When did you grow out of Theism?

>burden of proof lies on those who assert God exists
>all proof from them is usually "muh feels" shit
>contradictions throughout the Bible
>Occam's Razor

As logical well read intellectuals you surely don't believe in God do you?

Other urls found in this thread:

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1010.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because, Religion brings me comfort, I feel happier knowing the truth of the world and what (((they))) do. If I discard Religion and be a athetist why bother living in a doomed world with a doomed race when I can kill my self and find the truth out that everyone wants to know.
TL;DR
Religion brings comfort to millions, so fuck you and fuck your science god.

one of the coolest tattoos

yeah science has brought clean water and electricity to billions. Next time you shit just leave it in the toilet, don't flush because indoor plumbing is only for devil worshipers. You are such a dumbfuck.

*tips sombrero*

Holy fuck the left tattoo is so cringeworthy.

Then kill your self. Why stick around? You might get by okay. May get married, and if you are and have kids, they may be successful but doubt it due to the coming wars in the future. Why stick around? You clearly know better then me. So tell me without resorting to memes what exactly is there to live for without a god?
The white race can't be saved, WW3 will ensure that, The earth can't be saved. So why live? So you can take credit for what some team of scientist in Cern find out? What meaning do YOU have in your life?

redpill

Every atheist I have ever met has been an arrogant ignoramus with a fetish for experimental sciences.

Before you start asking for proof, I'm not here to debate the existence of God.
I don't care if you believe or not and I am under no obligation to help you.
I think it's funny that you live such empty lives and yet you feel so superior.

>When the cover up tattoo you get is uglier than what you started with

>Shiggs McDiggs

> e=mc^2
lol. 2 shit tattoos

Being an edgy teenager "I don't believe in God look how smart I am."

This is retarded.
An infinite regression with a special clause is intellectual bankruptcy.

Why?

Because it relies on a special clause i.e "because I said so".
The argument falls apart at the final step because it abandons logic in an attempt to escape the infinite regression.

In which step, precisely, does it fall apart?

It falls apart when it tries to insert God into an equation that does not need it.
Why does there have to be a start? What logical argument is there for this? Why can't the regression go on for eternity?

While I think that it is pretty unlikely that there is a God, I still choose to believe in the possible existence of one, and I do believe in the NEED of one for humanity to follow laws without one human being superior than another one. (At a basic level, it becomes a "oh, God says you should do X" instead of "oh, I say you should do X"; then time goes on, laws are created, they are followed and then people may choose not to believe in a God, but thanks to inertia they will still follow the law)

dude don't ask me to validate your pathetic lack of vitality. No one is here to pat you on the back. You said something fucking stupid.If you so worried about the white race why don't you go drink some koolaid before the great war like your buddy charlie manson. I mean aside from you stupid comments i already despised you for being here in the first place. Bibles don't feed people or clothe people or provide shelter. that comes from the hard work of intuitive minds. Just to be clear if your asking why you should keep going when you shitty meme of a god doesn't inspire your hope I won't give any encouragement. Frankly i think you should remove yourself from the gene pool. If you asking how i get the will to live, well I find that from exercising my agency and observing the nihilistic hedonism of the collective conscience. I also really like being mean to the contemptible swine that gathers on this website.

every religious person i have ever met has either been part of a suicide cult or been an arrogant ignoramus with a fetish for ancient scrificial blood ritual.

Ikr? It's like ifuckinglovescience in tattoo form. The only thing it's missing is a portrait of Bill Nye or Carl Sagan.

I see, so you think Slide 10 is where the argument falls apart. I agree actually, but only on a gut hunch -- I've been looking for someone who can mount an effective counterargument.

I was hoping you'd have a more substantial argument as to why there can't be a "start" other than "I can't see why there has to be one." That there might be some logic that shows that such a start can't exist.

10th Grade

>Muh E=m*c^2

This is literally the wrong formula. Normies believe it though.

The real one is:

E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2

E=m*c^2 is only the rest case, when velocity v=0

...

And also, p isn't just momentum, it's relavitistic momentum, which has a gamma factor modifying it

Gamma = (1+v^2/c^2)^-1/2

Aaand I, an adult, mixed up left and right. They're both horrible.

Just because it's the special case of rest mass doesn't make it wrong.

Plus if there's more than 2 variables the normies get scared.

Why assume God? I could just as reasonably assert that we live in a computer simulation and a 13 year old is our unmoved mover, or that another dimension exists that is purely actual that we came from. Each of these claims, including the God claim, can be as quickly refuted as they are asserted as there is no evidence.

Comfort breeds complacency only by facing the harsh realities of this world will we be able to do what we must to fulfill the 14 words.

Take life like a man you bitch

The regression only stops because the person making the argument needs to insert God to validate their own personal beliefs.


I used to think I was an atheist but then I realized that I don't know.
Then I realized I don't care.
Now I realise that it doesn't matter what I think.
There may be a God, there may not.
But if God exists then it is surely not the same God that is written about in the religion of man.

you throw out a stereotype in place of a real argument kill yourself. my life has plenty of meaning without believing in some mystical sky daddy.

Aquinas doesn't assume God, he deduces God from the premises. The divine properties are logical conclusions of the premises. Aquinas also never claims God until the ways have been fully realized and their implications and conclusions taking to their full end. Also, Tommy is t arguing for a Christian God here, only a being of pure actuality as classical theists understood it. You clearly don't understand the argument

Bullshit.
There is no logical reason the infinite regression has to stop.

I 100% appreciate the intent of this image, but:

>Old Testament
>Nothing to do with Jesus

also

>400 years

come on mang

Why did he tattoo a nigger on his arm?

I don't buy the Abrahamic version of god but I've no doubt there's some 'other' we're unaware of out there

>what is the big bang

When I was 13 and became an edgy libertarian. But then I grew up.

Proably because they are a cuckold. Tattoos are for sailors, prisoners and numale cucks.

Explain why?

The big bag but it does not offer any information as to what if anything came before it. It's an information dead zone.

Who cares faggot?

exactly
fuck god and fuck fuck

You explain why has to end.
It's not my argument. I'm just pointing out that it isn't a good one.

>tattoos

Degeneracy

Conditions and some form of primal matter still needed to be in place and "in motion" for the Big Bang to take place. So you're still left with the conclusion of the prime mover it pure actuality.

Also,

>What is will?

You do realize that the Big Bang was first formulated and proposed by lamaitre, a Catholic monk don't you?

Agh I see, you didn't bother to read or understand the argument. Got it.

You dont understand the Gods if you dont beleave in them.

No. A prime mover is just a cop out argument. Sure it's nice and tidy but it has zero credibility under examination.
>"Everything has a cause except that one special thing"
t.you

When questioned about the dumb shit written in the Bible like a talking snakes and shit they perform the best mental gymnastic of all time:
DUDE METAPHOR LMAO!
Yes because your god Yahweh is a 2deep4you hipster riddle master that would hedge your supposed eternal salvation on dank symbolism bro. No you stupid fuck the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Saying otherwise means you are as much of a pussy for your bronze age beliefs as you are retarded.

Your argument I'm has been refuted over and over.
Only die hard christcucks try and rationalize this shit.

This is you

>kraut
>can be asatru
>is a fucking green hair moon orgy wiccan
god I fucking hate the shell that Germany became

someday humans are gonna make some crazy technology that allows us to understand creatures like snek, and then we're gonna say huh, maybe thats what was going on in the bible.

im one of those fagets that thinks that civilizations more technologically advanced than ours have fallen at least once before

You're trolling now. Just admit you didn't bother to actual read what Aquinas wrote. He clearly deduces why infinite regress is impossible. Almost everyone in philosophical academia agrees that from a logical standpoint Tommy's argument is sound, solid, and still viable to this day.

At any rate, all you're doing at this point is basically saying
>Nah brah infinite regress can exist because God is for stupid people haha gotcha theist.

Not an argument

ever since I found out Santa isn't real. I realized if everyone around you will lie to children about Santa, they will lie about God also. This has never turned out to be wrong. God/Jesus is simply Santa Claus for adults. He knows when you are good or bad so be good for goodness sakes...Glad I can be good for the right reasons, not because of threat of torture or promise of paradise. Virtually no religion, especially not Christian theism, that can see beyond a carrot/stick paradigm.

I've become spiritual recently after being hardcore aithest for a long time. But I can never seem to bring myself to buy into this modern day religious bullshit. Its all a power trip and nobody wants to admit it. Change is coming soon. Im sure of it

>getting E=mc^2 as a tattoo
>not Banach's fixed point theorem
Fucking pleb

When I started taking anti-psychotics. True story.

It's been debated and challenged but never fully refuted. Just because Dawkins is a mongoloid when it comes to theology/philosophy doesn't make him right. Maybe you should try actually reading more philosophy rather than staying in you nu atheist hug box.

The argument still stands and you've said nothing to refute besides claiming that it has been refuted. No argument and no thought. You're just sperging out and blindly justifying your worldview based on pure ignorance and dismissal.

Buddy, you have made no arguments here.
Calling on Aquinas isn't going to help you make your argument, the onus is on you to do that.
Claiming victory when you have presented nothing does not equal victory except in your own head.
You have not given any evidence or arguments against an infinite regression only mentions of another work that you can't even present yourself.

Calling me a troll is the icing on the cake.

>putting your faith in man

lmao

>Calling on Aquinas isn't going to help you make your argument,

Considering that's the argument we are discussing, then it makes sense why I'm talking about Aquinas

>the onus is on you to do that.
See > when you have presented nothing does not equal victory except in your own head.
See >You have not given any evidence or arguments against an infinite regression
See Slide 9-13

Tell me where Aquinas is LOGICALLY flawed.

take out the mc squared and thats a pretty dope tattoo, especially for a fuckin coverup.

also, i never grew out of theism, I just never subscribed to it because it never made sense.

Being religious is retarded for every reason. If your argument for being religious is "muh whats the point if thers no gawd" you are an idiot.

Also.
You're not even smart enough to recognise special pleading. How about you read the sticky newfag.

Two words.
SPECIAL PLEADING.

Your whole argument is rekt.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence.

>>burden of proof lies on those who assert God exists
Self-referential language (pre-Babylon)

>>contradictions throughout the Bible
Religion is belief, not truth. Finding truth involves the application of reason (logos).

>>Occam's Razor
Cuts both ways. Applying the mininum number of assumptions to the question of the existence of deity returns no conclusion, denial of existence requires omniscience.

Kinda like this statement right?

Sup Forums is terrible at philosophy.

>Your whole argument is rekt.

Sure thing buddy.

again, show me where Aquinas' argument is logically flawed.

pro-tip: you can't

...

around 13 or so, I still value Catholic traditions

Funny, I did the opposite.
Had an atheist tattoo I covered with a Latin Cross.
Don't worry user, you'll grow up some day.

SPECIAL PLEADING.
How is it not special pleading?

>REEEEEEEEEEEEE

you.

>Tell me where Aquinas is LOGICALLY flawed

As far as I'm concerned I just can't understand how Aquinas concluded that the initial cause of things HAS TO BE a divine entity. Couldn't it be a giant fucking explosion that sent matter flying across space? That seems as good as explanation as any other involving intelligent beings designing life.

>Nothing exposed into everything
>Rational
wew lad

>Jew desert god: kill your son for me lol
>Desert cuck: ok
>Jew desert god: just kidding lol
>Desert cuck: wow thanks you are the best, most just god

Western cuck, 20xx: the bible truly is the pinnacle of moral theory and human philosophy and we should base our civilization on it.

That's you exiting the thread with you tail between your legs.
The cosmological argument existed before Aquinas and smarter people have tried to make it work. But it doesn't without special pleading.

That guy is just a zealot sheep honestly. First he drank the religion kool-aid then realized that wasn't cool so he drank the "euphoric" kool-aid. Doesn't seem like someone who can come to his own conclusions.

Western cuck, 20xx: the bible today is as relevant for human society as it was thousands of years ago.

>literally pages of ancient jewish family trees
>literally pages of autistically describing a box for desert god to live in

previous historical/mythical figures born of virgin birth ie Horus and Prometheus also both had the ability to perform miracles and also raised from dead after 3 days.
Theists= social slave + low cognitive ability + need to feel they understand how things came to be = pretentious niggers

>As far as I'm concerned I just can't understand how Aquinas concluded that the initial cause of things HAS TO BE a divine entity

Because he deduces the divine qualities out of the empirical premises.

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

>Couldn't it be a giant fucking explosion that sent matter flying across space?
Sure it could. But in order for that to happen you have to have certain conditions in place which existed prior to the explosion. Scientific laws, primal matter, vacuums, etc. etc. etc. all need to be in place in order for this to have happened. None of these things could have popped into existence without a primal force which would actualize this potential. So it only strengthens the argument, it doesn't reduce it. Again, Aquinas is not arguing for the Christian God with this argument, only the existence of a being of pure actuality which necessarily must exist for any potentials to be actualized.

>That's you exiting the thread with you tail between your legs.
Not an argument

>The cosmological argument existed before Aquinas and smarter people have tried to make it work. But it doesn't without special pleading.
"Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption."
But Aquinas gives proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. So you fail again.

And the comparing your two possible options, God did it or a big explosion, we then ask which has the most evidence. We can measure cosmic background radiation. We can not measure God, though his official story in Genesis is nothing like what science would describe the origins of our world to be.

>The cosmological argument existed before Aquinas and smarter people have tried to make it work. But it doesn't without special pleading.

Solving the chicken and egg problem is a special case, logic doesn't have an answer to the question of what the ultimate source was or is.

>Aquinas gives proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption
Post it up then.

I've been an atheist for years but I just realized this isn't special pleading.

The actual and the potential are different concepts. Only the potential has the requirement in this argument, so when the actual has no potential it isn't special pleading.

Interesting. I'll have to think on this.

Man cannot live on bread alone, dawg

Absolutly rekt lmao

>God did it or a big explosion

IOW either an uncreated intelligence did it or something with no apparent purpose exploded for no apparent reason, ultimately resulting in beings that can contemplate this very question.

Including both omniscience and omnipotence as characteristics, inserting a God with these into our current world would lead me to say your god is evil. Since no being with knowledge of everything, while being a perfect being at that, will allow a world as chaotic as this to exist without him using his unlimited power to change it. Why would he change it, he made it this way according to you, so of course this reality is perfect in every possible way? I'm sure any person who looks at the world ans thinks "God did a good job" instead of asking why he would be so psychopathic as to let millions die in ignorance of his message and packaged off to his bff's bbq, because he(god) made their lives that they would die in ignorance. He also made AIDS, cancer, alzheimers and many other painful methods to kill his beloved subjects, and mows down personally millions of infants per year as part of his great master plan.
Psycho

AIDS is nature's way of punishing men who stick their penis into other men's anus :^)

No exception needed.

Argument in slides:
>all potentials need an actual to become actual

Where in the image is it stated a actual implies a previous potential? Nowhere. You're changing the argument and assigning special pleading.

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1010.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm

Once you grasp this concept the argument makes total sense.

But I'm thoroughly Agnostic and not the "Atheist but doesn't want to label Atheist" kind

I'll go full religous fervor mode once we find a legitimate and flag for some kind of higher power even if it turns out our "God" is some programmer trying to make a world using AI.

Curious, are you catholic?

Hi Epicurus.

Boethius would like to have a word with you.

You may also want to read some Dostoyevsky...specifically The Brothers Karamazov

>99700785

Yes.

>>reason
Because material things need reasons to exist, interact and do things. If something exists without some reason which specifically impacts my life as a human, its very existence is nonsensical.
I know that's a hyperbole but my point remains, just because something has no human "reason" to do something, doesn't mean asserting that it happened is wrong.
We are not completely sure whether the big bang is correct, we are also unsure whether a God made it, both hypothesis are made by many people, I just find that the one possibility has far more physical and material evidence supported by rational and peer reviewed theories and research. The other is asserted by people who feel that if this piece of scientific lore finally reaches a point in our culture where we accept it the same we accept that thunder DOES NOT WANT to kill us and eclipses aren't gods eating and spitting out celestial bodies, we might realise the God of the gaps is real and has to adapt once again.