Debating atheist

>Debating atheist.
>Religion isn't true because science.
>What makes science true?
>Because it's muh logical.
>Implying logic isn't subjective.
They can't even argue.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/DqejESIO7sc
youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o
youtu.be/lhC7i_YmzKk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I'll bite.

>logic isn't subjective

Pretty vague statement from what I can tell in the context I think you're trying to use it in.

Are you saying things fall up for some people?

Are you saying there are times where a match can't be blown out?

Are you saying there someone has aged in reverse before?

Also, Logic isn't factual in case you're trying to imply those two terms are related.

For the sake of science and logic being used together and if you want to throw "fact" and known things there, when we say we know things we are never certain. We take them as though they are reasonably sound claims.

If black holes are proven to not be true sometimes in the future, I'll accept it and realize we were assuming.

cuck

>this is how godfags debate
Top kek, funny how religion is a bigger meme than 'cuck'

Presuppositionalism is simply pseudophilosophy that deserve to be shat at and mocked

kill yourself child molester

>implaying deduction is subjective

Flying spaghetti monster. Illogical? Lad logic is subjective.

so, you are basically claiming that science is a religion too?
there is nothing to argue about then, go believe in your bearded all mighty while i believe in evolution.
what a weak bait, try harder

Science is fact
Logic is just a means to an end.

=/=

false equivalency is
not an argument

It may or may not be subjective, but it is certainly not complete (since there is at least one self-contradictory fact -- existence exists).

In other words, the transcendetal is real. Human logic does not define the limits of reality but only of human conception and the mathematical structure of our perceptual world (the physical universe).

buttmad cuck

>Science is fact

Prove it

Only a God would be capable of logic.

Since logic requires omniscience to be considered valid.

lol

>its this thread again

Also, I'm still waiting for somebody to design an experiment that could prove or disprove God, let alone carry it out.

If God doesn't come when you call for him, that doesn't prove there is no God, it proves that if there is a God, you aren't him.

So what's your experiment?

How would you even BEGIN to test?

What conditions?

Science is based on observation. Religion is based on imagination.

thread reminds me of
youtu.be/DqejESIO7sc

>science rests on falsifiability

Science is based on perpetually refuting itself by design

You will never get a stable "fact" through science

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Also, I'm utterly SHOCKED that people think Science has somehow "defeated" religion.

I thought the whole point of Science is that it's constantly changing, constantly approaching the truth, that no case is ever closed, that no debate is ever settled.

I think it's funny that we still have to refer to the "Theory of Gravity," but yeah, the whole God thing is totally settled.

It's the old, "do you know everything?" question again.

>Do you know Everything?
No.
>Do you know half of everything?
I doubt it.
>What about 1%? Do you think you know 1% of everything? Let's say you do...
Yes?
>Well maybe God exists in the other 99% of everything that you don't know.
Well you can't prove a negative!
>Not only that, it's damned hard to prove a positive, too.

>Science is based on
The physical world my man. Religion has no basis.

What are new inventions based on?

It can't be observation, that leads to reproduction, not innovation.

Hmm, maybe imagination isn't as unreal as you think.

Maybe other things are real that you think relatively unreal, and vice-versa. Physicists sure think so.

God does not exist is that sort of extraordinary claim just as much as God does exist

>the physical world is all that exists

Impossible. God is supernatural while science only deals with the natural world. So its futile to try to use science to disprove or prove the existence of god. Its a philosophical debate.

this

is a

>current year
>not worshiping KEK
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU

pepe thread

What about that which is dismissed despite evidence?

What about the fact that there would be new evidence coming in every new second in time?

Don't you think you've made up your mind awfully early?

Are you even aware that there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence?

And finally, what about this evidence? Have you seen it already?
youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o

youtu.be/lhC7i_YmzKk


PRAISE HIM

PRAISE KEK

Inventions are either based on existing technologies and understandings, or on new observations discovered through creativity.

There's no evidence for anything other than it existing.

>The physical world my man.
Prove that materialism is real.

You're more correct than you think, but the exchange you outlined was still retarded.

>What is the Argument from Ignorance?

Sorry m9 I'm a Christian

and then there was kek
and kek saw the kek and that it was kek

The collective experience of reality is proof enough unless you think you're the only consciousness in existence.

Not at all what I claimed. I said there is NO evidence that worlds other than this one exist.

How can atheists, who claim to have NO GOD OTHER than Science, not understand what you have so perfectly explained?

Do they truly worship that which they know not of? The same accusation they levy against the religious?

And they truly deny that atheism is a religion?????

That takes the faith of at least several dozen mustard seeds.

>The collective experience of reality is proof enough unless you think you're the only consciousness in existence.
You just refuted your own "proof". Prove that any consciousness than my own is real.

>new observations discovered through creativity.

What's that? What's creativity based on?

If you're familiar with Socrates, you should know that I can always ask more questions than you have answers.

>Absence of evidence =! Evidence of absence

You may have just been too stupid to notice it (always a valid possibility)

Matter at the subatomic level is proven insubstantial. What 'materialism'?

>Prove that any consciousness than my own is real.

Stop defying your own will to fly! If you're the only consciousness, then what stops you from being God?

Quick, make me a universe!

Or maybe first you should prove that you are conscious in the first place, before we tackle flying through the air.

Doubting the existence of God is reactionary to the claim that God exists in the first place, friend- the burden of proof is on you

Otherwise, by that logic, Thor and Vishnu are just as real as God

That's not proof. Are you saying that you can't prove that any other consciousness other than my own is real? If not, then I guess there's no proof for materialism either (and consequently not for anything related to science). Damn, must suck to be an atheist and rely so heavily on dogma.

First comment best comment

>Doubting the existence of God is reactionary to the claim that God exists in the first place, friend- the burden of proof is on you

Burden of proof does not in any sense make the Argument from Ignorance valid

>Otherwise, by that logic, Thor and Vishnu are just as real as God

Yes they are. The question is which one ought to put his faith in

>Doubting the existence of God is reactionary to the claim that God exists in the first place, friend-the burden of proof is on you

It's on everyone, don't you think?

Maybe God works through individuals, and in individuals, and on individuals. In His own time, not at one time. Each of us on our own, not everyone at once.

Remember, man makes bricks. God makes rocks. Man makes boards, God makes trees. Man makes a place flat, while God raises mountains and makes valleys.

Maybe you should take the burden of proof on yourself, and not wait for some fool to do it for you.

Atheists who treat atheism as a religion are retarded people who doesnt understand the concept of what they claim to believe in, and they bash religion as if they have a moral reason to do so.
We cant prove God exists and we cant really disprove it either so in the end all an atheist "should" do is to claim that it would be foolish to do or not do certain things that's been credited to a deity that we cant prove is real.

>Are you saying that you can't prove that any other consciousness other than my own is real

No, I'm saying I disproved that you're the only consciousness because if you were the ONLY consciousness, why would you defy your own will?

Why can't you say, I don't know, breathe underwater or something?

Or is this reality actually quite objectively real and also independent of your consciousness.

i.e. reality isn't stuck in here with you, you're stuck in here with it.

"Science" is a process, not a religion. It's reddit as fuck but the flying spaghetti monster uses the same reasoning as "we can't disprove or comprehend it so it must be real".

That's as impossible as proving or disproving God's existence.

Let me simplify. We can observe the physical world with our sensory organs and we can observe others making such observations (by interacting with them or using medical technology). So, we can be reasonably sure we aren't the only ones observing it.

Religion on the other hand is based purely on ideas and "experiences". There is no way to rationally accept it unless you have such an experience, and there's no way to observe one in another person either.

>science is fact

>Except global warming amd evolution, we just really think those things are real - just look at these made up drawings and charts.

Maybe agnostics are atheists and atheists are anti-theists.

>That's as impossible as proving or disproving God's existence.
Good, then there's no proof that materialism is actually real.
>
No, I'm saying I disproved that you're the only consciousness because if you were the ONLY consciousness, why would you defy your own will?
Except that's not really disproving anything. Try again.

fpbp

/thread

>Let me simplify. We can observe the physical world with our sensory organs and we can observe others making such observations (by interacting with them or using medical technology). So, we can be reasonably sure we aren't the only ones observing it.

Doesn't make those observations any less or more real (cf. ad populum)

>Religion on the other hand is based purely on ideas and "experiences". There is no way to rationally accept it unless you have such an experience, and there's no way to observe one in another person either.

There is no way to scientifically accept it

There is a rational case for (the Christian) religion and I am happy to make it

>falling for the truth meme
Logic is built on axioms, which aren't necessarily true.

logic is subjective the same way morals are.

you can say "MUH THATS YOUR OPINION", but the same logic that builds space stations and nuclear powerplants disproves religion. While religious logic creats niggers.

You're only left to go full "muh logic need to prove itself to be proven, muh leap of faith" but that retarded and wont lead you to shit and its nigger lv.

The problem is that the Argument from Ignorance is your problem to deal with. Nobody is claiming God doesn't exist, you are claiming he does, hence the burden of proof.

Argument from Ignorance doesn't come into it. Nobody is denying the existence of God on the grounds of a lack of (((evidence))), people just don't believe there is a God. That statement does not imply that there is no God, merely that person B does not believe in him.

>Yes they are. The question is which one ought to put his faith in
Do you believe in the existence of all Gods and deities?

>Implying logic isn't subjective.

I'm god.

you can't prove that I'm not, I'm all powerful

Just look at these dubs

>Religion on the other hand is based purely on ideas and "experiences". There is no way to rationally accept it unless you have such an experience, and there's no way to observe one in another person either.

By two or three witnesses let a thing be established, eh?

What about mass-hallucinations.

If two people hallucinate the same thing, is it real?

What about fifty people?

What about a whole CITY?

What about TWO cities?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg

>there's no proof that materialism is actually real
No, but I personally experience reality, so I can accept it. I've never had a spiritual experience so I have nothing to base faith on.

The crux of it for me is that because you can't apply logic to them, religions are as credible as me or any other user claiming to be God. There is no reason to follow them except tradition.

And I haven't read any philosophy so gimme a break with the fallacies.

This poster has divine Godly dubs, but our limited human perception cannot understand them.

He is powerful enough to make 31 into repeating digits, and we must believe him.

PRAISE user!

>Nobody is claiming God doesn't exist, you are claiming he does

Prove which claim came first.

Chicken? or Egg?

>Weak Atheism

Shitty copout m9. A dog lacks a belief in God, doesn't tell you absolutely anything about whether God exists or not

You are just cowedly refusing to make a stance on the matter

>Do you believe in the existence of all Gods and deities?

Ought I?

>By two or three witnesses let a thing be established, eh?
I'm talking about literally the entire human population. Are you telling me you aren't real?

And yes if a bunch of people observe something it warrants investigating. Who says what you linked was a hallucination?

>I've never had a spiritual experience

Did you try following the detailed instructions step-by-step?

Well the fedora tier people sure fit the Anti-theists camp more.

>A dog lacks a belief in God

citation needed

>No
Great, so science is based on a fundamentally unprovable concept. Explain to once more, how science is factual? It's literally equivalent to religion in terms of dogma and belief.

>people here talking of logic and pretending they use logic
>none of them could even produce a simple proof in first order logic
top kek, keep on arguing. you will never reach true agreement since you are not even using valid logical systems in your arguments

>There is no reason to follow them except tradition.

The Christian tradition brings with it things inherent in and only in the Christian religion (a Christian peace, a Christian content (synonym for happiness), a Christian unity and a homogeneous cultural identity in congruence with more of our ancestors' history)

It's a lot more rational than keeping ourselves ideologically divided (or united in classical, social, and/ or cultural liberalism)

>Who says what you linked was a hallucination?

I didn't.

But you didn't see it, so you might.

It would seem to me that you pick and choose when to take things on blind faith and when to be more scrutinizing.

Like everybody.

Irreligion only idealology

>What is informal logic?

Right so is Jesus sitting next to you then? Can you hear God or Allah giving you divine instructions? I imagine not.

You can however see the room you're sitting in. That's already a difference.

>You are just cowedly refusing to make a stance on the matter

Exactly! Why would I make a claim to something I cannot possibly prove? All I can affirm is this- I simply do not believe in the existence of the spiritual, or a God.

What you're doing is baiting the trap of "You cannot claim God doesn't exist because you freely admit that you cannot physically prove he does not exist" and then getting frustrated when I don't bite. The problem for you is that this still doesn't support your claim that a God does exist.

kent hovind is to hardcore for a atheist i had a alot of problems with dino man even when young christian

>It's a new worlders unironically talk about religion episode

Why did religious progress stagnate in America?

Ok then, how about a fly?

It's something you literally made up in your mammal brain. While a decent tool in shitposting and hunting rabbits, it is not logically sound and valid.

I try not to take anything on blind faith except when it's pointless or impractical not to. (Like accepting that I exist and, for example, will die if I don't tend to my physical form.)

How much of the Bible have you read user?

Someone prove that logic is real pro tip you can't lel rekt

Schizophrenic people can see things that you consider to be hallunications. Guess these hallunications exist then, since they are visible to the human eye.

Most modern "atheists" would get blown the fuck out by Plato. Most atheists are nothing more than modern day Sophists, fools that pretend to have knowledge when they're nothing more than masters of false opinion.

Since no one can time travel, the only way for an ancient religion to prove itself true would be via predictions that are too big to plan, coming true to an exact and accurate point.

Logically, if the predictions are all true, bar none, then the religion might be true. But they would have to be extremely specific. And there's always an argument that until it comes true, it is false. Therefore, all religions are false, until proven true and shouldn't be held on faith alone - which destroys many religions in itself.

>Exactly! Why would I make a claim to something I cannot possibly prove?

Because otherwise you have no place in having this conversation (if you're only interested in things you believe you could know)

>The problem for you is that this still doesn't support your claim that a God does exist.

It's not a problem for me. I'm not looking to prove to you that God exists

I'm trying to get you to have faith in Him

I get that this is a b8 thread, but you're holding up Plato as the golden standard here? That nigga is the reason why we still have sophistry in the world. Thank God he produced Aristotle otherwise we'd be dealing with a world of ideal forms rather than empiricism.

>formal logic is not something made up in the human mammal brain as well

What you decribe is literally what relevation is though..
>GOD SPEAKS TO ME, FOR REALSIES.. I'M TOTALLY NOT MENTALLY INSANE, PLEASE HEAR MY WORD AND WORSHIP THE VOICES IN MY HEAD

>Talking about 'making things up' in a debate about religion

lmao

Formal logic is true even if there would be no life.

He started it >:P

>the physical world is all we can observe
fix'd

Prove it

I can't prove reality if I'm a part of it user. This discussion is impossible.

My point is that there isn't even somewhere to start when it comes to religion. Like I said earlier, I could claim to be God and it would be as credible.

Exactly what I'm trying to say. Religions are baseless claims, not observed phenomena.

Logic isn't subjective. This board worries me sometimes.