Fug atheists :D

cont from ...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9VEQWQHYy7s
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
youtube.com/watch?v=z9GXI_9DXF0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Russia banned fedoraism

Russia is also third world tier

Fuck them indeed. But first:
1. check if they have the christian dieties i.e. light of love and truth
2. if not, then try to convert them

I have no idea why non-Christians focus so much on whether God exists. I mean God could exist and it could have no practical relevance to anything.

The central claim of Christanity isn't that God exists, it's that God was sent to Earth in human form in actual history, and did magic in actual history. It's a historical claim. You need to justify it using historical evidence.

This is the weak point of Christianity, because it seems totally implausible that you have to believe in magic just because a cult formed. But anti-Christians are too dumb to notice this, they're too busy arguing about whether an abstract object called God exists.

i have something to challenge this, you know, for the sake of discussion
youtube.com/watch?v=9VEQWQHYy7s

its bc atheists are so fearful of the unknown that they try to negate it.

prove a god exists

>checkmate christians

>le burden of proof

Its so cliche, but why not. By the same token, prove a god doesn't exist. Both are legitimate questions with illegitimate answers.

youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

reposting the quantum mechanics video which debunked materialism from last thread that BTFOs atheist cucks forever

>le i have no argument

That's because atheism is a movement to completely remove the concept of god or gods from the noosphere.

If you attack Christianity solely on the basis of historicity, you are just cutting the top off of one weed.

But if you attack the concept as a whole, you attempt to pull all weeds out by their roots at once.

I don't care whether people believe in Jesus Christ as risen lord and savior or not. The only reason I push back against Christfags on this board is because Sup Forums is a place for logical argument (see sticky), and Christfags don't submit any of their premises to rational test, so they just don't belong here.

Find somewhere else to be, faggots.

he's got a whole playlist on that
I feel shitty for only linking so many videos but this is related youtube.com/watch?v=z9GXI_9DXF0

Burden of proof is an argument
You can't say the holocaust is real without evidence just as much with a diety
Hence the term faith
chegmate

If you make a claim about reality the burden of proving that you are correct is yours and nobody else's. This is the same advice I would give to those Atheists who say "God does not exist."

What a load of incoherent bullshit.

The claim god came to earth, he would have to exist.

People believe should be no ones business but there own but expressing retardation of that magnitude iin public should be punishable by death.

>he's got a whole playlist on that

I think you were the Slovakia guy who posted it before. if yes, thank you for posting it. gonna watch some more of their stuff.

p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. (PSR)
p2: the universe began to exist.
c1: therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
p3: the cause is either an impersonal or personal. (a cause can't be both personal and impersonal, nor can a cause be neither personal nor impersonal.)
p4: the cause of the universe is not impersonal. (impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs.)
c2: therefore the cause of the universe is 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 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.
and thus we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

>That's because atheism is a movement to completely remove the concept of god or gods from the noosphere.
Well then you're doing the wrong thing. Why not engage with the minimalistic proofs of God's existence? A lot of them are airtight if you have certain philosophical assumptions. But they have to relevance to everyday life unless you add on other properties to God.

Why would you want to completely remove a technical philosophical opinion from the noosphere? The religious people you hate the most don't know anything about philosophy, they won't care.

>The claim god came to earth, he would have to exist.
Yeah, sure. But that's the weak point, isn't it?

Imagine if I said "there is a dragon in my garage" and you started trying to prove that dragons can't exist, instead of checking my garage. That's how dumb most political atheists are.

Atheists are cancer.
Isolated from the greater good.

Prove a god doesn't exist

you're welcome

burden of proof is on the person who claims something, not vice versa

if you believe in some old funny guy sitting in clouds, im ok with this, but dont call yourself intelligent, pls

>14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20

You can't win mate. I know Christianity better than you.

>if you believe in some old funny guy sitting in clouds
I assure you, there is no sane person older than 8 years who believes that

And that is why I am an agnostic

People in my country have said stupider things.

God is redundant. The flying spaghetti monster argument etc. We can't claim anything but we can make assumptions based on what we know now.

murrica sure is wonderland

Assertion p1 is false in the case of the universe. We do not know if the universe began to exist, as it in and of itself is not subject to its own laws. As an example: if a ball contains a material highly reactive with water on its inside, but the outside touches water, the inside will not react. Such is the case because the outside sees different conditions than the inside.

Assuming it is true, we can say p2 is false because again, it can not definitively be proven that the universe began. Of course you can point to its expansion, but a number of theories point to its eventual contraction into a finite point, then re-expansion. If this is the case, then the universe continually exists.

Assuming the validity of the rest of your points, true, we have a personal creator. It is not known if this creator presently interacts with the universe at this moment. If it does not, then veneration is meaningless. If it does, then it may be venerated.

>This is the same advice I would give to those Atheists who say "God does not exist.

Then you would be wrong. Consider the following:

Bob says: there's a magical sloth living in my wardrobe who knows every fact in existence
Sally says: that's bullshit

Bob is making a claim about reality. Sally is merely refuting that claim. If Bob and his sloth had never happened along, Sally would not have an opinion one way or the other regarding mystical, wardrobe-dwelling bradypodidae.

>This is the same advice I would give to those Atheists who say "God does not exist."
There is no burden of proof on someone claiming a negative.
It's up to the person claiming something is real to prove that it exists rather than the person claiming it doesn't to run the gamut of reasons something can't exist.
This is especially true when the positive claim is purposefully unfalsifiable.
Reminder: if you accept the existence of god solely on the basis that it is unfalsifiable you must also accept the existence of FSM and the celestial teapot for the same reason.

What revelations has the FSG made? Who testifies to them?

Didn't you ask this same question last thread and summarily disappear after I posted this image?

>there was a time when God didn't exist and humans weren't aware of it

yeah, assuming the proof can be communicated
but the evidence could theoretically be something that can be only experienced by yourself

>implying judeo christian god made revelations
pastafarians and pirates testify the flying spaghetti monster

Oh I missed that.

He doesn't look like someone whose religious opinions I would be interested in.

You clearly seem to be enjoying yourself there. However, I can't quite see the joke. Care to be less cryptic?

Oh well that's just dandy.
Hey guys it looks like he doesn't care about something that runs directly contrary to his narrative.
Welp, let's pack it up. He wins.

Also.

>15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 7

Ok I'll humour you. Why should I be interested in the spaghetti monster.

Christianity allowed itself to be subverted it's a weak religion.

>magic
stopped reading there

Jesus was a folk fiction or a composite of other Jews who resisted the Romans or both. Jesus (Joshua) was the name of the Jew who supposedly conquered Caanan and was also supposedly the name of the first Priest of the Jewish Temple. Those Jesuses are absolutely fictions. The name means Yahweh Saves. It makes sense that when the Jews dreamed about a Messiah to reclaim the land from the Romans and cleanse the Temple of corruption, that his name might be Jesus.

My theory is that there were stories about Jesus in Palestine, a fiery Zealot type out for holy vengeance and Roman blood. It was Hellenized Alexandrian Jews who spun these stories for their own benefit by pretending he was pacifistic West-friendly philosopher faith-healer and all the other crap, which was basically Jewish taqiyya. It's exactly like how Jewish media in New York lies about and spins what they do in Israel or how Muslims lie about what they are about.

Gentile cucks who bought the bullshit expanded upon the Gnostic and Mystery qualities. Jesus became anti-Semitic' after Jewish behavior made it impossible for a good Roman citizen to practice a quasi-Judaism. Instead of just dumping the religion, they just retconned it, and lied essentially in the same mode they had been lied to.

see: faith

FSM mentions other god's too but he's not as much of a dick about them.
You shouldn't.
He's just as fake as your god and the fact that some retards follow him doesn't change that.

You got it wrong. I'm saying that every prophet is a false prophet because everyone can claim a god. There is no need for god for this universe to exist. We can't disprove god, but based on what we know now, we can assume there is no god.

But my God created the universe and is awesome, beautiful and wise, among other things. As opposed to merely existing for the purpose of making spurious arguments.

Ah, I see. You're only interested in dancing around the margins of the conversation. When it comes to anything substantive, you think a gif and some nonsequitous green text will suffice, so you can get back to more comfortable territory.

No the FSM did all of that.
You shouldn't take credit for other's work, user.

>we can assume there is no god
No we can't. There's no justification for that assumption. You may assume it's the more likely assumption to be true. But I don't. And logic requires all competent parties to agree to the premises.

how is he taking credit?

He said his god did everything that FSM did.

There's no authoritative testimony that the one true God who created the universe is spaghetti monster shaped. And the Holy Spirit tells me he is indeed not.

if SFM did all, that then you are talking about the same entity and therefore arguing for the same thing
you just have minor differences in your theories

The noodly appendage tells me that FSM did all that.
Check mate I guess.

but you're doing the exact same thing

>A lot of them are airtight if you have certain philosophical assumptions.
>Assume X implies Y.
>X is known to be true, therefore Y.
^That's not logic, and really no different than saying Y is true because I say so.

>SFM
i need to stop watching 3d porn

>THAT'S
>THE
>POINT
How are you people this dense?
FSM IS A JOKE
IF YOU TAKE ANY OF THESE ARGUMENTS SERIOUSLY THEN YOU ARE A JOKE
FUCK

There is a difference between.
"God does not exist."
And "The God you have made claims about does not exist."
God only starts becoming impossible when people begin assigning attributes to it/him/her/them that can be verified or falsified.
That may be true, but if it is God has not deigned to reveal it's nature to me yet, so all I can do is wait on that. As long as those people who follow a specific God continue to make untrue claims or impose their faith on others I will continue to oppose them.

...

Should I expect a reply worthy of my intellectual attention?

We could also assume we live in the matrix or that the universe doesn't even exist. Assume whatever you want, you don't need justification. That's why I brought up the FSM. The thing which bothers me is when people say their assumptions must be true, when they obviously are not.

No, I can't bend down that low.

...

FSM has entirely different tenets and principals just like any other of the millions of religions that have claimed their god created everything throughout time.
>God only starts becoming impossible when people begin assigning attributes to it/him/her/them that can be verified or falsified.
No shit.
but claiming something exists without defining it is completely meaningless.
The second you attach magical attributes to god is it false.
So you either have a false statement or a meaningless one. Take your pick.

>in this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony science, but because I am enlightened by my faith to the true master of the universe, Lord Yahweh, protector of Yisrael and the twelve tribes

""""""arguments"""""""

I don't believe you.

>look all these sad atheists, desperately trying to find truth in human made stuff like science that is constantly changing. Meanwhile I have achieved the highest possible enlightenment by simply reading the ancient and sacred Hebrew texts that remained unchanged throughout times, I am ready to face any challenge in this world while at the same time I am in a constant state of euphoria, due to my closer proximity to the divine

>religion
>instills morals

huehuehue

EXACTLY
Now you're getting it, champ.
We'll make a logical thinker out of you yet.

>There is a difference between.
>"God does not exist."
>And "The God you have made claims about does not exist."

True. However, if no-one ever claims that some god exists, then there is absolutely no need to make a refutation at all. There is no general case for denying the existence of god(s). Only specific ones. Which is kind of the point I was making.

>I simply cannot believe that its 2016 years after the birth of our lord Yeshua Christ, and people still deny his divinity. Its almost as if they never even read the ancient Judaic texts that specifically confirm his divinity. I swear to Yahweh, if I wasn't living in this athiest ruled society today I would go all deus vault on these heathens

>when they obviously are not
Can you prove that the FSG doesn't exist?

>we chose

No, only one person is carrying on their genes in this picture, and that's the women. The man is not the father, will never be the father, and his line will die with him.

God damn these people need to just be shot for such insanity.

or you can choose the red pill
I can't tell you the truth, but I can show you the way to reach it but I won't promise you anything
will you take it or pass and return to sleep?

stay mad

What makes you think I'm mad?

>Just as I expected, all the atheist retreated to their holes, no one has the guts to argue with me. Just so you know, I am extensively well read In the Torah, New testament and all the apocrypha texts. I also memorized all the Chronicles from the Old testament in the original Hebrew. I would like to see an """"educated"""" atheist try to argue with me

We can't prove the matrix, god, or even the universe exist. We must assume some things. So I assume universe exists and god doesn't. Claiming your assumptions must be true and others are wrong is basically religion and it bothers me.

I'm completely fine with infidels. Many of my best friends and family are non-believers. I'm not atheistist. Whether you believe or not is irrelevant to me. I am just here to testify to the truth.

>He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

internet yelling all caps style

We don't have to assume anything.

> memorizing the torah

thats what jews do, not christians

What are you suggesting?

Fine, faggot. Feel free to convince me*.

*alliteration not required

Unlike your religion, tolerance for non-believers is actually written into the doctrines of the FSM. In fact, it's one of the founding principals.
Stick around for a while. You might actually learn how the internet works.
Here I'll give you a free tip:
When people say "lol" they're not actually laughing out loud.

> the universe and God existing are mutually exclusive events

wat

>I will continue to oppose them.
Good goy.

no, he will just keep mocking you with our fedora meme, because he is butthurt

you don't need beliefs to function in life

>I am always amused when athiest are trying to deny god. They all get so mad and start babbling about big explosions and other phony stuff. I simply keep calm and repeat them my favourite bible quote. This immediately shuts them down and makes them mad. I converted 23 athiest so far with my intellectual power

> tolerance for non-believers

why would a christian be expected to "tolerate" (approve of) disbelief? according to Christians, unbelievers will go to hell. By approving of their disbelief, they would be wishing someone to go to hell