Why do agnostics want to destroy the western world?

Why do they hate Jesus and Christianity?

Other urls found in this thread:

biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Fuck off, Semites.

agnostics are annoying

>i don't know whether or not god exists
ok, cool
>and neither do you
fuck you, buddy

Fuck off cutfag.

You can't destroy the western world. They can try, but it'll always survive like an ember buried in ashes. They have nothing to replace it. Their own culture can be summed up as "Do whatever you want if it makes you feel good.". Just watch this impulsiveness lead their rudderless ship right into the cliffs. It is just a shame how many will suffer needlessly before they drown in their own filth.

what is it you mean by god existing and how would you differentiate it from god not existing

i figure agnostics just want to avoid the autists from both sides of the spectrum.

to exist is to be.
being is having attributes, powers or qualities
non-being (not existing) is not having any attributes, powers or qualities

ok and what are the attributes of god and how would you differentiate a god without such attributes

Well said.

timeless
>existed causally (not temporally!) before time
spaceless
>existed causally (not temporally!) before space
unimaginably powerful
>created the entire universe
personal
>this is the only way which to explain how you have the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning (universe) with a cause which exists timelessly and eternally.
>if the cause of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect.
>if the cause were timelessly present, then its effect would be timelessly present as well.
>the only way for the cause to be timeless and for the effect to begin to exist in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions

>differentiate a god without such attributes
it would be one that doesn't exist, like odin for example

>with a beginning

a common misconception is that the big bang has a beginning, the big bang is model of expansionist cosmology approaching a point of origin, like a limit in calculus, the "first mover" argument doesn't hold water here

>the only way for the cause to be timeless and for the effect to begin to exist in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses

"only way" and "freely choose" are contradictions

>personal

you haven't really explained this criteria

>"only way" and "freely choose" are contradictions
only way for "the cause to be timeless and for the effect to begin to exist in time"
that can still be freely chosen, no contradiction

>you haven't really explained this criteria
to be a person, causal agency

>big bang
who said anything about big bang?
let's go with the incoherence of an infinite regression of events, the impossibility of an actual infinite as justification for the universe to not be past-eternal

The fuck? You making up scenarios that will never happen?

More like
>idk if god exists
ok, cool
>and you can believe what ever you want
ok, cool

>The fuck? You making up scenarios that will never happen?
that's how some agnostics define agnosticism, that it can't be known rather than they don't know
(but how do they know it can't be known?)

what you're describing is more apatheist

Anteater Fag.

>incoherence of an infinite regression of events

firstly, how is infinite regression incoherent, it certainly isn't mathematically, infinite series can have finite sums

secondly the way humans construct events is the imposition of our nervous systems and bodies a form of order, our understanding of science in terms of chains of events finite or infinite is one that is molded by the organization of our nervous systems, some schizophrenics or those under the influence of hallucinogens perceive "time" and "events" in much different ways and it is only by the survival utility of our default nervous configurations that those modalities are not just as valid

Do you have to wipe the piss off your dick.
Just like a Woman.

I think you mean atheist. Agnostics mostly don't know or care. Atheists are the ones claiming knowledge of Gods non-existence.

agnostic here, i do believe in the values of religion i just wasn't raised in religious household and went into a science field. i have been thinking of joining a church to meet girls

This, take a well deserved (you)

>Atheists are the ones claiming knowledge of Gods non-existence.
No, it's the lack of belief due to insufficient evidence for the claim.

>it certainly isn't mathematically,
math isn't real, it's an abstraction
an ACTUAL infinite (like a temporal regression of events) is impossible

are you familiar with hilbert's paradox of the grand hotel?

The devil lives in the left and Islam. That is why.

>insufficient evidence for the claim

most atheists don't even know what self-proclaimed theists are attempting to claim, it's an interesting language game but theists don't have a rigorous structure for defining what they mean by God

>math isn't real, it's an abstraction

"regression of events" is also an abstraction, what's your point

>are you familiar with hilbert's paradox of the grand hotel?

complications of set theory don't suggest anything about a being in personal contact with all life

agnostic here

this is true

>most atheists don't even know what self-proclaimed theists are attempting to claim

That the God in the bible is real and all of the claims made by the bible are true.

again, the moment the "Lord" or "God" is used in that book it gets confusing for people who have no idea what that means

"fish" or "exercise" are useful words because you can show someone how to catch fish or how to exercise, and they'll eat a fish or gain the benefit of exercising, but you need to demonstrate what you mean by God when you use that word if you want to communicate clearly

>"regression of events" is also an abstraction, what's your point
so events don't exist?
time isn't a real dimension?
moments don't exist?

first thing i always hear is muh contradictions and "God said this but now this, illogical much? check m8"
and people who think they're right but arent open to discussion because they are always right

You kiddin? The last thing I want is for the west to become like shitskinastan.

I just dont belelive in magic and have never seen any half decent evidence that god, vampires, demons, ghosts, luck or destiny exist. And ive looked long and hard having grown up in a chirstian family.

I also dont feel like I need a moral athaurity to be moral. I dont need to be told that fucking kids is wrong to know that as a kid, I didnt want to get fucked.

those are all useful abstractions, just like "red", "pain", "hungry", "line", "point", "square", "infinite", "finite"

But that's just it. If you're going to follow the bible and take things literally in it when you feel like, but not the rest of it, then why pretend you're religious? Especially to the point of things like "i believe because it provides a benefit to us" which isn't believing in God at all, its just a half attempt at being atheist.

>western world
>christianity

pick one

Well, he promised to wipe out ice giants, and i dont see any ice giants anywhere.

>i believe because it provides a benefit to us

you wouldn't believe in God, even if in your mind he was immediately incarnate, if you didn't think it was of benefit to do so anymore than I cannot doubt the existence of this computer because of its utility in having this conversation

You sound like a mudslime, just not as violent

faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

But you don't, that's entirely the point of faith. You don't know whether its true but you still trust it nonetheless. Isn't this supposed to be a great deal in religion or something? Trusting regardless of tribulations and getting rewarded for your unwavering faith?

tl;dr fuck you too

That is the single most retarded thing ive ever read in my life.

I think ball cancer is a real pain. doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

>you wouldn't believe in God, even if in your mind he was immediately incarnate
Correct, because even if I believed it, that still doesn't make it true.

I can accept the bible and the stories it's brought forth, but other works of fiction do the same thing. It's a book amongst books.

you're proving my point, "ball cancer" is a useful abstraction for malignant cells growing in a region in the body, and it is useful because we've researched phenomena that can be categorized as cancer enough to treat it

>rather than proof.
we have proof
>"For he has set a day when we will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

>Isn't this supposed to be a great deal in religion or something? Trusting regardless of tribulations and getting rewarded for your unwavering faith?
yes

>You don't know whether its true but you still trust it nonetheless
knowledge is where belief + truth overlap.
if it's true, and i believe it, i know it.

We don't, we don't really give a shit as long as it's not Islam, Christianity and whatever the fuck has some hateful things in it but it's nowhere near as bad as Islam, nor do its followers fuck everything up.

-far right agnosticfag

Ignoring the existence of cancer, a well documented disease, is only useful for your peace of mind. When you do get cancer though you'd wish you had prevented it.
Ignoring ball cancer doesn't really benefit you that much, it's actually dangerous.

the only religions I support are the branches of Christianity and Christianity

WE SHALL DESTROY GOD

But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination. With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND OF THE "GOYIM" THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS.

...

The intensified struggle for superiority and shocks delivered to economic life will create, nay, have already created, disenchanted, cold and heartless communities. Such communities will foster a strong aversion towards the higher political and towards religion. Their only guide is gain, that is Gold, which they will erect into a veritable cult, for the sake of those material delights which it can give. Then will the hour strike when, not for the sake of attaining the good, not even to win wealth, but solely out of hatred towards the privileged, the lower classes of the GOYIM will follow our lead against our rivals for power, the intellectuals of the GOYIM.

Read this: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

>I can accept the bible and the stories

you wouldn't "accept the bible" (however you define that in your mind) if you didn't believe they were useful in some aspect of your existence, regardless of your ability to define a qualifier for belief in God that could be met by other people

Eternal centrist.

Yes, because it doesn't have any special value that I couldn't get from other books. Did you have a point?

>proof
>circular argument
See That's literally faith.

>believe in existence of God because of the evidence we have of Christ's resurrection
how is it circular?

not anymore, we're in a theist vs agnostic vs atheist thread, guess I'm asking self-proclaimed members of any of these groups to define their terms for God

perhaps if you could explain what in the Bible you've found useful that you think hasn't been said already

Also I fail to see what's wrong about having faith, instead of just knowing. As you said that only makes it more precious.

You're being contradictory, there's nothing wrong in having a little bit of faith and I fail to see why you're being defensive about it.

You're quoting the book whose veracity is in question. It can't get more circular than this.
Read the sticky.

aaand your point is?

I can point to the cancer in my balls. I could, in theory, slice open my balls and point to the tumors.

If im really in the know, I could extract the tumors and sequence the DNA to find the mutation. Even further, I could go through my life and suggest that maybe smoking didnt help with the cancers.

I can abstract all you want until im down to the simpliest laws of nature, with random motion of atoms in the cells in the tumor in my balls.

All of that means...what? Whats the end game? At what point does this information become relevent in the debate of the existance of my ball cancer?

"The bible is true because the bible says its true."
No.

I dont have any defined term for God, i'm an atheist.

Nothing is "useful" in my opinion, but to other's it is. Weak people need something to believe in.

because
>1 post by this id

ya'll niggas posting in a slide thread.
They post this shit to keep the front redundant and boring, just sage it.

So hows it any different from people telling you not to believe in God or telling you to believe in God?

I don't doubt the existence of ball cancer as we've discussed because, as you've shown, it's a useful abstraction and well defined

the notion of God isn't so well defined so its hard to pin down which abstraction we're even debating the utility of

Its still useful to have a term for god. Helps to have a frame for arguemnt.

I'm not the one holding the opinion one exists, though. It's nonsensical.

They control by deception.

Christianity is all about truth and self recognition. The exploiters desire to bury the truth and dissociate people's minds from knowing anything of truth.

It's as simple as pimp as to slavery owner as prostitute is to slave.

By the pimp's rule, the prostitute isn't supposed to know much about life except how to be a sex robot.

the burden of definition is on the person arguing for what the other person cannot find a definition for otherwise it's just two people getting emotional at eachother with fancy words and historical references

I'm an Atheist and I have nothing against Jesus. I much prefer a Christian society to a Islamic one. Atheists who rail on the evils of Christianity are just butthurt liberals looking for a reason to be edgy since Christianity is main stream. Case in point, /r/atheism

>I fail to see what's wrong about having faith, instead of just knowing.
nothing, i'm just saying i have both

>You're quoting the book whose veracity is in question.
why is the book in question? i thought the existence of God was in question.
i pointed at that scripture to show that Christians believe we have been given proof through the resurrection of Christ.

a case can be made and evidence can be given for the empirical reality of the resurrection of Christ without utilizing an argument like "what the bible says is true because the bible says it's true"

Ok, I thought that might have been what you were getting at. I think I either misread or misunderstood a point you were making along the way.

But I dont think this line of logic ... the right way to approach this. God in this case isnt a law of nature, its a "real" "person" who apparently has human emotions. Believers percieve him to be an actor in the scene, not just a concept.

And this is part of the problem with god, and by my observation the hole in the plot.

"Where is he?"
"Everywhere."
Arguements like these just dont work in the "real world". If my understanding of mathmetics (wich isnt much to be honest), there are constructs that are simliar.

I actually have really grown to respect Christianity a lot in the past year, and I do think it would help me become a better person if I could actually believe. But it's like trying to shove a square peg through a round hole.

I mean agree its silly, but usually people (at least in my interaction) have a sort of nebulous anthro-fied idea of god. Usually if you can define that in more specific details, you can show how it doesnt really work.

nice strawman

With politics there's history and clear examples to base your ideology off of thus being a centrist is fucking retarded but when it comes to religion there's no way to know for sure

You literally said "we have proof"
and then quoted a bible passage.

Strawman how?

>its a "real" "person" who apparently has human emotions
>"Where is he?"
>"Everywhere."

So we've arrived at the first few definitions for useful discussion of God; omnipresence and emotion, which I'm pleased that we've found, does that mean God is pleased too?

this is getting gud

Heh. Depends on which god a person has in mind.

You know. I need to apologize user. I jumped the shark on you.

I tell people I'm agnostic, but in reality I'm an apatheist.

God can go fuck himself. Stay out of my life.

>why is the book in question? i thought the existence of God was in question.
God is real because the bible said so.
The bible is a revelation of God.

Why quote the bible if its unrelated to the matter at hand? Protip: it actually is.

>we have proof
>btw this isn't proof I just happened to quote it without elaborating further
>[extensive excuses]
Come on dude. I thought being honest was supposed to be a virtue.

>empirical
You're literally on the other half of the globe claiming to have experienced something and acquired evidence everyone else failed to until now. No matter how fancy your words are or how empirical your hallucinations were, my reasons to believe are close to 0. Sorry but I don't have faith in you.

First of all, my religion has no interest in destroying the west. We seek to enlighten all of humanity

>You literally said "we have proof"
did i say "we have proof the bible is true?"

we have proof of the existence of God through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

for those who were present, they saw it firsthand.
for those who weren't, we have to rely on their testimony.
which is very reliable, due to the fact that the eyewitnesses to resurrected Christ faced brutal persecution, torture, and death for not recanting.

it's written in scripture (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), but secular scholarship dates it (the credal statement paul writes in his epistle, not the epistle itself) to the year Christ was crucified.

>Usually if you can define that in more specific details, you can show how it doesnt really work.

I mean, that's kind of the point.

Tbh people have always died for silly causes. My cul- religion actually just sacrificed our second virgin of the month.

>"did I say we have proof the bible is true?"
>continues to use the bible as proof

You aren't serious, right?

...

>humans
>millennial testimonies
>reliable
wew

It's like I'm not on Sup Forums anymore.

sage

you're not getting it.

my argument isn't "the bible is true because the bible says it's true"

my argument is "God exists, we can know this from the historical evidence we have, part of which is in an epistle that made it's way into the canon of scripture"

You have seriously got be trolling me with this shit.

"They were tortured so what they said was true."
"And they said it happened, so it did."
"And it says so in this book."
"And the books says its true."


Or, maybe

"The bible says jesus died and came back, and the bible is true because jesus died and came back."

Dude.

Do you have ANY source of evidence that isnt scripture. Any at all?

You can't know. People see magic and don't understand it, does that mean magic is actually real?

Please child, hear the testimony of Lord Ignis and repent

Yeah I see what youre getting at, Im just starting from their perspective whereas you arent. I think.

In a way, but I'm waiting for an actual definition from someone who can back it up with their own ideas.

more strawmen

>They were tortured so what they said was true.
not what i'm saying,
but if hundreds of people say they saw jim rob a bank, and went through torture because they refused to deny that jim robbed a bank, and there were people hunting them down because they refused to deny that jim robbed a bank

then it's likely that they're not lying, and jim robbed a bank

>You can't know. People see magic and don't understand it
could they have been hallucinating?
no, because the eyewitnesses purported to have seen this event in a group, and hallucinations are subjective to individuals, if i see a leprachaun, the person next to me isn't going to ask him for gold

>"And it says so in this book."
it says it in the epistle:

>3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
>4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
>5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
>6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
>7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(secondhand eyewitness testimony)
>8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15)
(firsthand eyewitness testimony)

but secular scholarship dates the origin of the information to much earlier:
>James D. G. Dunn writes: "This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death."
>Michael Goulder: "Paul 'received' the tradition -- that is, he was taught it at his conversion -- perhaps two years after Jesus' death."
>Ulrich Wilckens: "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity"
>Gerd Ludermann: "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus."
>Paul Barnett: "within two or three years of the First easter."
>Richard Burridge and Graham Gould: "from only a few years after Jesus' death."
>Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar: within "two or three years at most."
>Richard Hays: "within about three years after Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem."
>Alexander Wedderburn: "first half of the 30s."

Who stated they were hallucinating? I definitely didn't. People couldn't coerced into saying they did, or someone couldn't have just stated there was a large group of people who said they saw it?

So in total youre choosing the believe the words of people who lived in a time where they thought that illness was caused by fucking demonic possession.

And on top of that, youre relying on eye witness accounts of these people who...belived that illness was caused by demons. Even in today's world where humans arent QUITE AS ignorant today, eye witness accounts are dick because humans are so weak to suggestion. This is psych 101.

And the account of these events had to be written down into the bible, which without a doubt was revised a few times before it hit the final draft. 2000 years ago.

Fuckin hell dude.

Agnost here
And ahahahhahhahahhah nice Finland.

He does just like a girl

What has the right forsaken Christ? How can you support a man who is divorced, has sex not for procreation, and seeks to harm his common man?

>chronological snobbery
>eye witness accounts are dick
nah

>And the account of these events had to be written down into the bible
the bible didn't exist for another 250 or so years, this is an epistle (a letter) to the colossians
>which without a doubt was revised a few times before it hit the final draft.
for what purpose?

All youve said is
"The epistle says it happened"

and

"The tradtions about people starting to belive it happened shortly after."

Lets be nice and say that a guy named Jesus got nailed to a stick, and then at some point people got it through their heads that he came back from the dead.

That only, at least, proves that a guy named jesus gets nailed to a stick, and that a bunch of people got it into their heads that he came back from the dead.

It doesnt prove divinity, or magic. It shows that people pervieced this to have happened. And thats being charitable.

Eyewitness accounts are dick. Interact with humans for more than 10 minutes and youll see how easy we are to dupe.

And yeah, "chronological snobbery". Weve come a long way from thinking the Zues throws shit at us when hes mad.

So...the bible didnt exist for another 250 years and you dont see how anything could, at the very least, have gotten lost in either translation or context.

Seriously dude?

For what purpose?
Fuckin think of a reason that a human being would have to lie about literally anything ever. There ya go.

I dont see how the first two do the third.