God is dead or was he ever alive

Blacks: Jesus was black
Whites: Jesus was white
Me: JESUS IS NOT REAL, SO FUCK OF THE BOTH OF YOU!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MDT7no8OiLU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_work#Classical_world
youtube.com/watch?v=HS0WSEuousE
youtube.com/watch?v=lWFOK3JQL2A
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Op is a faggot

>bloody daft

speak English froggy...

...

>assuming G-d's gender

youtube.com/watch?v=MDT7no8OiLU

is this better YA CUNT!

I'm about to piss some cunts off, but here we go.

BOTH Fundamentalist Christians AND Fundamentalist Atheists are the same breed of stupid cunt.
Fundamentalist Christians believe god is a magic man in the sky who makes everything work.
Fundamentalist Christians believe god is a magic man in the sky who makes everything work, and doesn't exist.

They're both working on ridiculous premises from the ground up.

God is a metaphysical description of the universe in its absolute totality, from objective forces to meta realities such as dominance heirarchies, the concept of sin (doing anything that fucks your shit up short or long term) and everything in-between.

This is what it means to know God.
To be aware of the deeper universe not as a hippie on a bad trip, drooling over a tie-dye shirt, nor a bible-thumping 85-IQ idiot shaking back and forth on a church floor as a pastor hits them with a coat to exorcise the demons.

But as someone who is dredging the meta reality of things out from the waters of the unconscious and crystalising them in the pure light of conscious awareness and understanding.

Begin your journey today.
This is what it means to be saved.

He dead

How about the threat of failing miserably all the way to your eventual death, and then having the effects of that failure echo down to whatever family or friends you may have damaged with your failures?

Seems a bit more real and pressing, no?

I'm sure you yourself have personally met at least 100 people who are suffering deeply because of the extremely poor decisions of an elder.

You can ignore he was the son of god. But the argument that he didn't exist is really fucking dumb. There's more existence that he was real than king arthur.

funny how you compare a fictional being in a story
to another fictional being in a different story to prove what?
one of them is real or both of them are real beings?

The JBP shills got here real fast.

A lot of people believe king Arthur existed but with a different name.

Theres plenty of official Roman documents that talk about Jesus. Then all of his disciples that wrote about him were right on about what was going on on the empire at the time.

>I....I AM RIGHT!! NOW SHUT UP!!

thread

mighty kikey in here right now
to the shit and piss eating kikes I ask, why does the brain have a reward system for witnessing a good event when all we need is fucking and eating to survive?

You: I am nothing but a cascade of particles in a completely material universe so even my pride in this special insight is just a temporary arrangement of atoms dictated by the big bang

>Probably
That is exactly when the discussion starts.

I believe that maulybe Jesus was real but God was assimilated into it to convert Jews more easily. It wouldn't be the last time something was added to Christianity for the sake of converting others.

Define what you mean by God
Define what you mean by Dead
Define what you mean by alive

Jesus what an actual historical figure verified by multiple historical sources outside of any religious text. Even a strict athiest has to admit to his existence as a historical figure.

Off yourself. You are not as intelligent as you desperately want people to believe.

Maybe*
what do autocorrect

The million dollar question:

Will you go to Heaven when you die? Here’s a quick test: Have you ever lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said,
“Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
If you have done these things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart,
and the Bible warns that one day God will punish you in a terrible place called Hell.
But God is not willing that any should perish. Sinners broke God’s Law and Jesus paid their fine.
This means that God can legally dismiss their case:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will give you eternal life as a free gift.
Then read the Bible daily and obey it. God will never fail you.

sources please

God exists because we cannot explain what's beyond space-time, even within our universe we still cannot explain gravity and dark energy

So King Arthur the fictional character had similarities to a real person. Wonder how many times that has ever happened? Must be like never w/ your logic

Since Matthew and Luke can't come to a dat as to when Jesus was born it can rang from 4BCE to 6CE
Jesus then died in his 30's
There is no literature about this fan fiction till 50 CE in a letter from Paul
Jesus was mentioned as James's brother in 70 CE by Josephus
You could be talking about Ananus son whose name was Jesus but I think he was a mad man yelling "woe to Jerusalem" for 7 years.
Now I do know we don't have all the facts as libraries were burn to the ground.
But from what records we have him being the son of Mary is far fetched.
Also the star that burned in the night sky for weeks has never been mentioned in anything real, so no three kings.
Plz come back w/ evidence and not some make believe.

Pascal's wager. Put it all on red.

Are you talking about Ananus son Jesus the mad man?
Otherwise you are wrong about your facts

How can God die?

One of (((their))) greatest goals is to make us feel like God is not on our side.

Saved. Thanks, user.

lrn2metaphor

You could have just said you're a Buddhist.

Nobody actually cares bud. If you want to go live in a society without a greater purpose have fun tipping your fedora.

The industrialization of society resulted in the decline of religion. It was the factory that killed god, only peasants need superstition.

>implying you can't form your own purpose
>needing to christcuck yourself to the purposes of the jews

the real million dollar question
Is there life after death?

Those that believe in "Heaven" scare me.
They take the word of living people that fear-monger a heaven and hell to get people to believe them that they must follow their rules.

Your heaven and hell is so off base you can't even understand.
This right now life as we live is heaven or hell.
Life is what you make of it.
You can live in hell and suicide like some LGBTWTFBBQ
Or you can live in heaven where your not living day in and day out thinking/fearing about the skeletons in your closet. (no pun intended)
Forgiveness is not something you get from a god but from yourself and those you have committed immoral acts upon.
This is why nogs always say dindunufin because to there moral compass they didn't.

We can and we have done it. Space time is emptiness, it is nothing, matter and fundamental particles make disturbances in it which is why they interact with eachother. And how is an extremely intelligent being, capable of controlling a whole universe, more likely to form out of nothing than nothing itself is?

I live life with great purpose.
Don't need some outsider to help me with that.

>Or you can live in heaven where your not...
>your

There is a special place in hell for people like you.

>But from what records we have him being the son of Mary is far fetched.
>Also the star that burned in the night sky for weeks has never been mentioned in anything real, so no three kings.
>Plz come back w/ evidence and not some make believe.

It amaze me the way atheists expect there to be documentation for every little thing that occured two thousand years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_work#Classical_world

Look at all this shit that has been lost to time. Important major works of science and literature that were note-worthy enough to be referenced in other works so we are aware they existed yet not a single copy remains, and you expect people to pull 2000 year old birth announcements and articles about the wacky light in the from the Bethlehem Tribune out of their ass.

Grow the fuck up.

>speaking for other people & implying that is what god is
>implying "i dont know but i don't believe what you're assuming is true until sufficient evidence is brought" is dumb
0/10

Dues vult.

I kill in the name of God and will live eternal.

and a euphoric fedora tip to you too

>>implying you can't form your own purpose
lol
What the fuck is this "The Secret" bullshit?
Fortune doesn't care about the self-proclaimed purpose that you've formed. Go tell the nigger that carjacks you that "it's not your purpose" to be victimized and watch what happens.

In a godless universe you have no purpose, and no more inherent value than any other lump of matter in it.

Whats with this larping shit? Fucking knock it off, yuck.

I like how you cherry picked me. Just like any good religious cuck.
Are you also feminist/Fake News? They like to cherry pick as well.

It sounds like the words DEUS VULT make you nervous. Don't worry, only degenerates will feel the cold sting of the steel cross. I hope you're not one of them.

How do you know Jesus wasn’t real?

>nervous
a virgin with a cum-filled sock under his bed doesn't make me "nervous"

The chances of there being no god is exactly 50/50. I was just as atheist as the next guy a few years ago, but at the end of the day I had to give into agnosticsm. The universe is impossible. It can't exist. Everything needs a beginning, no matter how infinite. Did a god start it all? I don't know. Maybe.

Why does Sup Forums looks more and more like the old Sup Forums?

I swear the OP is not older than 20 for sure and I would be surprised if he's not underage. This baby-tier "jesus was not real" crap belongs in Sup Forums.

youtube.com/watch?v=HS0WSEuousE

Reddit needs to go.

>The chances of there being no god is exactly 50/50.

That's total nonsense and shows you have no idea what you're talking about. The classical view of God has a distinct relationship to reality.

Actually I'm pretty sure Jesus was a real person. Doesn't make him the son of God or anything, but still.They're pretty sure he at least existed.

>if you need laws to be a good person, you're not a good person

please fuck off atheist retards

solid non-argument

He never sleeps user. Return to the lord. Return to the quiet place.

Here's some wonderful jazz acapella gospel for all believers. Where is this quiet place?
youtube.com/watch?v=lWFOK3JQL2A

>Doesn't know that the Crusade was a Catholic trick to invade Jerusalem

>tripfag
>The classical view of God has a distinct relationship to reality.
Yours? Then you should be able to prove your claim. I'll wait.

...

Jesus existing or not doesn't do anything to discredit the merits of the social value system that is christianity. You have to judge it on it's merits, not its mythos. Look what Islam produces. Look what christianity produces. Look at what atheism produces. Compare the products and decide which one of those worlds you'd rather live in.

>claims made by groups dont have to be proven, just look at what they've done!
Shit argument, and you still cant prove the claims of any religion. You can understand the good things done by people and learn something from them without having to subscribe to their bullshit.

Well, bro you sure pissed me up! ha

Alright, thanks for waiting.
Let me repost an introduction to theism for you guys.

We've had this discussion years back on Sup Forums. Pic related is a back and forth from anti-theist and Christian Sup Forums and where it is now. It's a crude version of the cosmological argument and layers of back and forth from anti-theist dissenters and Christian proponents. Note that the discussion - and the first part of the picture - warn that we're not talking about causation in a timely sense. This isn't about a "before the Big Bang" - in fact the vast majority of cosmological arguments aren't talking about causation in-time but sustaining causation. In the discussion of sustaining causation there are two major views:

>Divine Conservation: That things ultimately do rely on something outside of itself for its own existence constantly. Details of what that is and why that is are derived from the individual arguments themselves.

>Existential Inertia: That things ultimately move and exist on their own and don't need outside causation. How that works and why that is are derived from individual arguments themselves.

I would say, as would others, that the Divine Conservation position is actually fleshed out and sound, unlike the opposite view which usually has little to no argument for itself but amount to just a denial of Divine Conservation in everything I've read on the topic.
I'll have a formal proof for it in my next post that is the argument in full detail.

part 1/3.

Take a revolver. Put a bullet in one chamber. Give it a spin and put the barrel to your head. THERE'S PROBABLY NO BULLET IN THE CHAMBER NOW SHUT UP AND PULL THE TRIGGER.

part 2/3
This is a retelling of Aquinas' old format. To show the age.

1. Causation exists.

2. Act and Potency are classic terms we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take a property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing. The same thing, in this case, for things in each moment. While they are simultaneous they are still essentially ordered.

3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized.

4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to a new cause C.

9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. And we can apply 7 to C, then to a new cause D, and so forth. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.

11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

12. If “10” is the case there is no causation

13. There is causation ( from premise 1)

14. Premise “10” is not the case.

15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.

16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

Part 3/3
You'll notice that the argument ended with "pure actuality" rather than "God", which is what the argument does in its full form. Aquinas' Five Ways are to get five different results from classical arguments for God, examine attributes necessary of such traits, and then, afterwords, defend rationally that all five results must be the same thing to establish a more complete image of the thing from rational deduction. Afterwords, the term "God" is applied as it's entirely synonymous with how God in understood theologically.

The picture crudely summarizes this whole argument but also goes into necessary attributes at the bottom.

From this we can see how common disagreements are tenable at all:

>God being uncreated is special pleading!

The result inherently leads to an uncreated creator. The result violates no premise in the argument.

>Why can't it be the universe that's eternal?

The universe cannot be as the initial premise mentions motion within the universe and the end result states a lack of change inherent to it.

>You just call it God out of nowhere!

In abbreviated versions, definitely, but the basis I lay clear in my post here.

Aquinas, along with pretty much all the classical Christians understood God in a sense called Classical Theism, which would view God as a constant ground of being rather than an individual or anthropomorphic type of thing. This is the standard Apostolic Christian (Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic) view to this day. This is opposed to the view Theistic Personalism, which is God as a kind of individual and anthropomorphic to some degree. This is constantly popular between all laypeople for easy understanding and became popular between Protestant scholars since modernity. How God's attributes (omni-stuff) are understood differs between these two branches.

This is not the only bit of argumentation in this field but its an easy go-to example to introduce it. People have discussed DC/EI elsewhere too, obviously.

>It's time to attack religion!
>Well no obviously I can't attack the Jews who run everything
>I can't attack the muslims raping Europe while living off welfare I mean come on

you've already posted that pic a billion times tripfag. We've discussed how aquinas' argument is special pleading because he implies God doesn't have to come from something, but everything else does. You can argue your way into a point, but you can't prove God exists whether you wait to admit it or not.

how do you know what's good?
there's literally only your perception of what's good and bad

>Me: JESUS IS NOT REAL, SO FUCK OF THE BOTH OF YOU!

Why do you care? Seriously. This is why everyone hates atheists. They always have to be complete ass hats when someone else has faith. I think it's less about not believing and more about hating people who do believe.

... and that is why no one likes atheists.

>arguing based on the argument posed is correct
well there's your problem

atheism =/= antitheism; no atheist says there is no god, but we don't believe there is a god due to insufficient evidence. We don't say there isn't because we couldn't possibly know that. But Sup Forums will never understand this concept so oh well.

>you've already posted that pic a billion times tripfag

And it survives all criticisms so far.

>We've discussed how aquinas' argument is special pleading because he implies God doesn't have to come from something, but everything else does.

Well, you know, I broke down his reasoning here and it did not commit that special pleading. I also tell you this explicitly here but it doesn't seem like you read at all. I'd have to say, the evidence is against you.

What is ridiculous is the premise that "everything has a cause" is not in any major version of the cosmological argument proposed in the entirety of western thought. The crude summary of the argument extends from around Bertrand Russell's time, actually.

>You can argue your way into a point, but you can't prove God exists whether you wait to admit it or not.

Deduction is quite literally how you prove things in academia. You cannot ever prove something through induction. I'm not sure what in the world you're trying to say.

>there's something wrong with deductive logic now

You want to tell academia why theories are okay but theorems aren't?

OP is a dumb cunt. Even leading Atheists admit Jesus lived.

>come back when you're 18+

>merits of the social value system that is christianity
Yeah get cucked by Romans.Then Roman Leaders thought it cucked the Jews so well they would cuck the rest of their people as well.
Not that I like/agree with Islam but at least they will die for their religion.
meanwhile Catholic Priest are accused of being pedos far to often.
Evangelist scam weak minded people out of there wealth and well being.
And don't even get me started on religious freaks that believe flat Earth and creationism.
Atheist well they don't need some outside source to be good people.
I dare you to name 10 people who doesn't believe in a god that has done some horrid thing.

It certainly does not and it is 100% special pleading whether you want to mental gymnastics your way around it. Who created God if thats the argument?

>no atheist says there is no god
Please stop treating atheist like a specific view.
Atheism is an umbrella term.

Theist is a view that a deity or deities exist.

Agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. It later became popularized as the view that you don't know whether God exists. Even later is became characterized as a subgroup of theist and atheist that you do not know whether this position is right but you think one or the other ("Agnostic Theism" and "Agnostic Atheism").

Atheism was a term for rejection of the gods or immorality. In the 18th century it became a view that deities do not exist. In the 20th century is became not a view at all but an absence of belief in a deity.

Only agnosticism is a clearly defined position. For theism, deity is an umbrella term for a lot of different types of things. For atheism, it doesn't say anything about you besides what you reject and given the amount of forms of theism no one is clear what you actually are.

For the modern western atheists they are largely naturalists and too confused to realize the dishonesty of contending a view when you won't even label yourself by your own position, just by what position you don't have.

So, because if this thing may exist the end result is God does exist? Durp; this is why no actual theists use this argument

Atheism has nothing else to define itself by other than hating religion, which they secretly use as a front for hating religious people. It makes me think of that Ricky Gervais shit where he compares religious people to those who have cancer. If he actually didn't hate religious people instead of the concept, he'd do something with his ideology instead of just attacking others for no quantifiable reason.

Jesus was a Jew
-Sup Forums collapses in on itself-

We get you hate atheism, but a strawman isn't a good way to argue against it.

>Please stop treating atheist like a specific view.
Read the definition of atheism; pretending it is something it isn't is retarded as you tend to be, tripfag.

This is how I understand it. God is a ((Higher being))) living in a higher dimension we simply cannot perceive.

The (n-1) rule:

0 dimension (a point) - has no projection and no size, just coordinates.
1 dimension (a line) - the projection (cross-section) of a line 1D is a point 0D.
2 dimension (a plane) - the projection (cross-section) of a plane 2D is a line 1D.
3 dimension (a 3D object) - the projection (cross-section) of a sphere 3D is a circle 2D.
4 dimension (a 4D object) - the projection (cross-section) of a 4D object should be a 3D object (following this logic)

So the projection of an object in "n" dimension, is located on a "n-1" dimension.

The projection of a 4D object is a 3D object.
We can roughly say that the "shadow" of a 4D object is 3 dimensional.
This is the maximum, how I can perceive the 4th dimension, I can perceive just it's projection.
More than that.
I can't even fully perceive a 3D, because I have to project it on a 2 dimensional plane, so my eyes can perceive it.
So the conclusion.
I can perceive only the 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional object, that is projected in 2 dimensions.

The 2 dimensional world:

Imagine that here is a creature that lives in a 2 dimensional world.
Let's call it Bob.
Bob is a circle, with two little circles on it's margin (his eyes) and inside this circle are his organs.
Bob can't turn his head up and down, he can only turn his head LEFT and RIGHT, and he has a limited FOV (field of view).

{Y}
/\
| \ [¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯] /
| \ [ BOX ] /
| \ [_________] /
| \ /
| \ (field of view) /
| \ /
| FORWARD
| / ¯ (•) ¯ ¯ (•) ¯ \
| | |
| LEFT | (ORGANS) | RIGHT
| | |
| \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
| BACKWARD
-|-----------------------------------------------------------------> {X}

Bob CAN NOT look inside the BOX, because on the way of his FOV is the wall of the box.
But we, as the observers from 3 dimensional world, can see what is inside the BOX and what is inside Bob (his organs), because there is nothing covering it UP, because there is no UPper dimension, only X and Y, no Z.
We also can see the inside of a 1 dimension (line).
So the observer from a (n) dimension can see everything (spatial) of a (n-1) dimension and lower.
So we, creatures from 3'rd dimension, can see everything from the dimensions below ours, but we can't see everything from our dimension. You can't see all the sides of a Cube, Sphere, Pyramid simultaneously, you have to rotate it.
But you can see all the sides, and all the elements from dimensions below.
So the "creature" from 4'th dimension, can see everything in 3'rd dimension, every element through, inside and outside, simultaneously.

>Who created God if thats the argument?

1. In the argument I presented the term "God" is not used once. Stop being dishonest and actually look at you're contending.
2. If the result of "pure actuality" was replaced with "God" it still wouldn't be special pleading as there is no premise that the result is exempted from. You're imagining some premise that doesn't exist.

>So, because if this thing may exist the end result is God does exist?

No, the result is not immediately assumed to be the Christian deity but rather the argument shows the reality of theism so the discussion can move away from atheistic views to a discussion of theistic views. How this happens is explained here >Read the definition of atheism; pretending it is something it isn't is retarded as you tend to be, tripfag.

I gave you the definition of atheism and how it has changed over time.

Here, let me assist you with this. The change in the 20th century is attributed to Oxford's Antony Flew.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

You're the only one pretending it is something it isn't.

>I just finished reading Flatland: the post

>a strawman isn't a good way to argue against it.
That's the only way atheists ever argue though. I've read through millions of their sayings at this point and none of it has shaken my Christianity. I feel stupid as fuck when it comes to matters of God, but I still find every single atheist argument, with the exception of a few debatable views on free will, to be utter nonsense with the sole intention of exonerating oneself from Christian moral demands.

> If the result of "pure actuality" was replaced with "God" it still wouldn't be special pleading
Pick a fucking term then you idiot, i did read your shit assertion and reject it. Actuality =/= God you word salad. Now, prove God exists as God please instead of mental gymnastics.

>I gave you the definition of atheism and how it has changed over time.
>You're the only one pretending it is something it isn't.
No, you're pretending Atheism isnt the disbelief of a God due to insufficient evidence. If you're talking to me, then you take my definition of it regardless.

God is real, and he is more terrifying than you could ever conceive.

Well most atheists are more centered around fighting Evangelical Protestantism.
>Pick a fucking term then you idiot
I LITERALLY DEFINED MY TERMS IN THE ARGUMENT AND YOU AREN'T USING THEM

I proved theism as accurate, effectively disproving atheism while giving an outlet to understanding the attributes of the deity. I'm not going to break down a whole worldview and try to connect to it historic claims for you to assert the Christian god. Don't be ridiculous.
>No, you're pretending Atheism isnt the disbelief of a God due to insufficient evidence.
Please read my post again. I explained every definition of atheism. I give three definitions and do not say which one is the "true one" at all.

I'm talking to you and everything I said in fits your definition that atheism is a lack of belief in God.

Give me an example, instead of asserting that's true like everything else please.

Reality has proven the Tanakn to be highly inaccurate on origins etc. This makes Abraham and Moses a myth. No empirical evidence for Jesus as the Bible claims thousands had seen him. Zero contemporaneous records for Jesus the Christ. Josephus and Tacitus etc. sources for history are all Christian interpolations and are considered academic embarrassments when trying to establish the historicity of the said "Christ". This in addition to a mountain of evidence revealing all God(s) are man made sells the deal. Jesus and all Gods are myths.

IF God is at all probable
THEN most definitely God is

Ontological Argument using modal logic.

You will need to refute even the possibility of God's existence. Simply arguing probability is a losing proposition.

Jesus is an Alien!

You're using more than one term for God and asserting these pillars of your argument are true; if's dont equal God existing. Sorry words dont make God exist

>Please read my post again. I explained every definition of atheism
You didn't write any of this, please stop pretending like you wrote any of this & grasp it.

Not for much longer, thankfully.

>the historical evidence for Jesus is stupid and fake
>hah, now there is no evidence, checkmate.