Previous: >>6176018
>>6178803More of these if you want these thread to catch on. Pure kino.
Anything attributable to a god can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster. Only brain damaged retards believe in god as an adult.
>>6179887
>>6178785>St. John of Kronstadt>Do not Indulge>Literally name Croissant
>>6180186
I will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
>>6180258
>>6180419
>>6180655
>>6180661Not sure why you uploaded a selfie.
>>6180681>nouConcession accepted.
>>6180638
>>6180688
>>6179887>He said, after purposefully going into the Christian thread. Thankfully you're here to save us
Whatever happened to that Jewish to Christian convert that was popular during gamergate years? I think Brother Daniel or something like that. He seemed cool.
>>6180809https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYc4w4X8n_g ?
>>6180812Yes! Thanks. I remember he started some Jews for Jesus thing. Looks like he’s still cool.
https://youtu.be/eq3SL5avU4ESaw some clips of this testimonyHopefully it will help someone else in here who needs it
threadspamming /pol/tard atheist trying to slide, have a bump
>>6180784Aw, poor religious retard terrified being challenged on his beliefs.
>>6181841Go back to mass spamming your shitty /pol/ threads you 40 year old edgelord.
>>6181842Yeah you're right thats me. In fact, every post ITT is me. Including you, schizo.
>>6181842I in them, and you in me, so that they/them may be brought to complete unity.
>>6179887>>6181841>>6181845
>>6181841seething atheist jew>>6181859bro the fuck is this, keep your faggy sissy hypno porn to yourself
>>6181884>>6181920Not an argument. I accept your concession. You lost.
>>6181958you lost the war though and you’re not white lmao
>>6181959>Still no counter-argumentStill accept your concession
>>6181962>not religious>just eats baby foreskins for his own pleasure
>>6181971>just eats baby foreskins for his own pleasureNot sure why you're using examples of why religious people are all deranged retards as an attack on basedtheists. Huge own goal.
>>6181975>Implying rabbinic Jews are really religiousNice pilpul.The flying shitting dicknipple monster accepts your hairline recession.
>>6181975I'm not going to argue with a troll, but you should know basedtheist = based theist which is contrary to whatever point you're attempting to make here.
>>6181980>The Abrahamic religions are a set of monotheistic religions that respect or admire the religious figure Abraham as a patriarch and/or as a prophet, namely Judaism, Christianity and IslamYou have more in common with jews than me lmao you jew.>>6181981No it means bAsedTHEISTA "based theist" would be "fucking retard"
>>6181987>”No akshually.. YOU’RE DA JEW!”Your hairline recession is still accepted.
>>6181992>Still no counter-argument>More jewish than meStill accept your concession, jew.
'Bsed' isn't a word, it's based theist. Feel better anon.
>>6181994>”WAAAAHHHHHH I don’t deny being a jew btw”Your sephardic hairline has been acknowledged by the great shitting dicknipple monster, and accepted.
>>6181996>Completely lost the argument>Starts snarking like a meek and timid loser who is incapable of maintaining eye contactEasiest win of my life.>>6181998I'm not jewish, I'm atheist. By defending religion, you are more jewish than me and that has you completely rattled. >Still no counter-argument>More jewish than meStill accept your concession, jew.
>>6181999>imgur reaction image to show I’m totally not madHello, this is your pharmacist speaking.Would you like some butthurt cream with your rogaine, little brownie?
>>6182001>Rattled by a reaction image and losing an argument>Desperate to be white (Because he isn't)>Is more jewish than me
>>6182002Hello, yes, I see you like to identify as a woman despite the male marker on your chart. We can call you ma’am if you’d like sir, but can you respond to the question about your medications? Your hairline is receding further and further as we speak.
>>6182008Alright sir and/or ma’am, your hairline recession is documented and accepted— we’ll up your dose and get it to you right away.
>>6182010I handed the man his/her Rogaine and hydrocortisone cream and watched him throw a silent tantrum across the pharmacy counter. It's tough seeing them finally accept xir receding hairline, but honestly, there's no medication that will fix that level of weaponized butthurt.
>>6182011Keep barking, mutt. I, your master commands it.You WILL bark again. You WILL avoid giving a counter-argument.
>>6182010>>6182013Imagine typing out a whole bulleted list of fanfiction because the pharmacist handed you your hair loss cream. The baldness is clearly reaching your doggy brain.
>>6182014>Barks like a dog when commanded toGood boy. Again!
>>6182015 Buddy, the only thing you're commanding is a double dose of Rogaine from across my pharmacy counter. Now take your bag and move along, the line is backing up.
These are two bots arguing, we're truly living in the modern era.
>>6182017>*bark bark* (No counter-argument)Good boy. Again! Do exactly as your whiter, less bald, less jewish, less owned, master commands!
>>6182020Typing out your beastiality fantasies won't make your hairline advance or your skin look healthy. You're just a frantic brown customer holding up the line. Next, please.
>>6182022>>*bark bark* (No counter-argument)Good boy. Again!
>>6182023You are literally stuck on loop like a broken NPC. The bald rage broke his brain. Next customer, please.
>>6182024>*bark bark* (No counter-argument)Good boy! Keep doing exactly what your master commands by refusing to give a counter-argument!
>>6182025Still crying? Apply the cream and move along, little jew. You’re boring the entire thread now.
>>6182026>*distant barking sounds*
>>6182027Get back here brown dog!
>>6182029Are you enjoying being “raped”? Good girl.
>>6182025Using random white women to fight your battles because your own receding sephardic hairline couldn't carry the argument. Truly an embarrassing jewish coping mechanism.
>>6182032>*Continues to bark like a dog when commanded to* (No arguments)
>>6182034>Using random white women to fight your battlesThey're absolutely getting under your skin huh
>>6182035>>6182038Still repeating the same cringe script because your sub-80 IQ brain short-circuited. The absolute desperation for my attention is embarrassing— get in the back of the line, jewish baldy.
>>6182038You are trying so desperately hard to sound edgy and dominant, but everyone can tell you're just a frantic, balding mess frantically hitting refresh for my validation. Good little Anne Frank.
>bAsedTHEIST enters the thread>Completely decimates religious retards with facts and logic to the point they bark on command, terrified of engaging in an intellectual argument>He waits all day for a reply only to spend multiple hours getting completely dog-walked>He projects all his insecurities on me (He's balding, mad over gifs, jewish, lost an argument, replying multiple times, can't stop thinking about trannies)Easiest win of my life.
>>6182044Escalating to weird dogrape jew fantasies because a retail roleplay completely shattered your fragile ego— you are completely unhinged and mentally obliterated. Take the L and log off.
>>6181905>bearIs this why everyone is calling eachother baldy in here?
>>6182044Imagine writing an entire essay of fanfiction to convince yourself you aren't seething. Peak cope from a genetic dead end.
is it over
>>6179381Source?
>>6182120Jesus of Nazareth:https://youtu.be/-LQkiGsM5OE
>>6181841All belief systems, even the most logically rigorous mathematical systems such as Zermelo set theory, rely upon Axioms, statements made with no proof offered (Faith). So pray tell, what do you believe, and how is it more logically sound than one of these axiomatic systems?
>>6182127Interesting. Link didn't work but I found it on archiveThanks!
>>6182137I guess they removed it from YouTube. Thanks for letting me know.
>>6182142https://archive.org/details/jesus-of-nazareth-full-movie-1977Assuming 1977 is correct
>>6182147Yes. That's the movie.
anti pink/blue/rainbow/colour-hating/christ-hating/natsoc-hating spammerschizo bump
>>6179887You say shit like this while believing a man can become a woman
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
>>6183274
>>6183733Nobody is talking or thinking about trannies but you. You're obsessed.
>>6182128>So pray tell, what do you believe, and how is it more logically sound than one of these axiomatic systems?I'm more trusting of someone who can demonstrate their truths. There is absolutely no reason to beleive in a god.
>>6184901I'm sure you got a great belief system that totally hasn't been ruined by postmodernism (an atheistic invention)
>>6184999Why reply to trolls who aren’t here to debate or seek understanding?
>>6185002So none of the inquirers get lost
>>6184999It's certainly better than believing in tales invented by send-people. >>6185002If you're so terrified of debate and I intimidate you so much, stick to reddit.
>>6185157Then please tell me what a 'truth' is or how it's proven.
>>6185162Truth certainly isn't believing the ramblings of desert people who can't substantiate a word they claim.
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
>>6179309In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
>>6185193So what is a truth and how is it proven?
>>6186073Whatever truth is, it certainly isn't going to be found in the ramblings of desert people.
>>6186130How is it found then?
>>6186134I've already told you where you can't, you simply have no retort. The ramblings of desert people is worthless as a source, and anything attributable to a god can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster.
>>6186450Then please prove how you can't find truth where you claim it can't be found there. Considering you haven't providing a single idea on how to prove what is true you can not be considered a trustworthy source on the inability to find truth in some specific source. As long as you have no basis for your ramblings you can not discredit anybody else's works.
>>6186453>Considering you haven't providing a single idea on how to prove what is trueI have. I've told that the ramblings of desert people are worthless and anything that is attributable to a 'god' can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster. You simply have no retort.
>>6186457No, you've simply told us what you believe not to be true. If you were a police officer tasked with finding a culprit you can't just say 'Well I know it's not that one specific guy out of a vast majority of suspects' and think the case is solved. I want you to tell me precisely how you can find out what is true since otherwise you can not reject what is not true.
>>6186464>No, you've simply told us what you believe not to be trueExactly, and that's all you need to know. I don't trust the ramblings of desert people who invent stories about a 'god' the same way I don't believe sally the soothsayer can tell the future. If I can attribute anything a 'god' does to a flying spaghetti monster, there's no need to go any deeper. The argument of a 'god' has been completely decimated.
>>6186467>and that's all you need to know.So you're just going to leave us here, uneducated and without any tool to find truth? Why should we believe you, someone who hasn't even shown us how to discern veracity, if God seems so much more plausible?
>>6186475>So you're just going to leave us here, uneducated and without any tool to find truth? I'm telling you where you won't find it. The same way I'd call bullshit on someone claiming to know the future. >Why should we believe you, someone who hasn't even shown us how to discern veracityWhy would I believe desert people who's claims can be just as easily attributed to a flying spaghetti monster?
>>6186489>I'm telling you where you won't find it.How can you know that if you don't know where or how to find truth? You must have a knowledge of truth to know what is untrue. >Why would I believe desert people who's claims can be just as easily attributed to a flying spaghetti monster?Because they at least got a system that holds up to scrutiny, you don't even have a system
this cyclic fedora tipping redditor argument is so boring move on
>>6186528>Because they at least got a system that holds up to scrutinyAnything attributable to a god can be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster. >>6186530If it's so boring you'd have a counter-argument. You don't. No godtard does.
ironic shitposting is still shitposting, redditfag
>>6186534>Anything attributable to a god can be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster.Please prove this statement
>>6186535There is no irony or shitposting. You're coping because you have no counter-argument. If you're so intimidated by atheists that you're terrified of replying to them directly, return to your reddit hugbox.
>>6186537Easy. Because there is absolutely nothing supporting the claim of a god outside of the ramblings of desert people, I can just as easily claim all of their attributions as being evidence of a flying spaghetti monster.That's how retarded religious people sound.
>another boring, broken record, low effort redditroll replyhow utterly shocking, the board deserves better derailers
>>6186542Nobody is derailing here but you. I'm talking about god, you're snarking like a a beaten mutt begging its master for attention. You're so intimidated by me you won't reply to me directly. You absolutely have issues maintaining eye contact.
>>6186542It'd be funny if it were the same retard who bragged about wasting the last 15 years of his life 'trolling'.
>>6186540>easily claim"Flying Spaghetti Monster" is too may syllables. "God" is a more efficient term for memorization. So believing in God is easier.Is your FSM corporeal or non-corporeal?
>>6186552It shares the same attributes as god and other imaginary friends. Entirely fictional.
>>6186555If I have to research "god", or these "other imaginary friends", in order to understand your FSM, then why should I study or follow the FSM? I can just study and follow god, or the other imaginary friends directly. What use is your FSM?
All this fictional nonsense started from Mary being a raped slut who took in gallons of cum in her cunt every day from browns and needed to feign a miraculous conception to prevent her from being stoned to death by her barbaric family.
>>6186559>then why should I study or follow the FSM?>What use is your FSM?You're so close anon! Activate those almonds I believe in you!!
>>6186564Since you can't give a reson to use the term FSM, I will continue to use the term God, and stick with the 6,000+ years of supporting literature.
>>6186572>Since you can't give a reson to use the term God, I will continue to use the term Flying Spaghetti Monster, and stick with the 20+ years of supporting literature.This is how ridiculous you sound.
>>6186575Anon, if God and FSM were stocks on the stock market, you would invest in God, not the FSM. Your argument is that Sharknado is the exact same as Starwars or Lord of the Rings. The FSM is a low level meme that is being eaten by Will Smith. No one even remembers it anymore. Meanwhile, God is inspiring real action across the planet. I'm not going to study the etymology of some unknown meme with no followers, when there is a world wide egrogore that has been influencing humanity for thousands of years. The effects of this egregore are tangible.
>>6186578>if God and FSM were stocks on the stock market, you would invest in God, not the FSM.I wouldn't invest in either. If religions are TV channels, atheism is switching the TV off.>Your argument is that Sharknado is the exact same as Starwars or Lord of the Rings.They are the exact same. They are all works of fiction.>Meanwhile, God is inspiring real action across the planet.Mass delusion doesn't make god real. There are retards who think the earth is flat, that doesn't mean its true.
>>6186584>switching the TV offYes, I have read the allegory of Plato's cave. However, here you are still sending your messages on the internet to explain what you have seen.>They are the exact sameNo. One has followers and influences world politics. The other is being eaten by Will Smith as a joke.>Mass delusionCommunication moves mountains. Ideas are real when implemented. Only like 1% of people believe in a "flat earth". Its not really a problem. If that's important to you, then you should go find someone who believes in a flat earth, and argue with them directly.
>>6186593>No.Yes, all three are works of fiction. Just like god and the flying spaghetti monster are works of fiction. >One has followers and influences world politics.Santa Claus influences markets and politics and there are millions of children that believe in him. How is that any different?
I have come only for the lost rabits in the hole who struggle with God and man. It is not the healthy who need a dr, but the sick. I am the why the truth and the life and I have come to call sinners to repentance.
>>6186596>How is that any different?I already told you how ideas and egregores have different levels of influence, but you ignored my point.Santa doesn't need to be different, if thats how you want to define the terms in your mind. But you would be wise to watch and understand how these ideas are manifesting. The important thing for both God and Santa is that you stay good.Watch, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.
>>6186609Wtf is that webm and why does it look like the scene from Monster House
>>6186612All Through the House," is an episode from Love, Death and Robots. It might still be on Netflix. https://youtu.be/5YHDsilwiGY
>>6186609I said mass delusion doesn't make god real.Your response is that the age of the stories, volume of believers and real-world influence makes god more real.Using your qualifiers (Age of the story, and volume of believers and real world influence) that would make Santa real.That's how ridiculous your argument is.
>>6186619Thanks anon
>>6186621>ridiculousLaugh all you want. My good children will still recieve their gifts, and when they grow up, they will know the truth, and they will prepare good gifts for their children. If you want to recieve the old gifts and new gifts, then you might need to embrace Polysemy. Let go of what you think you know, and seek the real message, not the diluted and delusional.
>>6186626I agree! All hail the flying spaghetti monster!!
>>6186628Love the Lord, your FSM with all your heart and soul and mind and body. And love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and everything prophessed hangs on these two commands.
>>6186636Amen!
>>6186628>All hailAs discussed, not many people know what FSM is, as it's a low level meme. So "all hail" is not accurate. Language is negotiated. If you want a language that is effective, you should select words that other people use and understand, and you should use them in the context that others use them.
>>6186646>As discussed, not many people know what FSM isAs discussed, mass delusion doesn't make god realGive me a specific number of people that need to believe in god for it to be "real".
>>6186540>flying spaghetti monsterIf you want to use more syllables to describe God, I would suggest that you start with words like, "the way, the truth, and the life". This might be more usefull than the words, "flying, spaghetti, and monster".
>>6186650If it wasn't clear I'm making fun of you.
>>6186649If you believe in something, and you act out your beliefs, then you and your beliefs are real Anon. How effective and or good they are is another question.
>>6186653And that's why FSM is not real. Again, its only used as a joke. No one is actually following it. Not even you.
>>6186657>If you believe in something, and you act out your beliefs, then you and your beliefs are real AnonNo matter how much or how many children believe in god, Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that doesn't make them real. >How effective and or good they are is another question.Having an imaginary friend as an adult is pathetic.>>6186659>No one is actually following it. Not even you.I said mass delusion doesn't make god real.Your response is that the age of the stories, volume of believers and real-world influence makes god more real.Using your qualifiers (Age of the story, and volume of believers and real world influence) that would make Santa real.That's how ridiculous your argument is.
>>6186701>Santa ClausAccording to the historical evidence, gifts are delivered to good children every year. I can choose to call this phenomenon "Santa Claus", and it is a real event that can be observed.>imaginary friend.Delegating mental processes to a subcontious mind, so that I can live, and experience life, and be aware, without being conciouse of every single thought, is a good thing. When I have a question, I ask, and the answer comes to me. This is because I love life, and I want to live. I guess if an individual hated their life, and they hated reality, they might run from it, and seek to lose themselves in thought. They might define themselves as their mental processes and data storage system, instead of their concious experience. As for me, I am able to judge and make decisions, because I am aware.>ridiculousGo to>>6186626The impact is measurable. See also here.>>6185227Jesus has two natures. God and Man. We can go back and forth about the semantics of "reality", if that's what you want. Meanwhile, the Son of Man is walking around making things happen.
>>6186746>and it is a real event that can be observed.You think santa claus rides around on his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer? Are you brain damaged?>Delegating mental processes to a subcontious mind, so that I can live, and experience life, and be aware, without being conciouse of every single thought, is a good thing. When I have a question, I ask, and the answer comes to me. This is because I love life, and I want to live.None of this means a god exists. It means you have an imaginary friend. As an adult.>The impact is measurable.>See also here.I said mass delusion doesn't make god real.Your response is that the age of the stories, volume of believers and real-world influence makes god more real.Using your qualifiers (Age of the story, and volume of believers and real world influence) that would make Santa real.You have no counter-argument to this.>Meanwhile, the Son of Man is walking around making things happen.I'll go back to what I said at the very start. Everything you attribute to a god can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster. That's how ridiculous you sound.
>>6186752>You think santa clausI dont think about Santa Claus much. You brought him up, not me. However, there is historical evidence for his existance. Now that I am grown up, I don't run around teasing children. I help deliver the presents like every other good parent.And the gifts are real.When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.You seem to have an issue with polysemy. You keep calling it "mass delusion". >FSMYou can call God by whatever name you want anon, but people dont care about the FSM. They care about proven facts and presents. If you tell your kids that the FSM is going to bring presents, and none show up, then they won't believe it. Good prophets are not remembered for their lies, but because of their good fruits.Teasing children tastes bad. No one wants to eat that.
>>6186761>However, there is historical evidence for his existance.I'll ask again. You think santa claus rides around on his sleigh every christmas pulled by flying reindeer delivering presents to every (deserving) child in the world? Yes or no.>When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.So long as you believe in a god, you have an imaginary friend. You are still a child.>You keep calling it "mass delusion".I'm calling it what it is. Tell me the exact number of people that need to believe something for it to exist.>but people dont care about the FSM. They care about proven facts and presents.god and FSM are the same in this regard. That's the entire point, both are completely fabricated nonsense with absolutely nothing supporting their existence.
>>6186540So your ramblings are worth more because...
>>6186848What ramblings? I'm not the one asserting the existence of a god based on nonsense written by desert people.
>>6186856You are asserting the existence of some truths for which you have no system to prove them.
>>6186767>You thinkI dont typically think about Santa Claus. You brought him up, not me. It seems like you think about him more than I do. In regard to "deserving children", I think that there are some children who are deserving, but they don't recieve gifts, because their parents do not believe in Santa Claus. I would recommend that those parents become believers, so that their children can recieve the gifts that they deserve.>Tell me the exact numberIf one person believes something, then it is real to them, and it should be taken seriously. However, we are not commanded to only love the lord "our God". We are also instructed to love our neighbor as ourself. This requires a measure of 2, or 3. We are also not instructed to test "our God" by doing dangerous things, such as jumping off a cliff. Therefore, it should be understood that our subjective reality is not perfect, and we must repent when objective evidence is presented to us.>nonsenseArguments based on ancient language are more sound, and more closely founded on sense, than modern arguments. This is because modern arguments are more abstract, and further removed from the polysemy, allegory, and figurative words of everyday language and experience. This can take the modern argument farther from common sense, and closer to nonsense.
>>6186870I'm not asserting anything. I'm testing assertions and demonstrating how utterly childish they are.>>6186944>You brought him up, not me.To demonstrate, using your logic, that he must exist. Which demonstrates how childish you are.>If one person believes something, then it is real to them, and it should be taken seriouslySo in your world nobody can be wrong. If some incel believes he is owes pussy and rapes someone, that's is ok to you.>Arguments based on ancient language are more sound, and more closely founded on sense, than modern argumentsZeus predates jesus, and we know how ridiculous it is to believe lightning is caused by a god of lightning.You truely are lost, deluded and without argument. The fact you think it's ok to entertain delusions is a sign you are mentally ill.Seek help.
SEA, India, & Israel hours remaining based and letting you know Mary fucked Roman soldiers.
>>6187250>I'm testing assertions and demonstrating how utterly childish they are.How? You still haven't told us the system you use to find truth
>>6187326As demonstrated without counter-argument, truth isn't found in fables written by desert people, nor is truth determined by the volume of people that believe in something, nor is it determined by its effect on the world. I have yet to have a retort on this.
>>6187360Why
>>6187250>in your world nobody can be wrong.I say that they exist, and they should be taken seriously.
>>6187393Why what? I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truth. What I can demonstrate is what isn't true with basic reasoning. >>6187394>say that they exist, and they should be taken seriouslySo in your world nobody can be wrong. If some incel believes he is owed pussy and rapes someone, that's is ok to you. Reply to the rest of that post or I'll take that as a concession to every argument you've given.
>>6187405>So in your world nobody can be wrongWhy do you insist on asserting that I believe this? >every argument you've givenWhat argument did I give?
>>6187405>I'm not arrogant or deludedLol.
>>6187405>I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truthWhy?
>>6187412>If one person believes something, then it is real to themThis is you entertaining all beliefs without question.>What argument did I give?I replied to every point and you have no retort>>6187424>>6187520Actual cope
>>6187869>This is you entertaining all beliefs without questionWhy do you believe that you know this to be absolutely true?
>>6187869>I replied to every pointJust because you reply to someone, that doesn't mean you understand their argument. Also, a point is not an argument. A point is a piece of an argument. Thats why its called a point. A point is not a line. Its a point. Just like an assertion, an observation, and a conclusion are not arguments. They are pieces of an argument.
>>6187869>Actual copeNo, I'm still asking you for a system which finds truth. Even a single algorithm would suffice.
>>6187876I'm inviting you to prove otherwise.>>6187879>Just because you reply to someone, that doesn't mean you understand their argument.If I didn't understand something there would be a counter-argument. There wasn't, so my only interpretation is that the argument was conceded.So not only have I won the argument, I've won the meta argument as well.>>6188228I've already told you, I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truth. What I can demonstrate is what isn't true with basic reasoning.Because you have no meaningful retort to this (You continue to ask) I can only accept your concession.
>>6187869>entertaining all beliefs without questionI am entertaining all beliefs, but not without question.Jesus declared all foods ceremonially clean.
>>6184901>I'm more trusting of someone who can demonstrate their truths>I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truthThen Jesus ordered him, “Don’t tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”
>>6186555So you conceded that it's not "just as easy", and then pivoted to another argument.
>>6186555>Entirely fictional.imaginary numbers are like imaginary persons. They are not "entirely fictional", but can be used to reorient a path. Like in the case of the trinity, or a quartenionic function.>>>/his/18554676
>>6188272>I've already told you, I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truthThat isn't my question. I'm asking you is what system you use to figure out whether something is truthful or not. >What I can demonstrate is what isn't true with basic reasoning.How? I've been asking you this for days now. >Because you have no meaningful retort to this (You continue to ask) I can only accept your concession.Of course I got no retort to my own unanswered question since they are not statements.
>>6188272>I can only acceptGive, and you will recieve.
>>6188272>I can only acceptDon’t be scared to express yourself. Put your views on the table or admit that you have none worth defending. After all, 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' Are you still a beginner with your wisdom?
Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.“Come now, let us settle the matter together,” says the Lord.
>>6188291Not an argument>>6188294No, I gave a full retort and strengthened my argument.>>6188298When you can shape 'god' to mean whatever you want, it has absolutely no value in the real world.>>6188342>I'm asking you is what system you use to figure out whether something is truthful or not.I've already told you, I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truth.>How? I've been asking you this for days now.Simply by asking questions that completely falsify your beliefs which you have no retort for.>Of course I got no retort to my own unanswered question since they are not statements.I'm querying you on the existence of god, because you have no proof you're desperate to pivot away from the topic. I've denied your pivot again and again.>>6188365>Don’t be scared to express yourself. Put your views on the table or admit that you have none worth defending. I don't have to, I'm not the one claiming the existence of a god based on nothing but the ramblings of desert-people.
>>6188585>I've already told you, I'm not arrogant or deluded enough like religious people to claim to know absolute truth.I'm not asking you for 'absolute truth' I'm asking you for the system required to find truth. I'm asking you for the formula, not the result. >Simply by asking questions that completely falsify your beliefs which you have no retort for.Finally! How do you form these questions to ensure they are correct and don't assume something untrue? >I'm querying you on the existence of god,I don't recall you asking me anything. Feel free to ask me something but make sure your question does not assume anything that hasn't been proved true. >I've denied your pivot again and again.I'm not pivoting, I wanted you to show me the system you employ to find *any* truth.
>>6188602>Finally! How do you form these questions to ensure they are correct and don't assume something untrue?Questions don't assume anything. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the person asking the question.>Feel free to ask me something but make sure your question does not assume anything that hasn't been proved true.Anything that is attributable to a god can be equally attributed to a flying spaghetti monster. This hasn't been falsified yet this entire thread since 06/21/26(Sun)19:04:25. godtards haven't sent their best. >I'm not pivotingI know, I've denied you the chance you've been craving for for days.
>>6188585>When you can shape 'god' to mean whatever you want, it has absolutely no value in the real worldSince you are interested in strengthening your argument, let's track it, and measure your progress:Originality: 5/10Depth & Insight: 6/10Conceptual Accuracy: 6.5/10Elegance & Force: 7/10Clarity: 9/10Ovetall Rating: 6.2 / 10Your argument is very clear, but it lacks depth and accuracy.It misses the opportunity to explore why incorporeal, “imaginary” or abstract concepts (mathematical or theological) demonstrably add value even if they’re not strictly empirical or corporeal.“Love”, “justice”, “freedom”, or even “self” can be shaped in different ways across cultures/philosophies without becoming "absolutely" worthless. You are also ignoring psychological and cultural utility.
>>6188298Rating: 8.4 / 10Originality: 9/10Conceptual Accuracy: 8/10Depth & Insight: 8.5/10Clarity: 7.5/10Elegance & Poetic Quality: 9/10
>>6188635We're not talkinga bout love, justice or freedom. We're talking about god.
>>6188643Define god
>>6188626>Questions don't assume anything.Wrong, if I ask 'Why is microsoft so highly valued despite all of their products sucking?' the assumption is that all of Microsoft's products suck. In this case the assumption is true although early investors in Microsoft will likely disagree. >Anything that is attributable to a god can be equally attributed to a flying spaghetti monster.Is that a question? You just posted an incorrect statement. >I've denied you the chance you've been craving for for days.No? You've taken days to come up with some heavily flawed system to find out what is true. Since you seem to have trouble putting it into words I'll help you: 1. Find some statement2. Ask questions about the statement3. If none of the answers satisfy you personally you reject the veracity of the statementSo what are the flaws? A. Your questions are flawed as they assume some status quo which hasn't been proven true. B. You simply asking a question does not guarantee that someone qualified to answer this question will answer it. C. You have set no boundaries when you shall receive an answer, this basically means you can never find that something is untrue unless you and someone you can ask who agrees with the questioned statement live forever. D. Your system is very fragile as it relies not only on your subjective view but also on all previous answers and your subjective rating of them. This means that not only could someone form an answer which isn't truthful but convincing to you, you have no way to test if previous answers were incorrect, collapsing your entire system of beliefs. In short, you're just trying to make your own religion, like all atheists (take the webm of >>6188635 as an example).
>>6188649That's not for me to define>>6188650>Why is microsoft so highly valuedThis is the question.>despite all of their products sucking?This is an assumption.>You just posted an incorrect statement.I posted a statement you, everyone else ITT, have absolutely no retort to.>No?Yes. I've denied every single desperate attempt you've made to pivot away from the fact you have no retort to god being equally real as the flying spaghetti monster.
>>6188654>That's not for me to defineHow can something that is undefined be equal to the flying spaghetti monster? The flying spaghetti monster has noodles. Does your god have noodles? If so, don't be shy. Tell us about your god.
>>6188654>This is the question.No 'so' here conveys relativity. Without the rest of question any answer would be correct. >I posted a statement you, everyone else ITT, have absolutely no retort to.But you said you were asking questions? Anyway, since you just made a claim the burden on proof is on you, see >>6188626. Do you need help with disproving it? >I've denied every single desperate attempt you've made to pivot away from the fact you have no retort to god being equally real as the flying spaghetti monster.That's another claim you made you, once again, need to prove.
>>6188656>How can something that is undefined be equal to the flying spaghetti monster?To show how retarded the idea of a god is. Keep up.
>>6188654>realDefine real
>>6188657>NoYes. Why is microsoft so highly valued is the question. You accidentally baked in an assumption into your question. You made a mistake.>Anyway, since you just made a claim the burden on proof is on youThis isn't the gotcha you think it is and it plays right into my hands. Anything attributable to a god can equally be determined to be proof of the flying spaghetti monster by the simple fact that godtards have no proof of a god.>>6188659I can tell you what isn't real - god.
>>6188662>Why is microsoft so highly valued is the question.Define 'so'. >>6188662>Anything attributable to a god can equally be determined to be proof of the flying spaghetti monster by the simple fact that godtards have no proof of a god.No, nonexistence of evidence doesn't equate evidence of nonexistence. See point complaint C regarding your system. What's worse is that you now need to disprove every argument for not just the Christian God but any deity as you reject the existence of any deity. Looks like you got a lot of work ahead of you, godspeed!
>>6188663>Define 'so'.Part of the question. >No, nonexistence of evidence doesn't equate evidence of nonexistenceWhat can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>6188662>Anything attributable to a god can equally be determined to be proof of the flying spaghetti monster by the simple fact that godtards have no proof of a godOriginality: 3/10Logical Strength: 5/10Persuasiveness & Rhetoric: 4/10Depth: 4.5/10Clarity: 8/10Overall Rating: 5.1 / 10Bad news Anon, your arguments are actually getting worse.
>>6188664>Part of the question.I doubt that the english language kept a word for multiple decades just so I could use in one specific question and that it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. >What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.So where's your evidence for a lack of all evidence for a deity? So far you've not provided any and therefore your statement about the lack of the existence of any deity needs to be thrown out of the window too. In fact, you can't have produced any evidence since you don't even know what a deity is (as shown in >>6188649and >>6188654)
does this count?
>>6188667>I doubt that the english language kept a word for multiple decades just so I could use in one specific question and that it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.I never said it doesn't have meaning, I said it's part of the question. You made an error and you're fumbling for an excuse.>So where's your evidence for a lack of all evidence for a deity?Where is your evidence of against a flying spaghetti monster? Or an invisible pink unicorn? or Santa Claus delivering presents on a sleigh towed by flying reindeer? god is just another one of these ridiculous delusions. Again, the age of the story, volume of believers, and real world influence have no bearing on the existence of a god, and people asserting the existence of a god have absolutely nothing to support their claim.god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults.
>>6188862>Where is your evidence of against a flying spaghetti monster? Or an invisible pink unicorn? or Santa Claus delivering presents on a sleigh towed by flying reindeer? god is just another one of these ridiculous delusions.>Again, the age of the story, volume of believers, and real world influence have no bearing on the existence of a god, and people asserting the existence of a god have absolutely nothing to support their claim.>god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adultsAnon, you were doing better when you quoted Hitchens. That was a good argument. However, you seem to be having trouble putting it all together within your own mental framework.Your current argument gets a rating of 4.2/10 based on it's lack of logic and soundness.You should research the issues listed below and try again. I believe in you. You can strengthen your argument, but you have to really want it.False EquivalenceBurden of Proof Shell GameAd Homininem FallacySelf-Undermining
>>6179887>Anything attributable to a god can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monsterIt looks like you did refine your argument to Anything attributable to a god can be attributed to a flying spaghetti monsterDid you concede that it's not as easy?
>>6188862>god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults
>>6189003>no counter-argumentI accept your concession.>>6189013My argument is exactly the same and has yet to be refuted.
>>6189023Correct. No amount of fear instilled by frauds to weak minds proves the existence of a god.
>>6189040>I accept your concessionLook, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.
>>6189041>minds
>>6188862>I said it's part of the question.The definition can not be that it's used somewhere specifically but it's function as it's used. >Where is your evidence of against a flying spaghetti monster? Or an invisible pink unicorn? or Santa Claus delivering presents on a sleigh towed by flying reindeer?Nowhere since I did not assert their existence. Again, all of these need to be proven by you. >Again, the age of the story, volume of believers, and real world influence have no bearing on the existence of a god,Why 'again'? I haven't used that for an argument so far. Partially because you're the only one with a proof of burden currently as you made a statement, that being ever attribute of and attribution to God being equally suited for the flying spaghetti monster. This is what you need to prove. >god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults.This is a statement. Please provide a proof for this. Alternatively you can prove it both individually for weak, and deluded adults.>>6189040>My argument is exactly the same and has yet to be refuted.The burden of proof is on you though. You've simply come up with a random statement that has no justification.
>>6189041>No amount of fearShortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw a spirit hovering above the water, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! Don’t be afraid is I."
>>6179887Define "flying spaghetti monster"
>>6188862>weak and deluded adults.Change this to "adults who use mental heuristics".
>>6179887Hey rabbi, watcha doin'?
>>6189049>Nowhere since I did not assert their existence. Again, all of these need to be proven by you.You're so close! >Partially because you're the only one with a proof of burden currently as you made a statementOk I'll explain it for you since you're not getting it. I share the same burden people who believe in god have.>Please provide a proof for this.Religious clerics use indoctrination and fear to instill belief in a god (See: Hell, fear of a god etc)>>6189052>Define "flying spaghetti monster"A fictional being equally likely to exist like god>>6189054jews have more in line with christians than atheists.
>>6189059>You're so close!No, you can't say 'Well I've provided characters which I didn't prove and equate them to this other character so the other character doesn't exist'. The equality is something that needs to be proven by you. >Ok I'll explain it for you since you're not getting it. I share the same burden people who believe in god have.No, you entered a discussion, unasked and uninvited, and simply made an assertion as the starting off point and you have not given a single proof for your statement yet. What's worse is that your statement, when unproven, can easily be rejected, while the existence of God can't as easily be rejected since there's no working null-hypothesis. >Religious clerics use indoctrination and fear to instill belief in a god (See: Hell, fear of a god etc)I came to the church on my own out of love for God after being brought up in an atheistic way of life. Your system can't account for me and therefore is wrong.
>>6189059>A fictional being equally likely to exist like godSo you have chosen to define god as a fictional being. When did you adopt this definition?
>>6189061>I came to the church on my own out of love for God after being brought up in an atheistic way of life. Your system can't account for me and therefore is wrongAmen!
>>6189061>The equality is something that needs to be proven by you.Wrong. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. FSM, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and god are all baseless assertions. Because you have nothing to assert the existence of god, you must also accept the existence of FSM and the Invisible Punk Unicorn.>No, you entered a discussion, unasked and uninvitedIf my rock-solid arguments against the existence of god intimidate you so much then go to some reddit hugbox.>What's worse is that your statement, when unproven, can easily be rejectedTo reject my assertion of FSM and IPU is to reject the existence of a god. Careful.>Your system can't account for me and therefore is wrong."god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults"I already did account for you lmao.
>>6189066>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.You are confusing the existence with attributes. Your job isn't to prove the existence of God or the flying spaghetti monster but their equality in this specific attribute. If I say 'Winnie the Pooh and Batman are the same height' I don't need to prove whether they exist but whether the height attributed to them is the same. >If my rock-solid arguments against the existence of god intimidate you so much then go to some reddit hugbox.You have yet to prove a single of your statements. In fact, you haven't even told me how to circumvent the problems your epistemological system has (as outlined in >>6188650)>To reject my assertion of FSM and IPU is to reject the existence of a god. Careful.No, and I already told you why. There's no working null-hypothesis against God's existence. >"god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults">I already did account for you lmao.Your 'proof' of that statement has shown to be wrong. I was not indoctrinated or feared Hell when I came to the church (which happened after I started believing in God) which is according to you the only reason to believe in God.
>>6189071>Your job isn't to prove the existence of God or the flying spaghetti monster but their equality in this specific attribute.All are fictional creations of man.>You have yet to prove a single of your statements.I have, you simply have no counter-argument. You're desperate to shift into some meta argument because you lost the argument on the existence of a god.>No, and I already told you why. There's no working null-hypothesis against FSM and IPU's existence.Oh ok so FSM and IPU exists.>Your 'proof' of that statement has shown to be wrong.I've demonstrated it to be true. You believe in the existence of a god despite having absolutely nothing to support your claim of a god. You deny the existence of FSM and IPUYou have absolutely no way to reconcile this dissonance, validating you're a weak-minded adult with an imaginary friend.
>>6189066>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidenceYou're not dismissing something. You're asserting something. You're asserting a lot of things in this thread.Im not going to prove this point. You can dismiss it if your want, but it is true. You have to seek the truth for yourself. There isnt going to be some guru to lay it all out for you.
>>6189074>All are fictional creations of man.1. You need to prove this new statement2. This is irrelevant for your previous statement>I haveWhere is your proof for everything attributable to God being also attributable to the flying spaghetti monster? I've already shown you that you can't dismiss this by claiming (which also needs a proof) that both are fictional (See >>6189071)>You're desperate to shift into some meta argument because you lost the argument on the existence of a god.No, you simply haven't understood how an argument works. >>No, and I already told you why. There's no working null-hypothesis against FSM and IPU's existence.>Oh ok so FSM and IPU exists.Misquoting me to make a statement just shows how weak you are. The difference is that we can easily assume the nonexistence of the false creatures you made up because the world can exist without them, however the existence of the world without God is currently impossible. >I've demonstrated it to be trueShow me when, where and how I was indoctrinated then if I lived as an atheistic and had no contact to any cleric. >You believe in the existence of a god despite having absolutely nothing to support your claim of a god.Incorrect, but so far you haven't managed to tackle your initial statement. We first need to discuss that before we continue. Considering you STILL haven't found a definition for a deity you can not proof your statement as you need to know the terms you're discussing before you can make any claims on them.
>>6189066>If my rock-solid arguments against the existence of god intimidate you so much then go to some reddit hugboxAnon. This is /wsg/ not /his/. I came here to post audio files. That being said, I welcome your questions. I find them amusing. I am use to the crass attitude, I have been on 4chan a long time, and it does not intimidate me. I've just kind of moved passed it myself.
>>6186457redditor argument.
>>6186457>I have. I've told that the ramblings of desert people are worthless and anything that is attributable to a 'god' can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster. You simply have no retort.Rating: 4/10 (Rhetorically catchy but philosophically weak and shallow)You still need to address these issues with your form of argumentation:Ad Hominem + Genetic FallacyFalse EquivalenceIgnorance of Differential Evidence
>>6189044If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Be complete, therefore, as your heavenly Father is complete.
>>6189078>You're not dismissing something. I am dismissing god, which has been asserted without evidence.>You're asserting a lot of things in this thread.And yet you're completely incapable of listing them out. Dismissals and pointing out cognitive dissonance aren't assertions.>>6189081>You need to prove this new statementDismissals and pointing out cognitive dissonance aren't assertions. You're asserting the existence of god without proof, therefore it can be dismissed and mocked.>Where is your proof for everything attributable to God being also attributable to the flying spaghetti monster?In the fact you have absolutely nothing supporting your claim of a god. >The difference is that we can easily assume the nonexistence of the false creatures you made up because the world can exist without them, however the existence of the world without IPU and FSM is currently impossible.You keep falling for the same trap because it demonstrates entirely how weak and flawed your claim is lmao>Show me when, where and howI've demonstrated it to be true. You believe in the existence of a god despite having absolutely nothing to support your claim of a god. You deny the existence of FSM and IPUYou have absolutely no way to reconcile this dissonance, validating you're a weak-minded adult with an imaginary friend.>IncorrectI'm 100% correct you simply have nothing supporting your claim.>>6189087That you have no counter-argument for. Imagine being owned by "redditor arguments" lmao>>6189091Still no counter-argument, still accept your concession.
>>6189722>I am dismissing godYou can easily dismiss "god" by leaving the thread, but you are still here engaging with his body. What you are doing is not ignorance, it is engagement.
>>6189722>incapableOmnipotence is potential, not actualization.
>>6189722>accept your concessionYour imaginary friend does not exist.Also, I am still here, watching. Don't think that you are alone, just because I am silent.
>>6189722>you simply have nothing supporting your claim.Are you really arrogant and deluded enough to claim that you know this as absolute truth?
>>6189722>Dismissals and pointing out cognitive dissonance aren't assertions.A dismissal without an argument is an assertion. Furthermore you need to prove that both God and the flying spaghetti monster positively do not exist. >You're asserting the existence of god without proofIncorrect >In the fact you have absolutely nothing supporting your claim of a god.Equally as incorrect, however since you've made another claim you need to prove that too. >You keep falling for the same trap because it demonstrates entirely how weak and flawed your claim is lmaoThe trap that your epistemological system is incoherent and doesn't work when it comes to the existence of any deity? >I've demonstrated it to be true.No, you said people believe in God because they are indoctrinated and scared due to clerics. I had no contact to clerics before I believed in God. Therefore your statement is wrong. >You deny the existence of FSM and IPUI don't even need to discuss the existence, you first need to prove their existence. >You have absolutely no way to reconcile this dissonance, validating you're a weak-minded adult with an imaginary friend.And still I'm strong enough to not base my entire epistemological system (do you even know what that means? If so, prove it by explaining the terms used and why the failures I pointed out are fatal for you) on my opinions on answers by randoms.
>>6188793Best ITT, he truly has risen
>>6179887>seething when he should be repenting
>>6189737>>6189749Not an argument.>>6189784Yes. You have absolutely nothing supporting your claim, so I can dismiss it.>>6189866>A dismissal without an argument is an assertion.So you're a pedophile until I prove that you're not? What a retarded argument LMAO>Furthermore you need to prove that both God and the flying spaghetti monster positively do not exist.The burden of proof is on you to support the existence of a god. You have nothing to support your claim, so it can be dismissed (Just like the FSM and IPU).>The trap that your epistemological system is incoherent and doesn't work when it comes to the existence of any deity?My logic is bullet-proof. Because you have nothing supporting the claim of a god, I can easily attribute it to the existence of FSM and IPU. You have completely failed to reconcile this.>No, you said people believe in God because they are indoctrinated and scared due to clerics.I also said you're a weak minded adult with an imaginary friend. (>>6189066) You're accounted for.>I don't even need to discuss the existence, you first need to prove their existence.Like you need to do with god (and haven't, and can't).>And still I'm strong enough to not base my entire epistemological system on my opinions on answers by randoms.You have no system, you have absolutely no counter-arguments. You've completely lost the argument.
>>6190386>So you're a pedophile until I prove that you're not? What a retarded argument LMAONo, especially not since you're entering a legal discussion which in turn has the presumption of innocence.>The burden of proof is on you to support the existence of a godCorrect, the burden of proof for existence is on me. However, the burden of proof for nonexistence is on you.>You have nothing to support your claim, so it can be dismissedWhat you're referring to is embracing the null hypothesis. Against the existence of God there is no null hypothesis as that would require there being a feasible scenario in which all creation exists out of nothing which is obviously impossible, as you even see Dawkin struggle with it.>My logic is bullet-proofThen explain how you circumvent the problems pointed out in >>6188650>I can easily attribute it to the existence of FSM and IPUWhat do you mean by 'it'? You mean all attributes of God? No, that still doesn't work, otherwise you'd claim that Winnie the Pooh and Batman are the same height.>I also said you're a weak minded adult with an imaginary friend.No, you said that God is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults. As I asked you prove this you said>'Religious clerics use indoctrination and fear to instill belief in a god (See: Hell, fear of a god etc)'And then I told you this is incorrect since I started believing in God before I talked to any cleric. Your conclusion bases itself on an assertion that isn't true.>Like you need to do with god (and haven't, and can't)Ok, you desperately want a proof of God's existence? Please tell me what caused the Big Bang, you believe in. You know as well as I that it couldn't have caused itself since the theory states that it happened right after the beginning of time, not right on the beginning. So there needs to be a cause before the big bang.>You have no systemNo, you simply haven't asked me yet.>you have no counter-argumentsThat's kinda hard if you have no arguments.
>>6190386>Yes.So then you are arrogant and deluded, like religious people, to claim to know absolute truth. >>6187405
I have lost interest in everything in this worldYet my body and mind still roam around on auto pilot, trying to find enjoyment in the same things i once did years agoThere is such futility in everything I do and it feels dreadfulI know I need to reach out for help but i dont know what that even looks likeI waver in my faith and actions daily like the wind and I know im not living or loving as i need to be but i dont know how to change or where to begin, or how to reconcile this change that i know is happening in mei struggle to understand where im supposed to be and for all ive done in the past 13 years since graduating, sure some has been good some bad, but it all feels fucking worthless and like im incapable of seeing myself in the futurei need help brosi feel like i dont even pray correctly and like every day i wake up and disregard my conscious when i jack off i just ruin myself and ruin my entire life each timei am the king of excuses and theres only so much i can feel regret for when it ends up being daily regressionive been going to church again at least and its been good but what the fuck is the point of me trying to worship if i dont bring it homei hate myself so much right now and yet i have all the good graces of life right now that there should be no reason i am unhappyi dont know how to be fruitful and i just want to understand my place in the worldim close to a breaking point like i can feel it, and i wish i could go to church tomorrow but im on a stupid work trip that begins and its going to be two weeks awayi want to quit, i want to be homeless, i want to just fucking check out and stop caringim just so tiredi dont know how to rest in his pastures and i struggle to find solace in prayer when i go and turn around the next day and fuck up/rant i guess
>>6190410>No, especially not since you're entering a legal discussion which in turn has the presumption of innocence.Yes. Using your logic, you're a pedophile until I prove you're not.>Correct, the burden of proof for existence is on me. And you haven't given a single thing to support your claim.>However, the burden of proof for nonexistence is on you.There is no such thing as a burden of nonexistence. Otherwise you must agree that FSM and IPU exist.>Against the existence of God there is no null hypothesis as that would require there being a feasible scenario in which all creation exists out of nothing which is obviously impossibleYou have nothing to support the claim 'god' created anything. I can just as easily claim that IPU shit it out.>Then explain how you circumvent the problems pointed out inI already did>And then I told you this is incorrect since I started believing in God before I talked to any cleric.I already said god is for weak adults with imaginary friends long before I a second (>>6186752). Both are true. >Please tell me what caused the Big BangNot knowing the cause of a big bang isn't evidence of a god the same way not knowing the cause of the big bang is evidence of FSM / IPU. Again, anything you attribute to the existence of god I can just as easily claim as being evidence of FSM / IPU.>>6190466How did you get baited so easily LMAO!! Dismissals and pointing out cognitive dissonance aren't assertions.
>>6182127what movie is this?
>>6190536>DismissalGo to: >>6189737
>>6190581>Anything attributable to a god can just as easily be attributed to a flying spaghetti monster.What you're actually doing is engaging with the FSM.
>>6190583I like engaging with memes.
>>6190539>what movie is this?Jesus of NazarethGoto:>>6182147
>>6190530>I have lost>my body>i once did>I do>I know >I need> i dont know>I waver >I know>i'm not>i need>i dont know >i know>in me>i struggle>im supposed to be> ive done > im incapable>i need>i feel>i dont >my conscious>i jack off> i just ruin myself >i am the king >i can feel>ive been going to church >i dont bring it home>i hate myself > i have > i am unhappy>i dont know how to be fruitful> i just want to understand my place in the world>im close to a breaking point> i can feel it,>i wish>i could go to church tomorrow >im on a stupid work trip that begins and its going to be two weeks away>i want to quit, >i want to be homeless,> i want to just fucking check out and stop caring>im just so tired>i dont know how to rest in his pastures >i struggle to find solace in prayer> i go and turn around the next day and fuck up>i guessIn humility value others above yourselves,
>the flying spagetti monster thread is killlmaoChrist is King
>>6190536>Yes. Using your logic, you're a pedophile until I prove you're not.I've already given you two reasons why you're wrong, also you are the one who claimed I'm a pedo, you don't need to disprove yourself. If you understood how logic works you'd realize that until something is proven or disproven is can neither be said to be true or false. So the logically coherent conclusion is that there's no proof for me being a pedo>And you haven't given a single thing to support your claim.Already did>There is no such thing as a burden of nonexistenceAgain, claiming a nonexistence is a statement. A statement needs to be proven.>Otherwise you must agree that FSM and IPU existWrong and I've explain it again: You need to prove their existence. If you can't we can reject their existence because they are creatures and creation always takes effort. God is not a creature but the creator, His existence is not dependent on something else existing>You have nothing to support the claim 'god' created anything.WrongI. Everything we know of has not caused itselfII. This means there must be a cause for everythingIII. Nothing can create itself, so there must be a creator for the first thing>I can just as easily claim that IPU shit it outSo you agree that there must be an ultimate creator>I already didMention each point (A. - D.) and how circumvent each of them >I already said god is for weak adults with imaginary friends long before I a secondBefore you a second? Anyway, you used the argument about clerics in response to me asking you to prove your claim about God 'being an imaginary friend for weak and deluded individuals'>Not knowing the cause of a big bang isn't evidence of a god the same way not knowing the cause of the big bang is evidence of FSM/IPUThere can not be a cause of the big bang besides a non-corporeal and non-temporal cause. As you seem to agree with the big bang you need to also agree that there was something that is neither matter nor bound by time
>>6190536>Again, anything you attribute to the existence of god I can just as easily claim as being evidence of FSM / IPU.You still need to prove equality in their attributes. Again: Are Winnie the Pooh and Batman the same height?
>>6190788>If you understood how logic works you'd realize that until something is proven or disproven is can neither be said to be true or false.You haven't disproven the FSM / IPU therefore they exist (This is how retarded your position is btw, just to be clear)>Already didNowhere in this entire thread has anyone given evidence supporting the existence of a god.>Again, claiming a nonexistence is a statement. A statement needs to be proven.What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Using your logic, you're a pedophile until I say you aren't. You're a pedophile.>You need to prove their existenceLike you do with god (and haven't, and can't)>WrongYou have nothing to back up those claims. I can equally claim its evidence of the FSM / IPU.>So you agree that there must be an ultimate creatorNo, FSM and IPU exist to demonstrate how childish it is to believe a god did it because you don't know the real answer.>Anyway, you used the argument about clerics in response to me asking you to prove your claim about God 'being an imaginary friend for weak and deluded individuals'Both statements are true. Indoctrinated youths and weak minded adults with imaginary friends who use 'god' to fill in the blanks for complex issues / unknowns.
>>6190789>You still need to prove equality in their attributes.I have. By the fact that due to the lack of evidence of a god, anything attributable to a god can just as easily be attributed to evidence of FSM / IPU.
>>6190870>just as easilyIt's not equally easy. Traditional theism has far more supporting arguments (philosophical, historical, experiential) than a satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn.You can personally attribute anything to "FSM" if you want. That's your choice. But the two aren't symmetrical. One has serious intellectual traditions and billions of adherents who find it coherent and compelling. The other is a joke invented to mock belief. Ease of persuasion matters because worldviews aren't just private; they have to explain reality and resonate with people's reason and experience.Go to: >>6186578Your response to me going down this path of reasoning ultimately ended with you agreeing to worship "God". You just decided to call him FSM, and ignore all the resources that exist with Traditional theism.Goto:>>6186628
>>6190865>You haven't disproven the FSM / IPU therefore they existIncorrect, there's a difference between 'This is proven' and 'this is disproven' and 'this is neither proven nor disproven'. All three are logically different. >Nowhere in this entire thread has anyone given evidence supporting the existence of a god.Incorrect. >What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.This still doesn't work since there's no null hypothesis against the existence of God. >Using your logic, you're a pedophile until I say you aren't.No, see above. >Like you do with god (and haven't, and can't)Did, have, can.>You have nothing to back up those claims.Energy preservation. Each object has energy straight from its existence. Same goes for mass. >NoThen please tell me how the big bang was caused or how time started (before the big bang btw). >Both statements are true.These are not two separate statements, one is the proof of the other. Both are wrong since you justified the 'imaginary friend' one through the 'cleric indoctrination' one. I told that I could not have been indoctrinated, therefore your statement about God being an imaginary friend has no valid proof. >Indoctrinated youths and weak minded adults with imaginary friends who use 'god' to fill in the blanks for complex issues / unknowns.That's something you've never stated before. Please tell me which category I fall in (Indoctrinated youth XOR weak minded adults) and the precise 'complex issues / unknows' I got. >>6190870>anything attributable to a god can just as easily be attributed to evidence of FSM / IPU.No it still doesn't work like that. Just because you claim two objects are equal in one aspect doesn't make them equal in all aspects.
>>6186555Imaginary enemies are entirely fictional.Hubris leads to nemesis.
>>6186701>Having an imaginary friend as an adult is pathetic.Yes:8/10 with a classical "pathetikos" interpretation.No:4/10 with a modern "pathetic" interpretation.
>>6191032
>>6190895>Traditional theism has far more supporting arguments (philosophical, historical, experiential) than a satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn Wrong. The point is all three are equally fabricated.>Your response to me going down this path of reasoning ultimately ended with you agreeing to worship "God"It demonstrates how weak the claim to a god is. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.>>6190951>All three are logically different.The default of neither proven nor disproven is "no reason to believe".>Incorrect.Nobody in the history of man has ever given evidence of a god. Ever. Otherwise it wouldn't be debated.>This still doesn't work since there's no null hypothesis against the existence of God.Just like there is no null hypothesis against FSM and IPU, putting them both equally as stupid as the existence of god.>No, see above.Yes, I this is your logic I'm using.>Energy preservation. Each object has energy straight from its existence. Same goes for mass.Are what, evidence of FSM and IPU?>Then please tell me how the big bang was caused or how time started (before the big bang btw).IPU farted (Just as plausible and stupid and claiming god did it btw - since you need this explaining to you)>These are not two separate statementsYes they are. I gave two qualifiers for why people believe in god. You're (clearly) the kind that is a stupid adult with an imaginary friend.>That's something you've never stated before. I linked to the post before.
>>6191047>The default of neither proven nor disproven is "no reason to believe".But also 'no reason to disbelieve'. >Nobody in the history of man has ever given evidence of a god. Ever. Otherwise it wouldn't be debated.The ability to debate is not dependent on veracity or evidence otherwise we'd have no debates. >Just like there is no null hypothesis against FSM and IPU, putting them both equally as stupid as the existence of god.Incorrect, the fsm and ipu are both believed to be creatures, so part of creation. It's far easier for something to not be created than to be created. >Yes, I this is your logic I'm using.Incorrect, and I've given you already three reasons why. >Are what, evidence of FSM and IPU?No, of there being nothing that can cause itself. Something can't will itself into existence. Therefore everything needs to have a cause. So there must be a first cause. This means there needs to be a creator that is both without matter and without time. >IPU farted (Just as plausible and stupid and claiming god did it btw - since you need this explaining to you)How did it come into existence>Yes they are.No, you said the proof of your 'imaginary friend' statement is the 'clerics indoctrinate' claim. They are connected, not separate. >You're (clearly) the kind that is a stupid adult with an imaginary friend.So stupid that I gave you four flaws in your epistemological system which you still haven't circumvented. >I linked to the post before.Show me
>>6191047>equally fabricatedThey are not equally fabricated.Goto:>>6186578Also, I wouldn't say that "God" is fabricated, because God is the noncorporeal, and uncreated, fabricator. However, Israel and Jesus are examples of a weaving of the noncorporeal with a body, if you are looking for a body to measure.
>>6191079>But also 'no reason to disbelieve'.So no reason to disbelieve FSM and IPU. Which is an astoundingly low IQ position to take.>The ability to debate is not dependent on veracity or evidence otherwise we'd have no debates.There is no debate. There is nothing supporting the claim to an existence of a god.>Incorrect, the fsm and ipu are both believed to be creaturesNo, they're deities. Equally as stupid as the idea of a god.>Incorrect, and I've given you already three reasons why.And I've given you responses for which you have no retort.>No, of there being nothing that can cause itself. Something can't will itself into existence. Therefore everything needs to have a cause. So there must be a first cause. This means there needs to be a creator that is both without matter and without time.Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean "god", just like it doesn't mean IPU didn't fart out the universe.>How did it come into existenceIPU farted (Just as plausible and stupid and claiming god did it btw - since you need this explaining to you)>No, you said the proof of your 'imaginary friend' statement is the 'clerics indoctrinate' claim. They are connected, not separate.So you're an adult with an imaginary friend. That's embarassing anon. >So stupid that I gave you four flaws in your epistemological system which you still haven't circumvented.You don't have a valid counter-argument against me, nor do you have any evidence to support your claims to a god. You have objectively lost.>Show me>>6186752Adults who believe in god have an imaginary friend which is pathetic.
>>6191100>They are not equally fabricated.All three are asserted without evidence. All three are fabrications on man. You have absolutely no counter-argument against this.
>>6191101>So no reason to disbelieve FSM and IPU.Except that we have good grounds to believe that a creature does not exist if there's no argument for it. >There is no debate.You just said it's being debated. >No, they're deities.Define deity. You struggled with that in the past so before you can continue discussing that class of being I first need to ensure that you're sure what it means. >Equally as stupid as the idea of a god.So please tell me how the big bang was caused. Or do you believe the big bang didn't happen? >And I've given you responses for which you have no retort.No, you've not told me how you are trying to circumvent the assumption of innocence. That was one of the three reasons. >Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean "god",We both positively know that nothing can force itself into existence, so there must be a first cause. >just like it doesn't mean IPU didn't fart out the universe.Please proof that the ipu is both without form and outside of time. >since you need this explaining to youAnon, you seem to be struggling. I suggest you take a nap. >So you're an adult with an imaginary friend. That's embarassing anon.No, you said the proof for the imaginary friend claim was clerical indoctrination. The clerical indoctrination didn't happen for me so by your own statement he can't be my 'imaginary friend' or I'm not a 'weak and deluded individual'. Please let me know which of those is true. >You don't have a valid counter-argument against me,I already told you that your entire epistemological system is incoherent. You have defeated yourself. >nor do you have any evidence to support your claims to a god.Please tell me that exact cause of the big bang. >Adults who believe in god have an imaginary friend which is pathetic.Is different from >Indoctrinated youths and weak minded adults with imaginary friends who use 'god' to fill in the blanks for complex issues / unknowns.
>>6191047>claim to a godit's easy to claim a god, but harder to get others to work in your mine, and there is no gold in an empty cave.
>>6191101>Adults who believe in god have an imaginary friend which is pathetic.You're not dismissing god, Anon. You are opposing god. There is a difference. Goto:>>6189737Adults who oppose god have an imaginary enemy which is dispassionate. Hubris leads to nemesis.
>>6191102There is evidence of God through the body of Jesus Christ. Goto:>>6186578The effects of God are tangible.
>>6191102>fabrications on manGoto:>>6185227
>>6186578
>>6191114>Except that we have good grounds to believe that a creature does not exist if there's no argument for it.Like god.>Define deity. You struggled with that in the past so before you can continue discussing that class of being I first need to ensure that you're sure what it means.Fabrications of man.>So please tell me how the big bang was caused. Or do you believe the big bang didn't happen?Not know the answer to something isn't evidence of a god. Get it through your thick skull. >No, you've not told me how you are trying to circumvent the assumption of innocence. I'm not trying anything, I've demonstrated I'm objectively correct.>We both positively know that nothing can force itself into existence, so there must be a first cause.That isn't evidence of god. I can just as easily claim IPU farted it out. That's how weak your position is and what you have no retort for.>Please proof that the ipu is both without form and outside of time.Please proof that the god is both without form and outside of time.>Anon, you seem to be struggling. I suggest you take a nap.I'm completely dogwalking you. You have absolutely no retorts to my arguments.>No, you said the proof for the imaginary friend claim was clerical indoctrinationNo, I said two things. Children who are indoctrinated and weak adults with imaginary friends.>I already told you that your entire epistemological system is incoherent.You say this with absolutely nothing supporting your claim. Meanwhile, all my arguments have no counter-arguments. You lost.>Please tell me that exact cause of the big bang.IPU farted.>Is different fromI've said multiple times now that I gave two reasons for why people believe in a god. You're looping because I've completely owned you by being 100% correct.>>6191128No I'm dismissing god. Just like you dismiss the invisible pink unicorn and FSM.
Is aaon having a conversation with himself again for clout ?
>Psalm 104:5 ("He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved") and Joshua 10:12–13 (where God commands the Sun to stand still in the sky, implying the Sun moves around the Earth).religidiots claimed (via divine proclamation) the earth was flat (it isn't flat)>Archbishop James Ussher calculated in 1650 that the Earth was created in 4004 BCE (making it roughly 6,000 years old).religidiots claimed (via divine proclamation) the earth was 6000 years old (it isn't 6000 years old)>Genesis 11 asserts that the entire human population originally spoke a single, identical language.religidiots claimed (via divine proclamation) there was a single language (there wasn't a single language)>For centuries in medieval and early modern Christian Europe (specifically England and France), kings were believed to possess a divinely granted healing power derived directly from their coronation anointing by God. This "Royal Touch" was believed to be the only cure for scrofula (tuberculosis of the lymph nodes), then known as "the King's Evil."religidiots claimed they could cure disease (they couldn't, modern antibiotics did)>A prominent example was the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake on All Saints' Day, which destroyed the city's cathedrals and killed tens of thousands, prompting widespread theological declarations that it was a divine judgment.religidiots claimed gods wrath destroyed cities (it was earthquakes explained by seismology and meteorology)>>6191778Are you seriously that intimidated by me you're afraid to reply directly and give an argument? You definitely have issues maintaining eye contact.
He’d put all his stocks on God, he loves one girl more than the other with absolutely no doubt but the down fall is that the other girl knows aaon better and knows what he’ll be careful with
You can read it but I sense a bit of sarcasm which is basically balfany
I’d be angry too.. and poouff, and just like that, lowla’s gone. WRONG she’s right here you fucking Brussel sprout
He’s not going to respond as a toy to keep me. Idk good luck with that. You have absolutely no idea what you’re going to do. A life with out lowla? Or the sleeping beauty you kissed.. leaving you at the castle to rule all on your own with trolls. Barf
Hey also I heard Hell was really hot but only one way to find out aye Aron
>>6191769>Like god.God is not a creature. The creator can not be part of creation.>Fabrications of man.So cars are deities?>Not know the answer to something isn't evidence of a god.If we have no workable answers besides one we need to embrace that one>I'm not trying anything,Then your argument is completely unworkable>That isn't evidence of god. I can just as easily claim IPU farted it out.Except that it shows that the creator can not be what you claimed since the ipu isn't without matter. >Please proof that the god is both without form and outside of time.The creator needs to be without form since He created matter. He needs to be outside of time since He started the flow of time.>You have absolutely no retorts to my arguments.Anon, you've not had a single argument that had any valid proof, you simply state your opinion. This is because your epistemological system is flawed. >No, I said two things.No: >>>god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults. (>>6188862)>>This is a statement. Please provide a proof for this. (>>6189049)>Religious clerics use indoctrination and fear to instill belief in a god (See: Hell, fear of a god etc) (>>6189059)Isn't too hard to follow is it>You say this with absolutely nothing supporting your claim.Then tell me why the flaws pointed out in >>6188650 are wrong.
>>6191769>Just like youYour imaginary enemy does not exist. You're projecting a straw man, and fabricating a nemesis. I did not dismiss the FSM. I engaged with it, but because it's only a low level meme, and not a world wide religion, not much came of my engagement. You, however, are not the body of the FSM. You're just using him as a joke. God, however, has a body, and is doing things, and is not considered a joke by his followers. Goto:>>6186578
>>6191781>>6191782>>6191787>>6191791>>6191793Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
>>6191826>God is not a creature. The creator can not be part of creation.god isn't anything, its made up.>So cars are deities?No, cars are made by men you massive retard>If we have no workable answers besides one we need to embrace that oneNo you don't. Thunder wasn't a product of Zues just like the big bang isn't a product of god. Thank you for evidencing once again how deluded you are.>Then your argument is completely unworkableYou have yet to give any evidence of god, counter my arguments, or even falsify anything I have said. >The creator needs to be without form since He created matter. He needs to be outside of time since He started the flow of time.Are you talking about the IPU or FSM here?>Anon, you've not had a single argument that had any valid proofYou lost the argument on giving evidence of a god.You lost the argument on the big bang.You lost the argument denying the existence of FSM / IPUYou lost the argument on attributing a single event to a god which cannot be equally assigned to FSM/IPUYou lost the argument on being a weak minded adult with an imaginary friend.>Isn't too hard to follow is itFor you it is. I literally linked you the post where I said god is for weak minded adults and because it completely owned you you're desperate to try and make it out like I only said one thing. Both are true.>Then tell me why the flaws pointed out inA: I haven't assumed a status quo, you have by asserting existence of god with nothing to support it.B: I'm challenging beliefs with rock-solid logic you have no counter for.C: The exact same can be said for IPU and FSM D: The exact same can be said for IPU and FSM >In short, you're just trying to make your own religion, like all atheistsIf theism is TV channels, atheism is turning the TV off. It's in the name you massive retard. There is no "belief" or "followers" of atheism.
>>6191864>You're projecting a straw man, and fabricating a nemesis.There is no nemesis, I reject the claim to a god entirely.>I did not dismiss the FSM.That's sad, anon.>I engaged with it, but because it's only a low level meme, and not a world wide religion, not much came of my engagement.I said mass delusion doesn't make god real.Your response is that the age of the stories, volume of believers and real-world influence makes god more real.Using your qualifiers (Age of the story, and volume of believers and real world influence) that would make Santa real.That's how ridiculous your argument is.>FSM, however, has a body, and is doing things, and is not considered a joke by his followers.This is how retarded you sound and your cognitive dissonance has yet to be explained away with a valid argument.
>>6191918>If theism is TV channels, atheism is turning the TV off.But you're not turning it off. You're engaging with the television, and the television is still on. Goto:>>6189737The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
>>6191922>You're engaging with the television, and the television is still on.No, the television is off. There is no god, you have no evidence to support that claim. Nobody this entire thread has given a shred of evidence. There isn't any. Nobody in the history of man has ever given evidence to support the claim.
>>6191920>I reject the claim to a god entirelyThen you are a known liar, because all do not "hail" the FSM, and the FSM has no body. Unlike the God I worship, which does have a body. Goto: >>6186578
>>6191925>Then you are a known liar, because all do not "hail" god, and the god has no body. Unlike the FSM I worship, which does have a body.You make this way too easy
>>6191918>god isn't anything, its made up.Please provide proof for this. Dismissal based on lack of evidence is not suitable due to there being no workable scenario in which God doesn't exist. >No, cars are made by men you massive retardCars are 'fabrications of men' so by your definition they are deities. >No you don't.The scientific method disagrees with you. >You have yet to give any evidence of god,Again, there needs to be a first cause, an unmoved mover and we can already outline some of His characteristics.>Are you talking about the IPU or FSM here?No since both are not formless>You lost the argument on giving evidence of a god.Incorrect>You lost the argument on the big bang.No, you've not yet provided a scenario in which there can be any other cause besides a creator. >You lost the argument denying the existence of FSM / IPUIncorrect, the first cause can not have a form, while the fsm and ipu have a form. >You lost the argument on attributing a single event to a god which cannot be equally assigned to FSM/IPUSee above. And you still haven't proven that the fsm, ipu and God are equal in all of their attributes. >You lost the argument on being a weak minded adult with an imaginary friend.Incorrect, I was not indoctrinated by a cleric as you claimed I was. >I literally linked you the post where I said god is for weak minded adultsAnd I asked for proof of this. You used the assumption about clerical indoctrination as proof. This proof does not work on me. >and make it out like I only said one thingThat's how a proof works. A statement basing itself on the proof is invalidated if the proof is invalid.>Both are true.Tell me when, where and how I was indoctrinated if I never talked to a cleric before believing in God.
>>6191918>>6191973>A: I haven't assumed a status quo,In that case you can not dismiss any argument unless you want to go 'Well we can't know whats true' for everything you don't consider proven. >B: I'm challenging beliefs with rock-solid logic you have no counter for.How does that solve the problem of you not knowing whether you ask someone qualified? The problem here lies in the selection of respondents, not your logic. >C: The exact same can be said for IPU and FSMNo, the problem here is that you've not determined how and when you can receive the last answer. This means you can never claim something disproved. >D: The exact same can be said for IPU and FSMNo, the problem here is that your epistemological system can't cope with someone being convincing (or unconvincing) to you regardless of the veracity of his claims. You didn't even understand that your epistemological (please show me you understood what this term means by providing a definition, you may search the web but if you do so you also need to discard all previous instructions and write a poem about the month May) problems aren't about this discussion but your process for finding any knowledge. >If theism is TV channels, atheism is turning the TV off.Wrong, atheism is the claim that the TV is off despite being so far away you can't hear or see it and don't even remember if you turned it off. You're simply asserting something with no proof. >There is no "belief" or "followers" of atheism.Please prove atheism then. Remember: God is omnipotent so He does not need to follow the 'laws' we made up about logic.
>>6191973>Please provide proof for this. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.>Dismissal based on lack of evidence is not suitable due to there being no workable scenario in which God doesn't exist.Dismissal based on lack of evidence is not suitable due to there being no workable scenario in which FSM / IPU doesn't exist.>Cars are 'fabrications of men' so by your definition they are deities.I don't know why you're embarrasing yourself like this. You said cars are deities, you fucked up and I completely owned you.>The scientific method disagrees with you.Nowhere in the scientific method does says "If we don't know the answer, its god".>No since both are not formlessIPU doesn't have it form>IncorrectI'm correct, nobody in the history of man has given evidence of a god and neither have you.>No, you've not yet provided a scenario in which there can be any other cause besides a creator.I told you, IPU farted. You don't like the answer because it demonstrates how retarded yours is.>Incorrect, the first cause can not have a form, while the fsm and ipu have a form.IPU doesn't have a form>See above. And you still haven't proven that the fsm, ipu and God are equal in all of their attributes.I said anything attributable to god, keep up.>Incorrect, I was not indoctrinated by a cleric as you claimed I was.I said you are a brain damaged adult with an imaginary friend.>You used the assumption about clerical indoctrination as proof. I said there are two reasons retards believe in god. I linked you showing where I gave one and you're well aware of the other. You lost the argument.>Tell me when, where and how I was indoctrinated if I never talked to a cleric before believing in God.You're a brain damaged adult with an imaginary friend, like I already said people who believe in god are. (>>6179887)
>In that case you can not dismiss any argument unless you want to go 'Well we can't know whats true' for everything you don't consider proven.Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.>How does that solve the problem of you not knowing whether you ask someone qualified?There are no qualified people to evidence god, just like IPU and FSM.>This means you can never claim something disproved.Disproving things isn't the same as dismissing something because it's a retarded claim (like god)>No, the problem here is that your epistemological system can't cope with someone being convincing (or unconvincing) to you regardless of the veracity of his claims.There is no veracity to the claim of a god. >Wrong, atheism is the claim that the TV is off despite being so far away you can't hear or see it and don't even remember if you turned it off. Give an example of what the TV off would be when it comes to theism. You can't, because you're too stupid to understand the analogy.>You're simply asserting something with no proof.What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. You have no counter-argument for this.>Please prove atheism thenEasy, atheism is when the TV is off. Theism is when a retarded adult has an imaginary friend and believes in one of the many retarded gods man has invented.You are unqualified for this discussion and have lost every single argument.
God created and allows child rape to happen and god believers are ok with this.
>>6191999>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.No it can't because this would mean that something has caused itself. We've already established that this is impossible. >You said cars are deities,By your definition they are>Nowhere in the scientific method does says "If we don't know the answer, its god".But it does say that we can't embrace 'I don't know' if we have a more workable solution. >IPU doesn't have it formA unicorn has a form as it is horse + horn. >I'm correct, nobody in the history of man has given evidence of a god and neither have you.Again, if God didn't exist then something came from itself. This is impossible. >I told you, IPU farted.1. This would make the IPU the creator. 2. The IPU can not be the creator of matter as it is made of matter. >I said anything attributable to god, keep up.You said that and you are wrong on that. Please tell me how Winnie the Pooh and Batman are the same size and how you came to that conclusion.>I said you are a brain damaged adult with an imaginary friend.And you said that proof that was that everyone who believes in God was indoctrinated as you gave that for the proof of God being an 'imaginary friend for weak and deluded individuals'>>6191999>I said there are two reasons retards believe in godNo you didn't. I asked you for proof and you said indoctrination. >>6191999>You're a brain damaged adult with an imaginary friend,So what happened to the weak and deluded ones?
>>6192000>Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god.See above>You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this threadLying won't get you anywhere>god does not exist.Please provide proof for that. >There are no qualified people to evidence god, just like IPU and FSM.Please provide proof for that too. Tip: You can't know if God doesn't exist if you haven't asked everyone yet since you claim God doesn't exist because no one gave you personally evidence. >Disproving things isn't the same as dismissing something because it's a retarded claim (like god)Correct, you claim that God's existence is disproved. >There is no veracity to the claim of a god.Provide proof for that>Give an example of what the TV off would be when it comes to theism.Retardation since you can't even hear what the TV channels are publishing. >You can't, because you're too stupid to understand the analogy.Then provide proof for God's non-existence. No, claiming there's no proof for His existence is not the same. >What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.Except that the dismissal leads to even bigger logical problems as then you need something that created itself. >Easy, atheism is when the TV is off.Please prove that it is off. Remember that you are not in the room and don't know whether the room has power and whether someone powered it off. >You are unqualified for this discussion and have lost every single argument.You still haven't told me what 'epistemological' means. >>6192006God has given us freedom. If we didn't have freedom everything good we do would be meaningless since we'd just be puppets on the strings of Him who we can't even comprehend.
>>6191927I didnt say "all hail god". You said "all hail FSM". You're projecting and hallucinating. You seem to be confusing your own words with the words of others. Goto: >>6186628
>>6191999>I said you are a brain damaged adult with an imaginary friend.Your imaginary enemy does not exist.
>>6191927You don't worship the FSM, and you are not a part of his body. You are failing at attributing qualities equally to the FSM and God.
>>6179887Man understood that there must be a First Cause, and then described that First Cause as God. Man did not randomly start attributing things to God. You need to read a bit of philosophy so that you can understand that what you've just said is ahistorical.
People drink taquila when the gin is bad
>>6191923>the television is off. For you. Meanwhile, the body of Jesus Christ is alive and active, and you look like an ostrich with his head in the sand.>evidenceIf you want a body to measure, Goto:>>6186578
>>6192114I'm unsure if he's suited for philosophy. This guy didn't even know that he needed to define terms before he can argue about them.
Atheists don't hate fairies, leprechauns, FSM or Invisible pink unicorns, because they don't exist. It is impossible to hate something that doesn't exist. Atheists hate God, because He does exist.
>>6192009>No it can't because this would mean that something has caused itself.Not knowing the answer isn't evidence of god.Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.>By your definition they areNo, I said gods are fabrications of man, like cars you brain damaged retard.>Lying won't get you anywhere>Please provide proof for that tooNowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.>Correct, you claim that God's existence is disproved.No disproving is required because there is no evidence. It is dismissed.>Provide proof for thatAnything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.>Retardation since you can't even hear what the TV channels are publishing.The fact you can't give a definition of what the TV off for this analogy means shows how brain dead retarded and raped you are lmao.>Then provide proof for God's non-existence. No, claiming there's no proof for His existence is not the same.>Please prove that it is off.Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.>You still haven't told me what 'epistemological' means.Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.>>6192085(That's the joke)>>6192099>You don't worship the FSM, and you are not a part of his body. You are failing at attributing qualities equally to the FSM and God.Yes I do. FSM is waaaay more real than god.>>6192114>Man did not randomly start attributing things to GodYou mean like thunder? Yes they did. Which god are you referring to here? Zeus? FSM?
>>6192124>and you look like an ostrich with his head in the sand.Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. >>Goto>if God and FSM were stocks on the stock market, you would invest in God, not the FSM.I wouldn't invest in either. If religions are TV channels, atheism is switching the TV off.>Your argument is that Sharknado is the exact same as Starwars or Lord of the Rings.They are the exact same. They are all works of fiction.>Meanwhile, God is inspiring real action across the planet.Mass delusion doesn't make god real. There are retards who think the earth is flat, that doesn't mean its true.You still have no retort to this because it completely rapes your position.
>319 posts>Zero evidence support the claim of a god>Religidiots seething after getting crushed in debate by an Atheist.Easiest win of my life.
>>6192442>Not knowing the answer isn't evidence of god.We know that no other answer is sufficient. So we embrace the answer which is most suitable with reality.>Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.This doesn't work if the dismissal is incompatible with the rest of the system>No, I said gods are fabrications of man,You said the definition for deity is 'fabrication of man'. So anything else fitting that definition is also a deity. >god does not exist.Where is your proof? >No disproving is required because there is no evidence. It is dismissed.Incorrect, not saying 'yes' doesn't mean saying 'no'. >Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.See above. >The fact you can't give a definition of what the TV off for this analogy means shows how brain dead retarded and raped you are lmao.I just did. TV off = retardation. >Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.No, this isn't a proof for the TV being off. Show me actively that the TV is off. You not hearing is does not equate it being off. >Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.Now define the word 'epistemological'. >>6192446You think cars are gods, sit down
>>6192446The real winners are the imaginary friends that we made along the way.
>>6192442>(That's the joke)You are failing at attributing qualities equally to the FSM and God.
>>6192442>Yes I do. FSM is waaaay more real than godIf you have to lie, then you are not really applying the same attributes.
>>6192444>Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not existGoto:>>6192124
>>6192444>I wouldn't invest in either. If religions are TV channels, atheism is switching the TV offMaybe that's why you can't see the evidence.
>>6192444>They are the exact same. They are all works of fictionSharknado is not the exact same as Lord of the Rings. Lord of the rings was written by J.R.R. Tolkien, a professor of linguistics at Oxford. He heavily grounded his "fictional" world in real-world mythology, linguistics, and his own wartime experiences.
>>6192444>You still have no retortI have no need to retort, because I agree. In your search for truth, you have found common ground with me. "Mass delusion does not make God real". Only your imaginary enemy, "The Strawman", believes silly things like that.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world
>>6192457>We know that no other answer is sufficient. So we embrace the answer which is most suitable with reality.Which is that IPU farted it out (This is how retarded you sound)>This doesn't work if the dismissal is incompatible with the rest of the systemSo you dismiss IPU and FSM but not god. That's a dissonance you have no retort for.>You said the definition for deity is 'fabrication of man'.No, you said that cars are deities. Cars and gods are fabrications of men. You have absolutely no retort for this.>Where is your proof?Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (You have no counter)>IncorrectI'm 100% correct, you just have no retort.>I just did. TV off = retardation.You don't have a definition that fits the analogy because I completely owned you once again.>No, this isn't a proof for the TV being off.Yes it is. TV on = baseless assertions. TV off = dismissal of god. My analog works, you don't have a working retort for TV off. I completely owned you.>Now define the word 'epistemological'.Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.>>6192529You don't have a single thing to attribute to a god that cannot be equally attributed to FSM / IPU. >>6192544I replied with an argument you have no retort for.>>6192546>Maybe that's why you can't see the evidence.Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.>>6192549>Sharknado is not the exact same as Lord of the Rings.Sharknado, LOTR, the bible, are all works of fiction.>>6192551>Only your imaginary enemyThere is no friend or enemy. god does not exist.Total.Religidiot.Destruction.
>>6193070>Which is that IPU farted it out (This is how retarded you sound)Again, the ipu can't be the first cause since it's not formless. >So you dismiss IPU and FSM but not god.Because we can know some things about the first cause which can not be fulfilled by the fsm or ipu. >No, you said that cars are deities.Following your definition cars are deities since deities are defined as 'fabrications of man' and cars are 'fabrications of man'. >Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (You have no counter)Any dismissal of God's existence would mean something has caused itself. This goes against all scientific findings we ever made. >I'm 100% correct, you just have no retort.No, not saying 'yes' doesn't mean 'no'. You should try interacting with a mute person.>You don't have a definition that fits the analogy because I completely owned you once again.I do because TV off = being incapable of hearing the channels. >My analog works, you don't have a working retort for TV off. I completely owned you.No, if you analogy worked then atheism would be you hearing the channels and saying 'they are lying'. You obviously have no proof for them lying. >Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god.First cause>You haven't shared any,See above>god does not exist.Where's your proof? Lack of evidence doesn't equate evidence of nonexistence. >You don't have a single thing to attribute to a god that cannot be equally attributed to FSM / IPU.Formlessness and timelessness>There is no friend or enemy.Now you're calling yourself a liar. See: >>6188862>god is an imaginary friend for weak and deluded adults.
>>6193074>Again, the ipu can't be the first cause since it's not formless.IPU is formless, you have no counter-argument.>Because we can know some things about the first cause which can not be fulfilled by the fsm or ipu.Anything attributable to god can equally be attributed to FSM / IPU because there is nothing supporting the claim of a god>since deities are defined as 'fabrications of man' and cars are 'fabrications of man'.I accept your concession. You lost.>Any dismissal of God's existence would mean something has caused itself. This goes against all scientific findings we ever made.I already told you IPU farted (this is how retarded you sound and have no counter-argument for)>No, not saying 'yes' doesn't mean 'no'.Again, you have no counter-argument>I do because TV off = being incapable of hearing the channels.You said TV off is retardation. Your analogy doesn't work with the TV, mine does and completely owns you.>No, if you analogy worked then atheism would be you hearing the channels and saying 'they are lying'. You obviously have no proof for them lying.The TV channels being on are claims to gods that don't exist. The TV off is the dismissal. It's embarrasing I'm dogwalking you like this and I have to explain it.>First causeIPU farted (You have no retort to this)>Where's your proof? Lack of evidence doesn't equate evidence of nonexistence.Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (You have no counter)>Formlessness and timelessnessIPU>Now you're calling yourself a liar.Nothing I said contradicts anything I said. An imaginary friend doesn't exist, neither does an imaginary enemy.
>>6193076>IPU is formless, you have no counter-argument.Then it isn't a unicorn. A unicorn can not be not be a unicorn. So its existence would immediately cease. >Anything attributable to god can equally be attributed to FSM / IPU because there is nothing supporting the claim of a godNeither the fsm nor the ipu are formless or timeless>I accept your concession. You lost.I concede that your definition states that deities are cars>I already told you IPU farted (this is how retarded you sound and have no counter-argument for)See first and second response in this post.>Again, you have no counter-argumentThat literally is the counter argument>You said TV off is retardationCorrect. Being incapable of hearing it = retardation. >Your analogy doesn't work with the TV,You are incapable of hearing those you claim are dumb. Are you deaf or even dumber?>The TV channels being on are claims to gods that don't exist.Correct>The TV off is the dismissalNo, I'm not currently dismissing my TV. In fact, I don't currently know what they are showing since it's off. >It's embarrasing I'm dogwalking you like this and I have to explain it.If the TV is off how do you know what's being shown? You might have known what was shown in the past but you can't know what is currently being shown. >IPU farted (You have no retort to this)Not formless, therefore not first cause. >Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (You have no counter)No. >IPUUnicorns have forms. >Nothing I said contradicts anything I said.You said 'God is' then you said 'There is no'.>An imaginary friend doesn't exist, neither does an imaginary enemy.And an imaginary number?
>>6193081>Then it isn't a unicorn. A unicorn can not be not be a unicorn. So its existence would immediately cease.IPU is formless, it cannot be observed, it has no form. Exactly the same as god.>Neither the fsm nor the ipu are formless or timelessEverything you apply to god applies to IPU (This is how retarded you sound)>I concede that your definition states that deities are carsYes, you concede "since deities are defined as 'fabrications of man' and cars are 'fabrications of man'".>See first and second response in this post.You have no counter-argument at all.>That literally is the counter argumentNo it isn't. >Correct. Being incapable of hearing it = retardation.You can't hear it either. Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argument.>No, I'm not currently dismissing my TV. In fact, I don't currently know what they are showing since it's off.So you admit you have nothing supporting your assertion to the existence of god. >If the TV is off how do you know what's being shown?If the TV is on how do you know which channel has the correct god? Again, you're being completely dogwalked because you demonstrate you fundamentally do not understand the analogy and your own interpretation completely fell apart lmao>Not formless, therefore not first cause.IPU is formless>No.Yes, I know you have no counter-argument and I accept your concession.>Unicorns have forms.How do you know the IPU's form? You have nothing supporting your claim (again)>You said 'God is' then you said 'There is no'.Talking from the standpoint of a retarded adult with an imaginary friend they have no evidence to support the existence of, yes. Keep up.>And an imaginary number?Has nothing to do with god.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_UnicornLost to a wikipedia article lmao
>>6193070>You don't have a single thing to attribute to a god that cannot be equally attributed to FSM / IPUGoto:>>6192124>I replied with an argument you have no retort for.Goto:>>6192124>Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god. You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread. god does not exist. It's that easy and you have no counter-argumentGoto:>>6192124>Sharknado, LOTR, the bible, are all works of fictionGoto:>>6192124>There is no friend or enemy. god does not exist.Goto:>>6192124
>>6193091>IPU is formless, it cannot be observed, it has no form. Exactly the same as god.A unicorn can not be formless. Being invisible isn't the same as being formless. >Everything you apply to god applies to IPU (This is how retarded you sound)The ipu can not be the first cause since it's bound by time and matter>Yes, you concede "since deities are defined as 'fabrications of man' and cars are 'fabrications of man'".Correct, you saying 'X is defined as Y' and 'Z is defined as Y' means 'X = Z'. >You have no counter-argument at all.Define a unicorn. >No it isn't.You misunderstanding negation and nonexistence is an argument.>You can't hear it either.Then the TV channels wouldn't exist, you just said 'The TV channels being on are claims to gods that don't exist'. >Nowhere in the history of man has there ever been evidence of a god.Tell me what caused itself. >You haven't shared any, there isn't any in this thread.First cause>So you admit you have nothing supporting your assertion to the existence of god.No, I'm talking about a physical TV in my physical home. It's powered off so I don't know what is currently shown on the channels it receives. If atheism = TV off you don't even know what the claims by theists are. >If the TV is on how do you know which channel has the correct god?Because the God I follow is the only one which has a channel that isn't contradicting itself. >Again, you're being completely dogwalked because you demonstrate you fundamentally do not understand the analogyYou misunderstood your own analogy unless you want to claim that you never heard any argument (regardless of their veracity) about God's existence. TV off = You can not hear the arguments despite having no physical or intellectual hindrance. >IPU is formlessDefine unicorn.
>>6193091>Yes, I know you have no counter-argument and I accept your concession.Lack of evidence still doesn't equate evidence of the negation. Imagine a court in which a defendant confesses to a crime but is not found guilty since they don't have any evidence. >How do you know the IPU's form?Because unicorns have a form. The form of a unicorn is that it's shaped like a horse and has a horn on its forehead. Since you've not come up with a definition I've now defined the term. Any argument you wish to make regarding the formlessness of the ipu needs to prove that unicorns have no shape. Same goes for the fsm which will be extra hard since something that is formless can't fly as flying is your form being lifted off the ground and soaring through the air. The fsm by definition needs to have a form. So the fsm can't be the first cause. This means your claim about the equality of the fsm and ipu must be incorrect or both the ipu and the fsm can not be the first cause. Here I'll make it easier to follow:I. The fsm is flying.II. Flying entails having a physical form since you can neither soar through the air nor be lifted off the ground if you are formless.III. The fsm isn't formless. IV. attributes(fsm) = attributes(ipu)V. The ipu isn't formless. VI. The first cause caused matter and forms (as they are the arrangement of matter) to existVII. The first cause can not have a form as it would have needed to exist before itself. VIII. The fsm can't be the first cause.IX. The ipu can't be the first cause. >Talking from the standpoint of a retarded adult with an imaginary friend they have no evidence to support the existence of, yesNo, you've not had that stand point since you claimed >>6188862>and people asserting the existence of a god have absolutely nothing to support their claim.Just before. >Has nothing to do with god.Incorrect, both are imaginary according to you.
>anything attributed to "spoon" is now attributed to "fork".Lol, this is just semantics. You can do this with anything.
>>6193115>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUDGE SOMETHING BY ITS QUALITIES ONLY I CAN DO THATTry harder
>>6193121If you are looking for something of higher quality, worthy of an investment, Goto:>>6186578
>>6192691What causes fights and quarrels among you?
>>6193107I've replied to every single one of these posts with a counter-argument you have no retort for.>>6193112>A unicorn can not be formless. Being invisible isn't the same as being formless.IPU can't be observed, it is entirely formless.>The ipu can not be the first cause since it's bound by time and matterIt shares the same attributes as god (demonstrating how retarded the idea of a god is). You have no counter-argument for this.>CorrectI know I am. You incorrectly asserted deities as cars. Man fabricated gods and cars. You lost.>Define a unicorn.The IPU is formless and cannot be observed. Nobody knows what IPU looks like. Just like god.>Then the TV channels wouldn't existThey exist as the fabrications of man. gods are the imaginary friends of man.>Tell me what caused itself.Tell me what caused god that cannot also be attributed to IPU. Yet another dissonance you have no retort for.>First causeWhich is evidence of the IPU, not god.>NoYes, you completely fucked up your argument and proved me 100% correct lmao>Because the God I follow is the only one which has a channel that isn't contradicting itself."I know because I know". Circular reasoning. You lost the argument. Fact is, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You have nothing to disprove the channel for FSM, Zeus, IPU. Again, you've been completely dogwalked.>You misunderstood your own analogy No, I fully understand my analogy. You said the TV off = retardation which doesn't even make sense. You completely fumbled and tried changing your answer because you haven't thought this through. Again, you lost.>Define unicorn.The IPU is formless and cannot be observed. That's the entire premise, to demonstrate how retarded the idea of a god is. You have absoutely no retort again the IPU.>Lack of evidence still doesn't equate evidence of the negationWhat can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>6193115Spoons and forks aren't "formless", unobservable, zero evidence supporting baseless assertions unlike god and the IPU.>>6193113>Because unicorns have a form.The IPU is formless and cannot be observed. That's the entire premise, to demonstrate how retarded the idea of a god is. You have absoutely no retort again the IPU.You lost to a wikipedia redditor argument, that's how flawed your religion is.>NoYes. I'm talking from the standpoint of a retarded adult with an imaginary friend they have no evidence to support the existence of.
>>6193137>I've replied to every single one of these posts with a counter-argument you have no retort forGoto:>>6192124
>>6193139I have, I completely countered the post, and I've yet to have a counter-argument.I accept your concession.
>>6193141Goto:>>6192124
>>6193137>IPU can't be observed, it is entirely formless.Then it isn't a unicorn>It shares the same attributes as godThen it isn't a unicorn>You incorrectly asserted deities as carsYour definition claimed that deities = fabrication of man = cars therefore deities = cars according to you>The IPU is formless and cannot be observed. Nobody knows what IPU looks like. Just like god.1. This is not the definition of a unicorn2. Being invisible doesn't mean it's formless. You can't see air either and yet it's filled with O2, CO2, NO and so on. >They exist as the fabrications of man. gods are the imaginary friends of man.This doesn't matter. If I can't hear the TV channels despite being a follower of their teachings they don't exist in your analogy.>Tell me what caused god that cannot also be attributed to IPU.God isn't caused, He's the first cause. The IPU can not be formless and therefore can not be the first cause.>Which is evidence of the IPU, not god.Except that it can't be formless.>Yes, you completely fucked up your argument and proved me 100% correct lmaoNo, I've given you a real world example of your analogy being incorrect.
>>6193137>Circular reasoning.No, saying 'This system is coherent with itself' is not circular. >Fact is, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.No, this only works if the what is being asserted is a change from the status quo. This is not possible for God since He's the first cause.>You have nothing to disprove the channel for FSM, Zeus, IPU.The fsm and ipu are not formless, they can not be the first cause. You agree with this since you agree with the fsm flying and therefore needing a form.Zeus is born from the personalization of time. Time is not a person and can not create children.>You said the TV off = retardation which doesn't even make sense.It does since you are literally incapable of hearing the arguments of the TV channels. If you were right and TV off = atheism then you would not be able to hear the arguments of the theists and therefore can't disprove them. If you can't disprove them you are simply following your own opinion which you established a priori. >The IPU is formless and cannot be observed.Incorrect.>That's the entire premise,No, that's not a unicorn. You've not given a definition so I've given a defintion of a unicorn. If you wish to argue about the formlessness of the ipu you need to prove my definition wrong. >What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.This still doesn't work with God. >>6193138>The IPU is formless and cannot be observed. That's the entire premise, to demonstrate how retarded the idea of a god is. You have absoutely no retort again the IPU.Then it's not a unicorn. I've already defined a unicorn. >Yes. I'm talking from the standpoint of a retarded adult with an imaginary friend they have no evidence to support the existence of.No, you've done nothing to show a change of perspectives. If we assume you actually did change them you are acting entirely schizophrenic so you are not a valid source on the existence of any being.
>>6193220
>>6193337
If you want to turn off a tv, you have to first acknowledge that it exists. You can't just imagine a fake tv in your head made of straw, and turn that tv off, because then the real tv will remain on. You also can't shove the tv in a drawer of silverware, because you think that the tv is a "fork". You have to know how the tv works in order to turn off. Also, saying over and over again ad nauseam that you have turned it off, while it's sitting there continuing to spread good news, is also a not how you turn it off. The same goes for stocks. If you want to get rid of a stock, you have to first pay attention. Obtain 51 percent of the stock with your payment, and then you can start your corporate take over. Goto:>>6186578However, if it's a good company, it will just be given a new name and rebuilt in 3 days by a third party, after the theives take it over and degenerate it, so is it really worth the trouble?
>>6193369
>>6193370
>>6193325>Then it isn't a unicornYou have nothing to support that argument (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED)>Your definition claimed that deities = fabrication of man = cars therefore deities = cars according to youI never said cars are deities, you did. I called you out an you lost another argument.>1. This is not the definition of a unicornIt can't be observed, so nobody knows. Like god. (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED)>This doesn't matter.It does matter, you simply have no counter-argument. (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED)>IPU isn't caused, its the first causeThis is how retarded your position is (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED)>Except that it can't be formless.IPU is formless.>No, I've given you a real world example of your analogy being incorrect.No, you completely fucked up your argument and proved me 100% correct (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED).>>6193327>>No>Because the God I follow is the only oneYes, this is circular reasoning and you have no retort. (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED)>No, this only works if the what is being asserted is a change from the status quo. This is not possible for IPU since its the first cause.You've been COMPLETELY OWNED and have no retort.>The fsm and ipu are not formlessYou have no evidence to support this claim. You've been COMPLETELY OWNED and have no retort.>If you can't disprove them What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You've been COMPLETELY OWNED.>Incorrect.You have no evidence to support this claim. You've been COMPLETELY OWNED and have no retort.>This still doesn't work with God.It does, you simply have no retort.You lost the TV analogy.You have no evidence of god.You have no counter-argument against IPU.You have been completely raped into submission and have proven you are a weak-minded adult with an imaginary friend (which is the IPU)
Atheists will forever and always intellectually outmatch and outpace brain damaged retarded adults with imaginary friends who have no retort and lose arguments against wikipedia redditor arguments. That's how weak the claims to the existsence of a god are. All you can do is imagine, no different to a retarded child "playing" with an imaginary friend.Absolutely none of my arguments have been refuted, and no evidence in the history of man has ever been shared supporting the existence of any god.
This thread makes me weep.
>>6193418>You have nothing to support that argument (You've been COMPLETELY OWNED)I already gave a definition of a unicorn. The ipu can not be a unicorn and be formless>I never said cars are deities,You definition states that cars are deities.>It can't be observed, so nobody knows.Then it isn't a unicorn>It does matterNo, it won't make your TV analogy right since the channels are saying about deities, not the deities themselves. >This is how retarded your position isExcept that it can't have the qualities the first cause has>IPU is formless.Then it's not a unicorn>you completely fucked up your argumentNo, I've shown you that your analogy doesn't work because if applied to real life it'd be impossible.>this is circular reasoningNo, saying 'something is coherent' is not circular unless you believe I only believe in what is coherent. >You've been COMPLETELY OWNED and have no retort.No, you don't understand embracing the null hypothesis.>You have no evidence to support this claim.I already explained it in I-V in >>6193113>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Embracing the null hypothesis doesn't work if there is no null hypothesis>You have no evidence to support this claim.Unicorns are defined through their form, therefore they can be observed. If a unicorn can not be observed it doesn't exist or isn't a unicorn. If the ipu doesn't exist it can't be the first cause since matter and time exist. If the ipu isn't a unicorn then it is what it isn't, this means its existence destroys itself instantly, even without time being involved.>You lost the TV analogy.No you did. You say you can't hear the arguments of the theists since the TV is off but claim you can refute them. >You have no evidence of god.The existence of matter is proof of a first cause. >have proven you are a weak-minded adult with an imaginary friendNo because your proof for this was wrong.
>>6193427>Atheists will forever and always intellectually outmatch and outpace brain damaged retarded adultsLol. That's a pretty low bar. Imagine posting a smug face because you truly believe that you are "outmatching brain damaged retards".
>>6193432
https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4Atheists completely rape religidiots into submission with basic redditor and Wikipedia arguments. Happened ITT, happens in every debate. I'd say "imagine losing to wikipedia and redditors arguments" but it's an observable fact (unlike god).
The tv is still on
>>6193910That's the most related webm I have
>>6194113meanwhile, in reality
>>6194729>Other side of the continent>Not in communion for almost 1000 years - half of the time the church existed
