, <...> alteredby a changing environment, stimulated and aroused by ‘levels above [their] existing nervous system’. To experience theradically accelerating changes of our built environmentisto experience the future coming early—which, again, is indistinguishable from experiencing the drag of the past—and this demands of us new appendages and new ‘forms of intuition’, which Ballard registers as subtle changes to the nervous system"

"Here we finally arrive at the core Spinal Catastrophist contention: that each threshold in life’s serial deviations from immersion (CNS-implosion spinal-wrenching glottogonous encasement) instates thanataxic impulses toward rupturous resolution (return) into the surrounding media"
"Schelling accepted that nature strives constantly for ‘annihilation of the individual’ and that it longs to ‘revert to universal indifference’"
"And, as the Naturphilosophen before him had nervously realised,total anamnesis is indistinguishable from annihilation. Indeed, Ballard prophesies that, at the lowest spinal-neuronic levels, organic self-inclusion completely evaginates into the ‘inhospitality of the mineral world’"

>>23615459
show me the soul in a cell

>oh no we've been found out, time to spam psychobabble

>>23615454
All of nature and creation is under the dominion of the supreme intelligence. That was in my very first post and is the entire point of my argument. As for their souls they do not have individual souls but are a part and parcel of the soul of creation.

>>23615281
Beaks change randomly due to genetic mutation.
Most changed beaks are worse (for the environment where the bird lives). Birds with worse beaks eat less and have fewer offspring.
Some changed beaks are better. Birds with better beaks eat more and have more offspring. This offspring inherits the improved beaks.
So eventually you end up with lots of birds with better beaks.
Brain and instinct are uninvolved in this particular process. (They are themselves subject to evolution though.)

>>23615473
difference between the carbon molecule and a virus?

>>23615462
That look to me like they agree with most religious text. I can’t tell if you are arguing for or against me? If you’re trying to argue against me you’re doing a very bad job.

The breath, the spirit. The word. All things begin at the source and through differentiation become the manifest things of creation and the inherent nature of all things is to return to the source. The limitless, the infinite source becomes the limited and finite mortal beings with the exhalation. With the inhalation all being including man return back to the source from which it came the limited return to infinity, the mortal returns to eternal life as is the goal of all spiritual endeavors. Thanks for the help guy I was getting a little tired of this, always nice to count on a friend for reinforcements :)

File: 1710268872864336.jpg (42 KB, 401x400)

42 KB JPG

>Fool,

>>23615484
Thanks for the crash course in evolution I guess, how does that disprove there being in intelligence behind it? Because it does not do it perfect the first time? What is perfection? To be always in working order? Nature is always in working order. To already be at the final state end goal? If things were started at the ending state the of what purpose was the creation?

As above so below, man reflects the earth itself and the earth reflects the cosmos around itself. To be in a constant of change shows that all is improving itself little by little piece by piece. Just as man lives his life improving himself little by little piece by piece. Towards to th ending goal of perfection that is union with God. Nature is under Gods control and is a show for man. The earth and skies show signs for man. The changes of the beasts and seasons and stars give hints to mans internal world and his goal. Strive for perfection as Gods conducts nature to show us what needs be done. Thank you for this I had forgotten this a your post reminded me. Maybe god is working though you today friend haha I wish you the best for your help

>>23614998
Potentiality is indeterminate for almost every convention change. When you reify objects to a heightened extent you find yourself needing bizarre concepts to account for sentences like “potentially a rose.”

>>23614707
Agnosticism is the first step. Then you research religious understanding and recognize it as a fundemental human impulse that transcends culture, time, and space. Then you read about the type of language religion uses and learn to recognize its validity and utility. Then you research church history and recognize how complex and diverse even just a single faith like Catholic Christianity actually is and how appraise how various religions have shaped the world. Then you look into philosophical arguments and theology of religions. Then you research doctrine and interact with it for yourself. Then you have a base from which to justify faith.

There's no shortcut and no one can make you believe in God. You have to develop a personal path and study to the best of your own ability because in the end you have to build your own relationship with religion. There's no shortcuts and you'll be continuously faced with doubt and confusion but being thoughtful about it is far more rewarding than the false sense of superiority that attracts most people to declaring themselves atheists.

>>23615552
>how does that disprove there being in intelligence behind it?
It doesn't strictly disprove it. But intelligence would be superfluous, evolution can function without it. (At times it actually functions quite badly, there are lots of biological quirks where laying things out in some different way would clearly be better but there's no way to get there one step at a time because the individual steps aren't beneficial. An intelligence could look ahead and do it anyway, but evolution stumbles blindly.)
I find the idea that God works through everything attractive. But it also seems kind of vacuous, if you try to explain any concrete phenomena with it you get just-so stories and it's not useful for making predictions. If you take it too far God becomes completely synonymous with reality and is reduced to little more than a word or a label or a perspective. So in the end I don't buy it. But I can't entirely disprove it either.
Good luck to you as well!

>>23615686
or you can go the other way, research religious anthropology and see how religions evolved over centuries and responded to economic changes

>>23614707
Why would you need books for that?
You just follow the religion or not. That is that simple.

File: retarded schizo fairy tale.jpg (120 KB, 1280x720)

120 KB JPG

>>23614707
It refutes itself, you just need to be able to think.

It's hilarious how many times the atheists bring up the Bible in defense of their retarded self-refuting beliefs. They can't defend their beliefs on their own merits so they need to force the topic elsewhere like this retard: >>23615374
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsnjIS9azQ8

Atheists are incapable of reasoned debate, they just recite mantras and call you an idiot for not drinking the same kool-aid as they did in the public sodomite school system.

>>23615070
Atheists are always incapable of understanding the concept of an eternal God too, again, they're unable to think.

>>23615135
Evolution is a blind faith creation mythology for retards. None of them are bright enough or bold enough to state "the emperor has no clothes", and they're all too dimwitted to critically analyze their own beliefs. They claim variations within a kind prove life came from nonlife and your ancestors were fish. They're just so dumb.

>>23615249
>>23615399
Yes, necessarily, by the laws of science. Which you evolutionschizos claim evolved too then magically stopped evolving once life could be sustained.

a quantum fluctuation created the universe

>>23615762
I don't care about your schizophrenia about the almighty man in the sky.
So, don't care about my schizophrenia about religions being folk tales overblown out of proportions by fat lazy.fucks who wanted to do nothing but control others.

File: 1721452637372545.png (583 KB, 1080x939)

583 KB PNG

>>23615792
Typical disingenuous and bad faith atheist reply, because they can't prove their blind faith beliefs and that's all they can do.

Oh, and you Godless communist trash want to control others more than Islam. Not that you subhuman retards even study any religion in depth to know anything about them. You're just brainwashed to think you know it all because some democrat teacher told you life came from a rock and you're too much of a faggot retard to question that.

>>23615792
>>23615811
You two are perfect for each other

>>23615811
I want to have sex with God. Any tips?

File: 1701817277197.jpg (326 KB, 1125x1158)

326 KB JPG

>>23615792
>folk tales overblown out of proportions by fat lazy.fucks who wanted to do nothing but control others.
Ironic since you evolution big bang schizos can't prove any of your beliefs but go on brainwashing kids with them.
Ironic since atheists are fat lazy fucks.
Ironic since the state religion of atheism makes man the supreme authority and atheist golem go around shouting "trust the experts".

Go get your science jab, idiot.

>>23615823
You're no different than them even if you think you are by stating your stupid thought-terminating and anti-intellectual fence-sitting nonsense.
>None of them are bright enough or bold enough to state "the emperor has no clothes", and they're all too dimwitted to critically analyze their own beliefs.

>>23615830
>>>/b/

File: 1688432903765.jpg (220 KB, 697x997)

220 KB JPG

>>23615846
>Ironic since the state religion of atheism makes man the supreme authority and atheist golem go around shouting "trust the experts".
It's why atheism is always promoted in communism and why they persecute all other religions. They can't have anything, not even God, being a higher authority than The Party.

>>23615061
kek

>>23615852
I've made substantive partisan posts upthread but I don't have it in me to try it on that kind of poster

>>23615281
Stating your unexamined philosophical assumptions as fact isn't an argument.

File: 1691554709439128.png (106 KB, 970x1344)

106 KB PNG

>>23615462
If you take your line of thought and give it say 1000 years to develop and evolve, this is the basic result.

File: 1708793261521703.jpg (1.4 MB, 2000x2000)

1.4 MB JPG

>>23615462
The nature of reality is dynamic and interdependent.
Change is the nature of all things, and the metaphysical nature of change is expressed in one way as the fundamental theorem of calculus.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NarrativeDynamics/comments/1b2f0lo/simsane_30/
We are existential artists who co-create with the self-creating tapestry of existence.

>>23615726
>anthropology
Lol

File: chadbecoming.jpg (554 KB, 2518x1024)

554 KB JPG

>>23615497
>Metaphysical incestuous pedophilia.
No thanks.

>>23615103
>Atheists believe the universe created itself with no cause.
But God has no cause either?

>>23615966
Something without cause is needed to end the infinite regress. That's the prime/unmoved mover argument.

File: Scrsht.png (65 KB, 188x248)

65 KB PNG

>>23616022
>Uhm God doesn't need a cause...unlike the Universe...because he just doesn't..ok?

>>23616031
>understanding of cause/effect implies infinite regress
>something uncaused/unmoved is needed to break it
>an unmoved mover is the first cause
>this is God
It's not that hard to understand. I get you're a fedora and don't think into things very deeply but ffs. Lol

>>23616022
>Something without cause is needed to end the infinite regress
prove it

>>23616048
This literally doesn't explain shit, the Universe can be that, you can as well posit that the Universe doesn't need a cause to be. Why would there be a God without a cause? What's stopping other Gods to just pop into being just like your God? If they don't need a cause?

>>23616022
>Muh linear cause and effect.
The universe isn't tiddlywinks. Thus the entire argument should be disregarded.

>>23616050
>prove it
Cause and effect governs the relations of physical bodies and this results in an infinite regress. Therefore, an appeal to metaphysics is necessary and such an appeal is made by way of the unmoved mover argument.
>>23616051
>This literally doesn't explain shit
It explains the necessity for a metaphysical argument that over comes the infinite regress of cause and effect.
>>23616052
>The universe isn't tiddlywinks
No one is saying it is.
>Thus the entire argument should be disregarded.
Fedoras do far too much disregarding and not nearly enough thinking.

>>23616076
>Therefore, an appeal to metaphysics is necessary
prove it's true though and not just an untested unfalsifiable unscientific crackpot schizo theory, i'll wait for the peer reviewed papers mr reddit

>>23616083
It's a metaphysical argument based on establishing the validity of tautologies and working through the logic they entail.
>peer-review
There's plenty of discussion relating to the prime mover argument in a vast variety of academic journals, anon. Maybe you should actually read journals instead of parroting stuff you've heard other fedoras say on YouTube, lol.

File: file.png (327 KB, 500x500)

327 KB PNG

>Maybe you should actually read journals instead of parroting stuff you've heard other fedoras say on YouTube, lol.

Reminder that Kennedy was an asshole who went to berlin saying ''dont ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do to your country'', which means the public servants are here to be served by the population and not the public servants are here to work for the population.

There is the real purpose of the republican revolutions starting in britain, america, france : the caste of bureaucrats and merchants are here to leech off the population as much as possible.

>>23616104
I accept your concession. In the future, read up on philosophical arguments concerning the nature of causality if you want to have a retort to the prime move argument.

>>23616122
>read up on philosophical arguments concerning the nature of causality
i would love to, please link me a peer reviewed journal proving the unmoved mover or whatever you fags call it lol

>>23616135
>needs to be spoonfed
Typical fedora.

>>23616076
>No one is saying it is.
That's the whole premise of the argument: the division of reality into a chain of discrete causes and effects.

>>23616151
That's your level of understanding.

What is there to refute? It's a negation of belief, to begin with.
You can definitely say a lot about their seeming emotional need for there to be no God and for science to have the answer to everything. I think there's a big fear of a lack of control going on there. I also think they're so terrified of the idea of a superior being's judgement, that they just up and decided they weren't going to believe in it.
I also think a lot of people know they're basically evil, and don't desire to be good. People who keep up appearances, but then they go out at night and abuse women, or they take joy in tormenting some local retard. People who, whenever they see a poor person, recoil in absolute disgust. People who spread lies and slander and destroy lives for the thrill of it. People who steal whatever they can get their hands on, as soon as backs are turned. Those people are all over the place, and of course the very idea of a God would cramp their style.

>>23616157
>I can't refute a core criticism so I will just say that you don't understand.

>>23615061
>bread requires intelligent design
Not sure what you're getting at

>>23616159
Imagine projecting this hard.

>>23616168
no u

>>23616160
You didn't make an argument. You made an assertion based on a reductive interpretation of the prime mover argument.

File: file.png (100 KB, 400x400)

100 KB PNG

>prime mover argument

>>23616182
Islam and Christianity don't disagree on those basic assertions.

>>23616172
My assertion is that "the universe isn't tiddlywinks" meaning "linear cause and effect isn't the metaphysical ground of reality."
The cosmological argument is based on linear cause and effect: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
You can deny my initial assertion, but you can't deny my claim that the ontological argument relies on linear causation without explanation.

>>23616186
but scientists do, that's why they toss the argument in the trash

>>23616189
But what this DOES mean is that to begin to prove the cosmological argument REQUIRES demonstrating the reality of linear cause and effect.

>>23616189
>My assertion is that "the universe isn't tiddlywinks" meaning "linear cause and effect isn't the metaphysical ground of reality."
Yes, that's an assertion without an argument.
>The cosmological argument is based on linear cause and effect: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
That's reductive.
>You can deny my initial assertion, but you can't deny my claim that the ontological argument relies on linear causation without explanation.
You haven't provided an argument for either claim. Even the Aristotelian version constitutes multiple versions of what constitutes the idea of "cause" so what you're asserting has no substance with which to engage. It's constitutes a very shallow level of understanding and demonstrates you're largely unfamiliar with the subject at hand and limited according to your perceived understanding (i.e. Dunning Kruger like most fedoras).

>>23614707
Atheism isn't a belief. It's the rejection of certain beliefs.

>>23616206
>Atheism isn't a belief
Sure it is. Here I go:
>I believe there is no God.

>>23616182
That argument is retarded anyway. A "cause" is defined as something occurring previous in time which leads to the "effect" in question. Since the first moment of time has no previous time, there literally categorically cannot be a "cause" in the manner we use the word.

>>23616159
>I think there's a big fear of a lack of control going on there.
The first step toward religious understanding is personal humility and most atheists picked up the fedora to signal superiority. At least their pride is comical and good for a laugh.

>>23616192
>scientists
It's not a scientific argument, fedora tipper. It's cool that you tip your hand by overtly wishing for a hegemonic dogma though.

>>23616211
If you are referring to the atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, or Matt Dillahunty, they do not say that. Depending on the person, they may say "there is no reason to believe in a God" or "I don't accept the assertion that there is a God". The Oxford Languages definition of the word is correct and reads "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Notice the precise wording, "disbelief" and "lack of belief". NOT a positive belief.

>>23616211
Someone should make a meme of social media posts showing how much fedoras parrot one another. They could start with the "atheism isn't a belief" nonsense lol

>>23616203
See:
>>23616193
Sperging out and calling people who disagree with you names isn't helping your position.

>>23614707
Arguing about God logically is pointless. God is real but supralogical. This should be the most basic realization.

>>23616267
god is not real

>>23615409
Scientific materialism is dogmatic. That's they resort of multiverse theory. They say our universe is so fine tuned that it must be random and lucky among other million other universe that they admit is dead and elementary in nature. They all believe there is random universe generator that created multiverse

>>23616286
the only universe in which we can measure the universe is this one
if it was any different we would not exist at all thus not being able to experience different conditions
in quantum physics, if it's possible, it's mandatory

>>23616218
>It's not a scientific argument
into the trash it goes

>>23615214
I've seen other atheists resort to the "causality is not real" argument and just taking it for a fact but never offering any real evidence or philosophical reasoning behind it, and even going back on believing in causality when using scientific arguments. Just always seems like a hail Mary atheism of the gaps argument

>>23616258
>See:
No thanks. If you want to reply to what was written you're free to do so. Otherwise, just stop (You)ing me. Simple as.

>>23616299
>wishing for a hegemonic dogma
Lol, nigga we both know you haven't even studied basic calculus. Go surf IFLScience.

>>23616344
>wishing for a hegemonic dogma
isnt that what religiontards champion

>>23616348
>no you
Everytime.

>everytime
esl detected

>>23616363
>N-NO YOU
>Y-YOU'RE ESL!
Lol, careful not to spend too much time here. You're could be watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson vids on YouTube.

>>23616336
When you examine actual phenomenon one finds that there isn't a clear cut distinction where things "begin to exist." Stars gradually coalesce from a vast web of mutual influences along molecules and gravitational forces in a nebulae, for example. Modern science has largely discarded the Cartesian Newtonian clockwork universe in favor of interpreting phenomenon as dynamic and interdependent systems. Linear cause and effect is an abstraction that applies to a very small number of systems imperfectly, like that of dominoes toppling. The true ground of reality is mutual influence, with cause and effect an abstraction that emerges from. The fact that not all influences are equal in importance for a specific consideration.

Think of two stars of equal mass orbiting each other: neither causes the motion of each other, they both simultaneously create the conditions for their orbits to emerge. Now consider a baseball-sized rock orbiting a star. For practical purposes the star "causes" the orbit of the rock, but it's true that the rock has an extremely small influence on the star as well that can be disregarded for the purpose of calculation.

Imagine a system as complex as a biological ecosystem. What "causes" what? The ecosystem features living and nonliving entities intertwined in vastly interdependent webs of energy and matter exchange.

This is a very different reality from the reductive models of classical science and philosophy.

File: 1523125160270.jpg (391 KB, 1200x1200)

391 KB JPG

>>23616344
>you haven't even studied basic calculus.
The fundamental theorem of calculus is one expression of the metaphysical nature of reality.
>>23615930

https://imgur.com/a/metaphysics-of-experience-by-elizabeth-kraus-ZtLDYJT

>Everything that in any sense exists has two sides, namely, its individual self and its signification in the universe. These two poles cannot be torn apart. Each finds its fulfillment in the other via their dialectical relation. Thus, becoming is for the purpose of being (signification in the universe) and being is for the purpose of novel becoming (the emergent individual self.)
>Objectivity, facticity, is the permanent aspect of reality - immortal achievement immortally realized; subjectivity, immediacy, process, is its changeable aspect-its advance towards novelty. But subjectivity isn not the result of an underlying subject's activity of relating objects to itself, of a one weaving a many into the pre-existent unity of its oneness. It is, rather, the "growing together" (con-crescence) of objects to create a novel subject that enriches the many from which it springs. "The many become one, and are increased by one." The entire world finds its place in the internal constitution of the new creature, and the new creature lays an obligation upon the future: that it take into account the value achieved by the new creature. Thus every creature both houses and pervades the world.
>Two inseparable notions therefore constitute the foundational insight of Whitehead's process philosophy: the permanence of value achieved and the ongoingness of value achievement. To construct a metaphysical scheme capable of eludicating the implications of these notions was his purpose in writing Process and Reality.

File: nQ4aHyO.png (27 KB, 790x1281)

27 KB PNG

>>23614707
there was something before the big bang, and something before that. what it is, we don't know. if we put all our concerted effort right now and steadily for the next million years we might find out. most likely we won't. anyone claiming to know the truth is just comforting themselves. the universe is expanding at a rate at which if we don't reach the edge within the next 300,000 years we will never be able to reach it. there are scant signs of today's powers caring about that, and more signs of us falling into a dark age caused by destruction reducing our knowledge and technology. if you actually care about the truth of existence you rationally shouldn't trust ancient books or modern know-it-alls. rather, you should strive for the stars before they escape your reach. we have one chance to know the truth, and if we mess up, we will forever be ignorant. humanity needs to transform into a highly focused space-faring civilization for this. we need to reach the edge of the universe before it's too late. that is our only chance of knowing the truth.

>>23616430
it's not an issue of temporality. You just demonstrated that cause and effect can and in fact always do happen simultaneously. No temporality doesn't mean no causality. The stars are both the cause of the other orbiting it, and both suffer the effect. A domino only suffers the effect of falling the moment another domino performs the cause of touching it.
This is not a question that can be answered be science since science can't answer a "why" only a "how", so the foolishscientism approach to falsifying causality is stating that since causality can't be determined be science, it can't be real since only science determines the truth in a circular argument.
>In other words, it would be wrong to call it an "intelligence." Rather, it could simply be a matter of physics. The universe may be shaped in such a way that, like planets orbiting a sun, it simply magnetizes and moves according to patterns of energy. Adaptation occurs then, not because of an intelligence, or an "I," but because they must, and nothing external to themselves is compelling them to do so.
But you take a photon you can ask
I think it's pretty hard to argue against causality especially from a scientific viewpoint since science is based around predicting outcomes. We can get into the muddy waters of fundamental physics and you may argue that there's no reason an atom has a certain property, it just has the property because that's the property atoms have, but it doesn't invalidate the question of where the universe's fundamental properties *are*, and why they are that way. Even quantum physicists attempt to disprove causality be evoking particles that just appear out of thin air, yet they predict it, writing models of the quantum space turbulence that *causes* the particle to appear.

>>23616452
>there was something before the big bang, and something before that
it's very unlikely an infinite past exists.

File: eqrgb.jpg (293 KB, 1250x938)

293 KB JPG

>>23616452
>if you actually care about the truth of existence you rationally shouldn't trust ancient books or modern know-it-alls. rather, you should strive for the stars before they escape your reach. we have one chance to know the truth, and if we mess up, we will forever be ignorant. humanity needs to transform into a highly focused space-faring civilization for this. we need to reach the edge of the universe before it's too late. that is our only chance of knowing the truth.
Same vibe.

>arguments for God
Set up a bunch of awkward linguistic dominos then act surprised when they spell out the 'conclusion' you arrange them to fall in

How smart people get fooled by this, I'll never understand

Theists acting like it's somehow dumb, or, inappropriate to ask what caused God is the most dishonest thing
it's so ingrained in the discussion by now

Like get smug and start talking how: "God is a necessary existent being (by definition, lol) didn't you know that???"

>>23616452
>dude the truth means getting really good at documenting and describing material things and making the known universe into catalogue lmao

>>23616991
>The universe needs a cause because it began to exist
>God never began to exist
Isn't this basically giving the game away? If something never begins to exist, that's just another way of saying that thing doesn't exist, right? Even in their own arguments they refute themselves.

>>23614707
Religious people are more ridiculous because they don't stop at "there was a creator". They believe things like men communicating with the creator, walking on water, flying to heaven and/or hell, an afterlife of eternity, various Vegas magic tricks, angels, demons, etc.

>>23614707
Why can’t there be a religion board? Anyway these threads seem useless. Just slap fights between various sects for aesthetic purposes or to blow off some steam

Why are both sides in this thread assuming that there wans't anything?

We just don't know what is beyond our universe and what existed before the big bang it does not mean that there was nothing before that, we simply don't have the tools to research on those things.

>>23614738
Try it then

Look, I'm an atheist and I totally leans towards "physical reality" always having existed (for purely intuitive reasons)
Universe having a necessary existent cause. In that sense, I agree with theists. I just don't think that cause is/has a mind, or any of that

>>23617014
>Isn't this basically giving the game away?
No. First, the argument is based in metaphysics. Second, the nature of the argument entails a conclusion to the problem of infinite regress by tracing the necessity of and defining an endpoint.
>If something never begins to exist, that's just another way of saying that thing doesn't exist, right?
No. Metaphysics.
>Even in their own arguments they refute themselves.
It's pretty obvious you're filtered.

>>23617079
Why do theists think just saying "metaphysics" proves their argument? If "metaphysics" means you get to throw out normal rules, why can't "metaphysics" account for the universe itself not needing a cause? In fact, just using normal physics we can say that the idea of a cause for the first moment of time is an oxymoron. A "cause" is something that is earlier in time and which leads to an "effect". If there is no prior time, there can't be a "cause", therefore the first moment of time cannot have been "caused" in the way we use the word.

File: nk.jpg (173 KB, 908x666)

173 KB JPG

>>23616977
>I'll never understand
Because you're not smart.

>>23617079
Right, it's a deductive argument. When we've eliminated the impossible, only the possible explanations are left.
So if we accept infinite regress to be impossible, then literal magic is one possible explanation left to us.

>>23617086
>Why do theists think just saying "metaphysics" proves their argument?
No one is claiming it does and framing things that way exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
> If "metaphysics" means you get to throw out normal rules, why can't "metaphysics" account for the universe itself not needing a cause?
Metaphysics doesn't mean you get to throw out normal rules.
>In fact, just using normal physics we can say that the idea of a cause for the first moment of time is an oxymoron
Do you actually have a background in physics or are you just coopting the little you know to make up for the fact you suck at philosophy?
>A "cause" is something that is earlier in time and which leads to an "effect".
There are different varieties of "cause" and the subject of causality itself is a field of study in philosophy.
> If there is no prior time, there can't be a "cause", therefore the first moment of time cannot have been "caused" in the way we use the word.
That's why causality itself is a subject in and of itself in philosophy.

>>23617093
>literal magic
Nope. Try again.

>>23617108
You literally said "No. Metaphysics." as if that was any kind of an answer to my post. You are vastly less intelligent than you think you are and it makes interacting with you pointless. Goodbye.

William Lane Craig arguing with Catholics, is the most hilarious thing
>>23614707
>>23614998
Thomism is of course, incompatible with the Kalam cosmological argument and underlying metaphysical assumptions.

Christians happily running both arguments, and not seeing a mistake with either (1 has to be wrong)
it should tip you off that something silly is going on.

>>23617078
Wouldn't make more sense that what we see as a reality is part of something greater? I'm not talking about God but rather a "place" beyond what we see as physical, a greater "universe" that does not follow the rules of our world having a concept of beginning, end or even time and progression.

I don't know kinda like the concept of Chaos, something absolutely incomprehensible to humans that evolved in this universe under those rules.

>>23617092
My criticism is of the awkwardness and deliberation by which the linguistic dominos has to be set up to spell out a conclusion you already believe
Not that we make assumptions

>>23617113
The invention of a god to solve the problem of what caused the universe if infinite regress is impossible
is on par with inventing a killer that can ghost though walls to solve a locked room murder case

>>23617092
See this >>23617126
Either Aquinas or WLC is setting up an argument built on false premises, right?
And there really is no way to figure out which one. That's just too bad ;(

(I suspect both)

>>23617177
How exactly are they incompatible?

>>23616336
It's not "causality is not real," but "causality is the result of my brain, which didn't always exist and won't always exist." God is the same.

>>23617159
Nta but bitch we don't even know if some subatomic particles are real or mere artifacts of mathematics invented to make equations work out since they can't be measured. Most scientists couldn't even tell you if they are realists or instrumentalists. That one documentary with the smug milf refuting the Kalam argument is 90% philosophically illiterate scientists flipflopping on issues when it benefits their theory.
>Causality supports the Kalam argument? Well maybe causality just isn't real then :^) but it will be in about 5 minutes when it supports my point
Don't act like only one side does that.

>>23617117
>as if that was any kind of an answer to my post.
It is. You're handwaving something because you don't understand it and falling back on a fedora trope ("magic") which is false equivocation.
>>23617142
>My criticism is of the awkwardness and deliberation by which the linguistic dominos
That's not a criticism. That's an opinion (and it's an embarrassingly bad one, lol).
>>23617177
>See this
No. You're free to respond to the material contained in the post to which you're replying. Don't expect me to waste time reading your spergs to others as if they apply to my post.

>>23617387
What's this insane whataboutism?
because we don't know about subatomic particles -> that makes you not a silly clown for supposing god-magic as an explanation

Once you accept supernatural explanations, you destroy your ability to do deductive reasoning.
You can't ever remove the impossible, if anything is possible. Maybe a wizard did it?
Keep in mind, god literally has a superpower to do anything, omnipotence

Why you suppose a god, rather than a ghost with the superpower to cause whatever we're trying to explain?

>>23617351
Would it be a problem if they were incompatible? What hinges on that?

One gets you to an uncaused cause, the other to Actus Purus
those are not the same thing, Craig got a different model of God. No divine simplicity, etc
Craig does not grant Aristotelian metaphysics

Yeah, Thomistic scholasticism will just have bunch of doctrinal commitments that makes it so that they are "not allowed" to believe in the stuff Craig supposes and argues for.
God being absolutely outside time, that's something Catholics are supposed to believe, right?
While Craig argues for a God that enters into time at the moment of creation.

I think it could be real long list if I were more knowledgeable about this stuff

>>23615256
Are you retarded? How do you know he really communicated with that person instead of another one that preaches the opposite? Also, how do you claim that you know what god would do?

>>23615234
>Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Sure, but not god though. He kinda just... always was or something.

>>23615256
God probably exists.
>why would people lie
There is no reason to believe any of the religions that they know what god is and wants, that's just stupid and is taking advantage of your tribal mentality.

Dumbass, it's not a belief. It's the default state you're born in. Later in life you start believing things and you should have valid reasons for acquiring those beliefs. You don't need to justify not believing in something that can't be proven.

>>23618287
>atheism is le lack of belief
lacktheists are scum
>theism belief in a god
>atheism belief there is no god
it should be that simple

>>23618777
Look, it just depends on what definitions you want use. I'm fine with either.
I don't really get why it upsets you.
Do you view claiming people who don't believe there's a God as 'atheists' is an illegitimate move from the other team?

>>23618777
Fedoras parrot "lack of belief" because it takes the weight of justification off their shoulders and they think the idea of not having a belief system makes them special and superior. It's nonsense because they present plenty of beliefs regarding why people are religious. The sleight of hand is that they present their beliefs as mere fact which is indicative of the dogmatic thinking of rigid ideology.

>>23618852
I just view this as insane projection from people with silly believes they can't justify

>>23618852
When did I present it as a mere fact? You're the one who needs to convince me it's real, not the other way around. I can just keep making up random concepts or deities and then it's somehow on you to convince me they're not real?

>>23618852
>they think the idea of not having a belief system makes them special and superior. It's nonsense because they present plenty of beliefs regarding why people are religious.
This thread is about one specific belief system that you're arguing about, if someone doesn't believe in that it means they mustn't believe in another random belief (beliefs regarding why people are religious) that you just bring up out of nowhere?

>>23617126
>Completely unsubstantiated claim
Thank u, next

>>23615217
That's because it's by definition a 'religious outlook'. The quality of being eternal and all-powerful are things attributed to God by default. If you think of God as not all-powerful and not eternal, then you're not thinking about God.

>>23616299
>Hates or is against religion
>Is religious
Clockwork

>>23618990
One gets you to an uncaused cause, the other to Actus Purus
those are not the same thing, Craig got a different model of God. No divine simplicity, etc
Craig does not grant Aristotelian metaphysics

Yeah, Thomistic scholasticism will just have bunch of doctrinal commitments that makes it so that they are "not allowed" to believe in the stuff Craig supposes and argues for.
God being absolutely outside time, that's something Catholics are supposed to believe, right?
While Craig argues for a God that enters into time at the moment of creation.

>>23618865
>>23618945
>>23618956
Atheism is a belief system midwits indoctrinate themselves into in order to feel intellectually superior to others. One will frequently notice that fedoras predictably parrot the same things which evidences the rigid and dogmatic thinking of an ideology. One example is the "it's a lack of belief" thought terminating cliche by which they attempt to shift the onus of their position onto others. By this, they frame the conversation in such a way that they can openly dismiss any idea or thought that's presented to them without the slightest amount of due diligence on their part. It's disingenuous at face value but, as it's a thought terminating cliche, they are unable to realize such. Fedoras will always set themselves as the final arbiters of truth without presenting any reason whatsoever as to why they merit such a position.

Fedora tipping is lazy, dishonest, and laughably immature. Notice that fedoras will bloviate for hours on end as to how not believing in the value of religion represents a superior way of looking at the world when they haven't even done the work to understand it at a basic level. At most they'll resort to regurgitating some pop-level understanding of science they picked up by mindlessly watching 10 minute YouTube videos (or simply repeating something one of their prophets said in a gotcha debate).

In short, fedoras are lazy lolcows with zero self-awareness who have indoctrinated themselves into a simplistic belief system due to their failure to develop a personality and issues with self-esteem. They want to project an air of intelligence but no one outside their ideology, those with something to lose by not going along with their proclamations of self-important nonsense, sees them as anything more than a joke. Pathetic adherents to a tired fad that played itself out over a decade ago.

there is no such thing as an atheist 'belief' ""system""
humans are born without religion.

>>23619248
>t. pathetic adherent of a tired fad that played itself out over a decade ago.
Cool thought terminating cliche, bro.

File: 1684963753594.gif (311 KB, 220x193)

311 KB GIF

>>23614707
Atheism is a blind faith religion for retards, and they build their entire world view around their blind faith that there is no God. And their only defense is retarded semantics and pilupl and word games. It's such a tedious chore to talk to them, it always feels like babysitting.

I've never seen a single one that was capable of honest and intellectual debate, it's always just quips and talking points (then spam when that fails). And the atheist critics of Christianity never even have accurate criticisms, they clearly get their education from cartoons like Family Guy and Rick and Morty and communist/socialist utopia fantasy shows like Star Trek. They think life came from a rock and they'll be exploring space in 2 more weeks. And they wouldn't dare speak against Islam or Talmudism or Hinduism, that would be "offensive", they're just a bunch of dumb gay cowards and it's ironic they call religion a mind virus when the virus of atheist belief has destroyed polite society and common sense.

>>23619240
You literally believe in some jewish God who wants you to not eat shellfish, cut your foreskin and a bunch of other ridiculous arbitrary bullshit, it doesn't take much to feel intellectually superior to people believing such idiotic superstitious non-sense

>>23619388
I don't think a loving God would allow his creation to be subjected to any Family Guy episode.

>>23619408
>NO YOU!!!!
I get you guys lack creativity and aren't very bright but come on, lol. Anyway, thanks for the baseless assumptions seethe.

>>23619388
Based.

>>23616211
>>I believe there is no God
This phrase again, great. You're been spamming /his/ for days on end, getting BTFO every time and making new threads, because you're ESL who doesn't understand what is being explained to you.

>>23619431
What assumption? Aren't you a christian? Even if you were a Muslim or a Hindu that would still apply, they are equally idiotic superstitions

>>23616211
I don't believe there is a God, though

>>23614707
You don't "refute atheism", you prove theism.

>>23617351
>>23618990
Anyone still reflexively want to push back against the incredibly lukewarm take that Aquinas' arguments are incompatible with those of William Lane Craig?

>>23619521
You don't need to be religious in order to see through the self-serving masturbatory nonsense of the fedora tipper and have a few laughs at their expense.

>>23619564
If you don't want people to laugh at you, stop believing silly things

>>23619569
If you don't want people to laugh at you stop being a silly person. I just told you I'm not religious, retard. Lol

>>23619564
So are you irreligious but not an atheist?

>>23619577
I know you really want to find a way to outgroup me and turn things around but it's not going to happen unless I play onto it, anon. You're retarded and you lost several posts ago. Feel free to seethe and (You) me I'd it will make you feel better.

>>23619576
Right, but you are clearly not an atheist
so you got some retarded beliefs, you just don't want to tell us

Yup, it's the wordplay schizo from /his/.

>>23619588
That was my first post in this reply chain, I'm mainly just confused and curious

>>23619598
Isn't that too wishful thinking?

>>23619597
Whatever you want to believe. Keep the faith as they say.
>>23619601
If you want someone to go on and on about themselves and the beliefs they ("don't") have there are fedoras ITT who would be more than happy to oblige.

>>23619608
I just recognize his writing style.
It also helps that he always baits with the same topic, that is, trying to frame atheism as a positive belief.

>>23619608
He probably lost an argument on /his/ and projects the idea that everyone who makes a fool out of him is the same person. That's my guess anyway.

>>23619613
You already started telling us about yourself, and how you are not religious
don't be such a tease, finish the story

>>23617038
God exists.

>>23615061
This is a terrible parody. For one, it ignores that the first involves contingent being existing for "no reason at all," and something like creation ex nihilo. The two are in no way analogous.

Second, bread only comes to exist because an agent intentionally creates it, and it creates it according to rational purposes.

>>23616163
Uh, doesn't it. When have you ever seen nature plop out a piece of bread? I have only ever seen bread created by people, people who knew they were making bread and who made it for a purpose.

The universe exist because someone like me, except bigger and stronger, made it

Everything that exist, except God, began to exist and was caused by God to exist

>>23619692
Would it make you feel better if I told you I were a chaos magician? That I woke up this morning at dawn, my morning wood an obelisk directed at the sun, and prayed to Wotan? That the reason I'm effortlessly powning fedoras is that I'm in the first phase comedown of peak level semen retention, sex magick in full force, as the full moon has just turned to wane? It would be more interesting than bragging to people about not believing in God and we both know fedoras are no experts when it comes to sex.

>>23619720
>Affirming the univocity of being
>Denying the analogia entis
Enjoy slipping into extreme voluntarism, divine command theory/Euthyphro dilemmas, Reformed Theology, moral relativism, and ultimately... nihilism.

>>23619714
I've been sitting on it for ten years so I don't remember all too clearly but I don't think it was a parody of the OP image specifically. I've seen atheist versions of white-on-black makes-perfect-sense that mock Genesis or Jesus or transsubstantiation or whatever. I bet there's a Know Your Meme page full of the things.
So it's a parody of the whole format, of making things sound silly by explaining them badly.

>>23617135
Chaos in mythology is pure chaotic potentiality. So who bring that pure chaotic potentiality into ordered universe? They must be a forces that higher that create chaotic potentially in the first place. Quantum mechanics is related to idea of potentially and infinite probability. I believe big bang come from the quantum world. There must be a entity that collapsed the wave function to create the universe. To collapsed the wave function. It needs a supreme observer.

>>23619740
How dare atheists mock foolishness like this, grrrrrrr

>>23619843
>There must be a entity that collapsed the wave function to create the universe. To collapsed the wave function. It needs a supreme observer.
Or maybe this world is simply the result of an Infinite monkey theorem scenario.

>>23619730
What's stopping other Gods from popping into existence since they don't need a cause to exist?

File: IMG_4896.png (370 KB, 841x734)

370 KB PNG

>>23614707

I like atheism. To me, it makes a lot of sense.

That’s a cool straw man argument though. To use the same logic, where did God come from?

Checkmate

>>23619875
Fedoras aren't on my level.

File: 1721738310815943.jpg (107 KB, 731x860)

107 KB JPG

>>23619955
Based post if intentionally cringe.

>>23620092
Theists also believe tigers are made out of atoms

>>23620105
K

File: 1680375125305771.png (3.04 MB, 2288x1700)

3.04 MB PNG

>>23614707
Pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife, as NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point actually learning more about NDEs.

>>23620328
*honk, honk*

>>23620105
Pretty sure that's not the point.

>>23620347
What was the point?

>>23620362
Making fun of the ineffectual use of demotic scientific language when it comes to describing quality/meaning. Nothing to do with "believing in atoms" you autist.

>>23620362
That tigers are scary
>>23620384
wrong

>>23620390
>filtered

>>23620393
Nice try you giant cat.

>>23620418
>filtered

>>23620384
Who is using ' demotic scientific language' to describe quality/meaning?

>>23620586
Put your thinking cap on, your fedora that is, and figure it out.

>>23620703
Please tell me

>>23620788
Use Google.

>>23620835
Please, what was the point of the tiger picture?

>>23620897
They're neat.

>>23614707
any good philosophy book related to metaphysics that doesn't assume atheism as the default.
Atheism is primarily an environmental/cultural issue so it's more of engaging with stuff outside of your culture seriously. It's not something to be refuted.
The issue with atheism is it involves a fundamental rejection of certain basic experiences and puts a certain systemic cultural artifact on top of it, it's just whatever opens people up to that experience.
just go through all the terrence malick movies, maybe read the moviegoer. it's not a rational thing it's aesthetic.

>>23620915
>doesn't assume atheism as the default.
So, like, assumes theism by default? (not- atheism)

>>23620915
Apatheism > atheism. Far less cringe.

the best argument against atheism is the existence of r/atheism

Actual answer:
The five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas or a popularization of it like Peter Kreeft's

As an atheist the only arguments that interest me from apologists are TAG/Presup because you can start with nothing but the cogito and still deploy it, all other forms of apologetics are contingent on so much unspoken philosophical baggage that you can argue over those contingencies forever without getting to the argument itself, and then you have to do it all over again for the next guy who believes something else.

>>23619708
God is a human creation. Omnipotence, omnibenevlence and omniscience are traits we humans crave at some point in their lives or another. These traits put into a human essentially makes a human a godlike figure therefore God is a creation of human imagination.

>>23622754
no. Humans are a creation of God's imagination

>>23614707 ACIM

>>23620915
The complete works of Rene Guenon

>>23614707
Sure: prove that god does not exist. >>23622754
Says who, you? Dumbass

>>23614707
Atheists still haven’t debunked this
https://youtu.be/5Jx_7kkuJfI?si=HbXRiBkBPkA2oaAF