Why would I argue against something so pointless and trivial? Dont you have better things to do with your time anon? Your family is starting to think theres something wronf with you, maybe you should get a gf? Or a bf
>>39709282 If we take premise A that: >A God is needed in order to have a absolute set of morals in a Chaotic universe. Then i could argue that Atheism is trying to unwound society from its core beliefs and that without Society mankind will quickly devolve into a savage cannibalism instead of a relatively ordered and productive one.
Of course whether or not premise A is completely universal or historically accurate is up for debate.
>>39709418 You need a little dogma if you want to be worth anything, or else you'll constantly take the path of least resistance and then chose whatever validation you want. Working for values without basis is better than working for fluctuating values that conform to your lassitude.
>>39709401 Given that theism and atheism are both faith-based beliefs, there is no empirical evidence in favour of either belief, nor will there ever be. Therefore, I do not involve myself in any side of the argument, and am neither atheist nor theist.
>>39709458 >You need a little dogma if you want to be worth anything, or else you'll constantly take the path of least resistance and then chose whatever validation you want. That's dogma. Or would you care to prove that one leads to the other?
Dogma has little to do with values, it's just inability to adapt.
>>39709418 A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Existence of this universe is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Then existence is a dogmatic belief. Therefor, are you saying that atheism utilizes freedom from the belief of existence.
>>39709282 Atheism is a mental disorder like homosexuality. Just like the teenage phase where due to hormones kids feel rebellious of their parents and teachers, atheism is also caused by those teenage hormones which never receded. It is an imbalance of chemical in your body which tricks your brain to think otherwise, which for you is always right and enlightining, which infact gave rise to all these "enlightened" maymays on the internet you talk about. Normal people can see how retarded you sound when you babble all these retarded nonsense without any factual evidence against it. Atheism is literally caused by the ignorance chemical which can be found in women's brain. If you take a looks at statistics, you will find that lots of women have faith in higher power even if they have this ignorance gene. Which supports my theory that if male have this gene active in them, they will be most likey serial killers or fags or fedora tippers. But I have no state-of-the-art facility to continue my research. Anyway, there are lots of resources on how hormones can change your mood, feelings, thinking and has a lasting effect in your life if left unchecked.
>inb4 citation needed Google it yourself you fedora fag. But you don't need citation, you need a common sense which you mentally ill people don't have. So I'm really sorry that you're this way.
>>39709282 Plenty of times. I only use the memes against people who have no interest in debate.
Start off by watching this video and make a debate about the remaining issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyQVnO8Vt8&index=29&list=LLAhTo8JhmQlLwSmOtcygrJg
When debating in an eternal butthurt wars, it is important to be able to notice the repeating falsehoods. Most creationists (YEC), fedora atheists (/antitheists) etc. do this. >(Feminism; women get 70c, rape cullture etc.).
This causes butthurt on the levels that cause boards like /pol/ to exist.
>>39709692 >you don't need citation I think you're falling prey to your own "ignorance chemical" there. Implying a single chemical is responsible for a viewpoint is utter stupidity. It's more about intellectual insecurity, kids grow up without a religion to guide them and they feel lost: so they start rebelling and making up silly ideas.
>>39709712 >the laws of physics are not an authority nor are they incontrovertibly true, if you got a better scientific theory with evidence to disprove/enhance the current one, it will be replaced not in the case of heliocentric vs geocentric theory, even though the evidence greatly favored the geocentric theory, dogmatic establishment still has the final say in anything.
>what are you even trying to say? atheists deny dogma existence is a dogma atheists deny the dogma of existence
>>39709851 >really, where is this evidence? >Kepler
>I'm not sure if you're crossing the matrix/philosophical line here or not I am. Since it was stated earlier that atheists are free from dogma, it states that any dogma is not reasonable, even an atheist dogma.
>>39709282 Everything that breathes knows their is a God. Sin seperates man from God. If you do not feed your spirit man, you feed the flesh and your flesh dominates the spirit, hence being reborn. Burying your flesh, born in the spirit.
Atheism denies all non material ideas, including the wind and thus atheists prefer to attack rather than reason or open their hearts. This could be due to sin, conviction, denial due to sin or indoctrination or just a love for the world.
I'm not going to argue with you OP, nor am I going to give you any evidences. Pick up a bible and read it with understanding and guidance from the Holy Spirit if you are indeed, a seeker of truth. We live in a supra-not super- supranatural dimension but if we are deniers you are merely batting for the other team are therefore impotent to any manifestations of experiences.
Try this if you are a student of research and truth but I warn you that even an intellectual won't go far without being born again. (It's free) It's also a free gift if you can read between the lines. You are in a dungeon, get out, set yourself free and break those locks. This is literal in the sense of dimensional realities.
If you are interested in the spiritual or supernatual aspect I suggest you seek out Dan Duval who has helped me personally.
Russ Dizdar, Firefall talk radio, Stan Deyo in the archives of according to the sciptures are good resources once you take the jump. Douglas Hamp's corrupting the image or age of deceit 2 by Gonz may also help you slide into thinking rationally about things if you are questioning and searching for a logical explanation to life itself and your purpose.
Unfortunately religion gives God a bad name and prevents you from understanding all these things I talk about. Sadly, man made religion could be the very reason you do not wish to convert.
Godspeed Anon. Praise Yeshua Hamashiach, a father who is pleading with you to return.
>>39709935 >Now, all of you tell me how you can know anything with your worldview because it doesn't seem possible. It's called a best guess. You can't know you won't have a heart attack the next moment, but you still plan for tomorrow. >If I say the speed limit on the street outside is 30 mph but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the speed limit. But you're still sure enough to follow it, trusting your memory, even though it could be faulty. >See, atheism is ultimately destructive of knowledge itself. Skepticism, which tells us that all knowledge is subjective. In order to know something as an absolute truth, it would need to be objective knowledge, but since we cannot objectively percieve anything, such a thing is not possible.
>>39709935 >If I say the speed limit on the street outside is 30 mph but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the speed limit. If I say god in the entire universe exists but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the that god exists.
If I say god in the entire universe doesn't exist but I could be wrong about that, then I don't know the that god doesn't exist.
>>39709958 See, you resort to mockery but you're the one who could be wrong about everything he claims to know. How do you know you're not tied down to a bed in a mental asylum, imagining this website?
>>39709961 So you're saying you know things through empiricism, i.e. that truth is verified through the senses. By what empirical observation did you verify that "truth is verified through the senses" is true?
>>39710015 Correct. You're just saying things but you don't know it.
>>39709991 In other words you're denying that absolute truth exists. Is that absolutely true?
>>39710094 >Knowledge has to be 100%, man >It doesn't matter if I'm 99% sure, close only counts in horseshoes. if I were even 1% uncertain, then I dun know nuffin. >I can't be 100% sure I had perfect memory, I can't even say whether I believe in God because there's always the chance that I'm misremembering. damn, i can almost smell your tinfoil hat
>>39710140 I could retort by say I couldn't be wrong either, and claim if you were tied to a bed in an asylum, what makes you so sure you're not? WHat makes you so sure morpheus is not in the matrix and you're still in the pod?
>>39710140 >By what empirical observation did you verify that "truth is verified through the senses" is true? I think therefore I am. My knowledge of a known truth, my own existence, and the senses that made my conclusion that I exist therefore shows that my senses can at least detect some truth.
>>39709365 It's not the responsibility of atheists to 'prove' their views. It's the responsibility of religious people to prove their vies. Religious people are the ones MAKING a claim. Atheists are REJECTING a claim.
>>39710082 That's true. The point is that he said without dogma one would choose the path of least resistance but valuing the path of least resistance is a dogmatic value, so he basically refutes himself.
>>39710174 That's the absurdity of your worldview. If you can't know your axioms to be true then you can't trust anything that comes after.
>>39710179 So "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not absolutely true. Then it is false and absolute truth does exist. See the absurdity of your worldview now?
>>39710215 How do you know that your senses are accurate? How do you know that your reasoning is valid? Isn't it just a classic case of circular reasoning to appeal to your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning?
>>39710350 >How do you know that your senses are accurate? How do you know that your reasoning is valid? Isn't it just a classic case of circular reasoning to appeal to your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning? There is no other method of evidence besides my own knowledge and intuition. Do you have a way of proving my existence?
>>39710389 True and false are the only two options (by the law of excluded middle)
If he's denying the laws of logic then he's being even more absurd.
>>39710401 >"Absolute truth doesn't exist" is most likely true. But I can't know for sure. Go back to my speed limit analogy. How can you say it's "most likely" true if you don't have an absolute truth to compare it to? You can't say something is 99% unless you know what 100% is, otherwise it may as well be 0.099% - it's absurd.
>>39710405 >There is no other method Could you be wrong about that?
>>39710537 >At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away ...fell at Vespasian's feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth... Vespasian .... did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man's eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Histories, 4.81
>Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Divine Vespasian Chapter 7
>>39710509 If you're standard is as low as performing miracles, why not voodoo?
Miracles cannot be conducted consecutive times nor are they supernatural. Most can be explained by natural ways with our current understandment but the ones where we do not yet know, we cannot say 'God did it'.
I bet you wouldn't fathom coincidence as a thought would you?
>>39710523 >How can you say it's "most likely" true if you don't have an absolute truth to compare it to? It's been true every time so far. Of course, that hits the problem of induction, which is that induction is not possible.
But it still works. I can't know for sure, but it got me this far, hence I presume it'll continue to get me places.
In other words, I rate the likelyhood of something high if it's worked reliably in the past, because that has worked reliably in the past. I know it's circular reasoning, thank you very much. It still works.
>A girl had died just in the hour of her marriage, and the bridegroom was following her bier lamenting as was natural his marriage left unfulfilled, and the whole of Rome was mourning with him, for the maiden belonged to a consular family. Apollonius then witnessing their grief, said : "Put down the bier, for I will stay the tears that you are shedding for this maiden." And withal he asked what was her name. The crowd accordingly thought that he was about to deliver such an oration as is commonly delivered as much to grace the funeral as to stir up lamentation ; but he did nothing of the kind, but merely touching her and whispering in secret some spell over her, at once woke up the maiden from her seeming death ; and the girl spoke out loud, and returned to her father's house, just as Alcestis did when she was brought back to life by Hercules.
Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 4.45
>.... the old woman had now begun to question the corpse in a somewhat louder voice. ....Then he suddenly collapsed and fell flat on his face. The old woman rolled the body over onto its back and persisted with her questions. Employing apparently more powerful spells of compulsion this time, she repeated her string of incantations into his ears, and, leaping, sword in hand, from fire to pit, from pit to fire, she succeeded in waking the dead man a second time and, once he was on his feet, began to put the same questions to him as before, forcing him to use speech as well as nods of the head to make his prophecy unambiguous.
Heliodoros, An Ethiopian Story (Aithiopika), 6.3- 4
>>39710615 >The nature of the revelation is such that I can't be wrong about what it reveals. How do you know that the demon isn't deceiving you into believing that the nature of the revelation is such that you can't be wrong about what it reveals?
>>39710615 >There is only one. The "versions" are translations but the word is infallible. There's far more than one, even not touching different translations. But surely the church did well assembling the version you trust. Have faith! :^)
>>39710624 depends, in the case of Vespesian we have 2 different sources citing 2 different miracles
and thats vespesian alone, there are tons of miracles etc most regularly cited ones would be emperors and famous oracles
my point is your argument is invalid, that it was christians/jesus that did miracles and pagans din dun nuthing
pagan world was filled with miracles, just as christianity, hell go read early christians even the christians don't deny pagans can be wonderworkers they just state that those are the works of devil / unauthorized while their wonderworkers are blessed by god
>>39710570 >Miracles cannot be conducted consecutive times nor are they supernatural. Most can be explained by natural ways with our current understandment but the ones where we do not yet know, we cannot say 'God did it'. Miracles break natural law, therefore showing divine intervention. You are not talking about miracles.
>>39710695 Wikipedia also says, and directly quoting Einstein >We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things. He really liked Spinoza.
>>39710731 >How can I prove anything to an atheist who denies knowledge, logic and all rational basis for proof? Nice strawman, but let's pretend that I'm a good little christian who accepts knowledge, logic and all rational basis for proof.
Now prove to me that the authority is trustworthy.
>>39710731 >In other words your worldview is based on circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy. The whole world is built on this circular reasoning. Our entire civilization, all of science, is built on the axiom "Induction works", this is the basis of empiricism. If you say atheism is incoherent due to this, then you also say science is.
>>39710693 Christian miracle are the most accepted and least disputed miracles. Not even Muslims deny that Jesus was a prophet. I'm just saying that in most cases the events of a miracle are disputed while the events of christian miracles are in fact not.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.