Atheism/theism continuation thread
you said I didnt consider it long enough. I said its not original. You admit that. New argument please
ok i start: christcucks, like all religious cucks, are cringe.
I am autistic so I wasn't even meaning that as an insult, I was just using it as a good example because to me, atheists and religious people both in modern times mistake the allegories and metaphors for what God is, my apologies user for offense
>you kike
>no you
>you kike
>no you
>ad infinitum
fuck off
Religion containment board is really needed.
Probatio diabolica or Devil's Proof. While evidence will prove the existence of something, the lack of evidence fails to disprove it. There is no evidence that denies the devil's existence; therefore, one cannot deny the devil's existence.
In practical terms, this means two things.
1) Atheists can't claim with certainty that God does not exist.
2) Theists can't claim with certainty that God cannot be explained.
>memeflag atheist calling other people cringe
>christcuck needs to see a flag to debate
ok cuck, stop trying to impose your cucked beliefs onto others
>CHRISTKEK KEK KEKED CHRISTKEK
I am aware of many proposed gods and explanations. Since I see no evidence, I must remain atheistic.
>I said its not original. You admit that. New argument please
No, I gave you the origin for it - Prof Le Poidevin himself. But clearly you can't discuss the argument on it's merits so instead, like most shysters, you try to sweep it under the rug claiming a "win".
ANATOMY OF A DEBATE WITH A THEIST - Sean Donnelly
1. Theists asserts the existence of God, atheist demands evidence or proof
2. Theist offers up the usual suspects - Argument to Ontology, Argument to First Cause etc etc. Atheist rebuts the arguments by pointing out the logical fallacies within them that people have pointed out for centuries.
3. Theist goes away, rephrases the same arguments slightly differently hoping the atheist won't notice. The atheist points out the cheesy semantic switches the theist is making and that the "new" arguments still have the same flaws
4. Theist tries to divert the conversation into some related topic because now he's had to give ground twice and is desperate to claw back something, anything, that will allow him to retire from this debate gracefully. Atheist points out the theist is moving the goalposts.
5. At this point something interesting occurs - the theist being somebody who by his very nature must submit to an authority finds himself against someone in an authoritative position. Theists at this point, hilariously, start to copy their opposition and actually switch tone, mimic language etc
6. Theist at this point having run out of the usual suspects argumentwise invariably starts retreating into philosophical skepticism. Which is in itself hilarious because as prominent philosophical skeptic Richard Rorty himself puts it "from a God's eye view, there is no God's eye view". Nevertheless the theist perseveres because it's the only philosophical avenue left to them. He starts to argue against reason itself. The atheist points out that arguing using reason to argue that reason isn't sufficient is the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. cont....
cont from before
7. Theist starts getting angry. None of his theologians have done the trick and he is thwarted at every turn. Theist resorts to moving the goalposts, claiming the discussion is about something deeper. Atheist cuts off their retreat and drags them back to the discussion at hand.
8. Theist tries a reductio ad absurdum, claiming that the atheist position devolves into some fictional lunacy of theistic wishful thinking he read somewhere else. Atheist disabuses him of whatever ridiculous notion or strawman he's conjured up this time.
9. Theist is now getting really desperate and starts with actual abuse. Atheist laughs
10. Theist must now get out of this argument because it is clear he is out of ammo and outgunned. The theist trying to end the argument and slink off with one last "zinger", really only a total cad would try and stop him. Be that cad, it's hilarious.
Do you want to just skip to 10?
btw anyone have the original of this? I typed this from memory, but the originally had a wit I cannot match.
You need evidence the Universe exists?
I just dont engage with arguments about the creation of the universe being proof of a creator.
Maybe I cut you off too soon.
thats proof the universe exists. Not proof of a god.
Please provide proof of a god.
Have any of you faggots actually asked God to give you understanding or faith? Like sincerely? All this pissing and moaning and you literally just have to ask God to help you understand.
The analogous question here would be: "Do you believe the box contains something, or is it empty?"
"i dunno" is not a valid answer, because again: EVERYONE dunno!
The question is, again, about what you believe. Compare it to betting on a coin toss -- you don't know if the coin's gonna land on heads or tails, and when you're asked "heads or tails?" and you answer "I dunno." you must be retarded.
God is the Universe as I said in the last thread, God is the sum total of everything
Like I said in the last thread, you atheists are just like the phony religious people you rightfully scorn, what you both have in common is that you fatally misunderstand what the fuck the concept of God even is on an ontological level and thus are operating in a closed system, like Plato's cave allegory
Well the problem is, sunshine, which God do I ask? There's literally fucking thousands throughout history. What's that? Oh you mean YOUR God? What makes YOUR God so special?
And it would be hilarious if I asked you just what it is you claim to "understand". Most theists understand jack shit, their argument is entirely circular - you would believe if you just *believed* bro!!
I'd like to have your belief, I honestly would. But sadly no theist can demonstrate any actual useful knowledge beyond their feelings to indicate such belief is justified.
>God is the Universe as I said in the last thread, God is the sum total of everything
This means God is a donut. Donuts are okay, but not worthy of veneration. Seems a bit ridiculous to worship a donut, or a spoon, or a rock, or a tin of boot polish or even all of the above put together.