Why are atheists so ignorant?

>Check out muh straw man!

Notice how you deliberatly avoided asking me how i can contradict it because you have made up your mind that the Bible is true, therefore nothing anyone says can change your mind. And when i present the arguments, you leave the thread or change the subject, just like in every other thread.

Im an atheist.
>God is a big meanie head. He kills children! (btw I'm pro-choice)

only applies if youre stupid enough to claim that God is love and Just.

BTW im pro life.

>lol flying spaghetti monster lmao

Its supposed to be sattire.

>there is no logical reason to believe in God... no I've never read Aristotle or Aquinas, why do you ask?

Ive read both. And more.Are you saying that either, or any person in the past 5000 years has presented a logical syllogism that is both valid and sound, that demonstrates the existance of a God? Let alone a benevolent God?

>religious people are all sheeple. btw did you see that new episode of Game of Thrones last night?

Nothing really substantive, but cool story bro.

>i'm a free thinker. no one tells me what to think. let's watch some Sam Harris videos!

Again, K.

>creationism is stupid. my third grade earth science teacher told me so.

If you cant grasp your head around what was taught in 3rd grade science, then yeah, maybe you do deserve to be a theist.

>the Bible is self contradictory. what? have I read it? why would I read that BULLSHIT?

Ive read the entire thing. Multiple times.

Nothing really substantive here. So my response to this entire thing, and religion in general, is cool story bro.

>Btw the Bible is too easy to destroy, did it when I was like 18.

Bait.

No?

The young pope was a degenerate show.

>don't let the labels fool you. It's really quintessentially the same ignorance on both sides.

No, it isn't, this type of black and white autistic thinking goes very well with your stupid memeflag and you should kys.

Except that you equate thinking rationally to confirmation bias towards the bible.

Re-read the 4 gospels and get back to me.

>The concept of god lacks a coherent definition.

Well, I guess I'm working under the assumption that such people exist. I'm thinking about all those mathmeticians and scientists who are allegedly high-IQ but atheist. I'll grant them the natural intelligence, but listen to them talk about religion for more than a few seconds and they become pants-on-head retarded. literally one of the arguments i put up in the OP.

>lol flying spaghetti monster lmao

Attached: 2545a6edd.jpg (598x539, 90K)

>there are minor "contradictions" that have nothing to do with the faith
Thank you for confirming my statement, although it is puzzling you did that after saying you disagree.
I don't recall mentioning faith either.

You're so close yet so far away...

Attached: who_art_in_heven.jpg (759x960, 114K)

>all atheists are liberal dimwits

fucking retard

Incorrect.

youtube.com/watch?v=LqGMdqYM19E
Couldn't resist

>Ive read the entire thing. Multiple times.

Attached: 1483936130725.jpg (938x477, 58K)

>literally no evidence to suggest deities
>cannot refute the existence of other deities be it past or present
>b-but muh intelligent design

kys.

>lol flying spaghetti monster lmao
Not an argument.

Attached: 1525435345364556.jpg (960x541, 134K)

>existance
You're a retard.

Logic 101, faggot. A thing is not disproved by failure to provide proof. It REMAINS unknown.
You don't get to pretend your view is right by default.
There are no atheists, just faggots who are angry at God for telling them no. A neutral person would call himself an agnostic, and would not devote his life to trying to attack people who believe in God.

>avoided asking me how i can contradict it
go for it.

>that demonstrates the existance of a God? Let alone a benevolent God?
yes

I know but the picture is cool

>le bearded man in the sky

No Christian actually believes this, you retard. Every time one of you criticises Judeo-Christian philosophy or any theology really with this type of cookie cutter observation you reveal that you have never actually studied Christianity in any serious capacity. God is a concept, an unquantifiable entity and most of all a concept with which to base virtue and humility on, not a post-diet Santa Clause that has dialogues with people in their heads.

I’m not sure about that

Read the entire Bible and perform a syllogistic analysis and a formal symbolization using predicate logic and then get back to me.

To have God of an image already in your head is idolatry. Not until he shows Himself do you know what he looks like.

>Muh straw man again.

>literally no evidence to suggest deities
you should retract this hyperbole and come back with a more nuanced argument.

i know it's not an argument. funny that your image uses it though.

Attached: 312323423.jpg (720x917, 77K)

>No Christian actually believes this, you retard.
What a load of shit. There are people who literally pray to god and ask him for stuff on a daily basis. No one would do this if they ALL saw it as some "hazy abstract un-quantifiable entity" or however far you want to move the goal posts to try and lessen the blow of how mental-patient tier it is.

Even Aquinas' contemporaries thought his arguments for the existence of god were dumb

to be fair, some really dumb mega-church people kind of do believe in that God
but obviously that is not the majority and those people would be dumb no matter what they believed.

>What is a smuggie

>i know it's not an argument
Yet you've already used it twice?

>The father has a known form
That's heresy

>hazy abstract un-quantifiable entity
you can't stop strawmanning can you?
that is one of my major issues with atheists. they have a total inability to ever address the actual argument put forward by Christians. constantly either strawmanning or changing the subject.

>being a theist does not guarantee intelligence. and many atheists are naturally intelligent
intelligence is measured by whether you are right or whether you are wrong.
We judge the tree by its fruit.
Since the atheist is wrong about the idea that there is no god - how intelligent can he really be?

I'm restating your argument, user.
is this the true power of the atheist?
>i am rubber and you are glue!

>straw men are fine
Oh, OK

Attached: Atheist superiority.jpg (710x330, 74K)

>A neutral person would call himself an agnostic, and would not devote his life to trying to attack people who believe in God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Cool story bro.

Attached: Christian vs Atheist parents.jpg (1000x903, 116K)

So "not real Christians" then? Borrowing from our friends in the sand, sven?

>you can't stop strawmanning can you?
I don't think you know what a strawman is you fucking brainlet. The poster I'm replying to literally called it a "concept" and an "unquantifiable entity". You might as well just call this a strawman too, because I don't think you know what one is.

>wikipedia
Cool story, comrade!

Eh, if you line up the accounts that exist in multiple gospels there are some details that don't match. I assume this is what the previous poster was referring to.
Personally, I don't give a fuck, but no amount of wiggling changes that.

Second part meant for

Attached: Another atheist loser.jpg (500x479, 80K)

> yes

Go for it.

>Read the entire Bible and perform a syllogistic analysis and a formal symbolization using predicate logic and then get back to me.

Read the gospel and match up what is written in each one, regarding the same event that they are describing, then get back to me.

mmmm... I would say intelligence is more of the ability to understand a concept quickly and broadly.
so a person could theoretically be intelligent while also being wrong on something.
but i guess they wouldnt be THAT intelligent because they can't seem to understand the concept of God...
interesting.

>I'm restating your argument, user.
>"I-if I just k-keep saying spaghetti monster I might be right"

>some details that don't match
I can tell you don't read much, but in the last 2000 years, pretty much every supposed "contradiction" has been sorted out and explained coherently. Meanwhile atheists are still jacking off to the question of how an "all-loving, all-powerful God can allow evil to exist" without ever bothering to notice that the bible itself lists many specific things God cannot do.

zero civilizations besides humans in this universe are christian, islam, judaic, etc...

>Cool story, comrade!

Thanks. No actual response, but that pretty much sums up your entire argument, and your existance, doesnt it.

you added in the words
hazy
abstract

>You do all the work. I'll be squating on a dildo.
In other words, you lost the argument.

Funny how you athiots will say, "God isn't real until you PROVE he is," But here you are expecting me the believe in contradictions you have not proved exist.

Boy on the left will be stomping boy on the right when he grows up

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

keep in mind that:
motion = change

Oh ok, so god is "unquanitifable" and "a concept", but yet isn't hazy or abstract considering the first two terms? Tell me how something can be unquantifiable and merely a concept, yet isn't abstract or hazy given that premise

I never said they weren't "real Christians". I said that it is heresy to falsely presume to know the Fathers unrevealed form. Heresy isn't something that necessarily makes you not Christian; Like for example denying the divinity of Christ.

>I can tell you don't read much, but in the last 2000 years, pretty much every supposed "contradiction" has been sorted out and explained coherently.
>pretty much
Thanks for the chuckle. And while I appreciate your faith you do yourself a disservice by failing to just admit the obvious.

Even biblical scholars don’t fully understand the depth and revelation that the bible has to offer. It literally has layers and patterns of code on the form of language layer on top of one another. 99% of us will never peel back but a few layers, Jordan Peterson in his biblical dissections is on the right path to peeking through some layers but it’s still not enough.

The bible is literally an intelligence test of wisdom sent from the past (maybe past civ) to a future human race that is intelligent enough to interpret it, but we are still squabbling over the “scientific” validity of the top few layers

An atheist is like someone who looks at an algebra test after not studying one the entire term and throwing their hands up in the air and walking out of the room.

Attached: 783AC31A-4D7A-48F6-B173-4F0168EF758A.jpg (546x767, 60K)

>I never said they weren't "real Christians".
Fair enough. I assumed you were jumping off from the original britbong post where he claimed "No christian thinks this" when many clearly do, heresy or not.

Im not a atheist nor a theist, but only a fool would settle for just 1 theory. I have many and some i favor more because they are more rational. I do find theists just as much cringey as atheists, so its all win win for me.

Attached: 1551310315159.png (220x220, 40K)

"atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)"
-Stanford dictionary of Philosophy
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Vastly more credible than kike-a-pedia

Attached: Wikipedia.jpg (393x539, 50K)

>I haven't read any apologetics ever

Not an argument

i can only give you the Catholic perspective here, since Orthodox disagree on this point, but:
God the Father is unquantifiable in His actual nature (so to speak) but that doesn't mean we can't to some degree speak of certain "attributes" (again so to speak, since God is divinely simple) He manifests. He is not "merely" a concept, but He is a concept and a reality... or more accurately stated he is both concept and reality.
I am who Am.
We can speak of God's love, or His mercy, His justice, His wrath... we can speak of the fact that He is almighty, eternal, benevolent... we can speak of His "actions" (so to speak) throughout the world and universe and time... but we cannot truly quantify God on a level that we can quantify, say, a table, or even another human being. He is ultimately Mysterious.

Imagine you sent a GeForce graphics card back to 10,000 bc and the people of that time were squabbling over its meaning and purpose as either a door stop or a paper (scroll) weight, and taught wars over that. Only to realise it needed to wait till computers were invented to be interpreted properly. That’s the bible

Attached: 55B5307E-A839-4657-95A2-0BBEB7583979.png (690x700, 217K)

What is your preferred translation?

Bwahahahahahahahaha.
This is so much fun.

no one totally understands the totality of what the Bible has to offer.
but I don't think it is necessarily Jordan Peterson who is making the best progress on that front.

Yeah, enjoy your piles of hallucinations written by hallucinating sandnigger slaves LMAO.

Probably KJV.
You do know you're about to get your ass handed to you, right? I've got 2000 years of answers to pull from to the pathetic list of supposed contradictions atheists circle-jerk to each other. 99% of them is because atheists are retards who literally don't understand the meaning of phrases or figures of speech.

it is typically futile to defend the bible.
For two reasons.
Number 1 it doesn't need defense. It contains plenty of valuable stories, lessons, psalms, history, morality, and philosophy. Anyone who speaks of the bible without acknowledging that can be dismissed out of hand and needs not be debated.
Number 2, the Bible doubtlessly contains contradictions falsehoods inaccuracies and misleading doctrines. This again is pretty obvious and can be explained by the fact that mortal men wrote it. What's the big deal that's how it is.

To me these things are self evident.

In fact, let me save you some time. The genealogy of Jesus appears different because one follows his female ancestors (more of these because women often died young in child birth and men can still father children until old age) and the other follows the males.

Why did they do it two different ways? Because they were obsessed with RACIAL PURITY. So all in one step, your contradiction falls on its face, and we prove Jesus had to be a white man since all kikes are genetically mixed race.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

>muh figures of speech
>it's not a figure of speech if I said so
Sandnigger sheeps, as usual.

>Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

So who put God into motion.

Also, why call it God.

Keep in mind that:
Cosmological argument = countered.

>In other words, you lost the argument.

You made the claim.

>Funny how you athiots will say, "God isn't real until you PROVE he is,"

Funny how I never said that God isnt real. I dont know if God is real or not, but i have no reason to believe he is, so i dont.

I am an atheist, the only argument in favor of God is the existence of humanity and with Darwinism you don't need it anymore- Fundamentalists may be stupid but they grasp the essential concept that evolution makes God obsolete.

>the Bible doubtlessly contains contradictions falsehoods inaccuracies and misleading doctrines.
The misleads are because people screw up.
The authors/translators were OBSESSED with getting it right. They certainly would have noticed the kind of obvious contradictions athiots are always claiming to have found. We have to pretend the authors were literally retards instead of bright men who believed their soul was at stake.
Typos? To be sure.
Mistranslations? Sometimes, but it's mostly because the meaning of words distorts over time.
Inaccuracies? It depends on how literally you choose to take parables and figures of speech. I don't think they though pi was EXACTLY three, or that mustard LITERALLY had the tiniest of all seeds.

Not an argument

i mean, the bible is retarded

>plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

If thats the definition you want to use, then im fine with saying im neither an atheist nor a theist.

So whats your point?

>You made the claim.
Actually if you read back in the thread, you will find it is you who made the first claim of our exchange. Don't put words in my mouth, faggot.

>So who put God into motion.
god.
the one who can move others can move itself.
But.
The argument distinguishes dualistically between mover and moved.
Therefore your question is invalid.
Only those things that can be moved can be moved.
A mover is not something that is moved.

That stems from the fact that these thought exercises separate mover and moved.

It's kind of like saying the motor moves the car, and you ask what moves the motor. The motor is not a car, hence it is not among the things, that are moved.

They'll just say
>he doesn't count yah mongrel non-believers
Then you will give exception, and ask "let's say that's true for argument's sake, even though it's retarded as fuck, what makes YOUR religion the right one? "
>because muh bible
Typical lying Christcucks.

Attached: 1554709533234.gif (840x488, 511K)

Agnostics don't go out of their way to berate people over a belief toward which they are neutral.
Let's call you a God-hater, or an enemy of God. It just seems to fit you best.

Right wingers
>Why r Athiests so dumb my God they are stupid!
Left wingers
>Why r Religious people so stupid Gosh!.
Both of you just kill yourselves.

Attached: Shareblue bonus.jpg (600x335, 45K)

Attached: SmuggieCentrist.png (640x480, 14K)

The only gods are the reptilians unironically. We are monkey experiment aftermath

Attached: CE000A57-8F46-4C39-9B58-8CFCB5D62FF5.jpg (600x301, 124K)

>So who put God into motion.
You don't understand... common error:

The question of "who put God into motion" is self-contradictory. But let's back up and get rid of the word "God" and simply refer to this as "The First Mover"

Imagine you have a series of causal events. As in one thing causes another thing, which in turn causes another thing, and so on. Begin to trace that back and you MUST reach a First Cause which is itself uncaused. why? because remember that this is a causal relationship:
the only reason each event is occurring is because of the previous cause. this cannot go back to infinity... why?
what is the definition of infinity? no end, right? so if the causal relation goes back to infinite regress then it cannot exist because there is no first cause. you see what I mean? infinite regress literally means: no first cause. but without the first cause causing the second cause, there could be no second cause. but infinite regress necessitates that there be no first cause, because if there was a first cause, itself uncaused, then it would terminate at some finite point and would necessarily not be infinite.
so for every causal chain where each subsequent cause is necessitated by the previous cause, there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.

>Also, why call it God.
Because it is:
The Cause which is Uncaused
The Mover which is Unmoved
The Creator which is Uncreated
Pure Act (no potentiality)
Intelligence itself
Being itself.

what else could we call it but God?

I want there to be a God because I'm afraid of dying, but it's always been kind of hard for me to believe. Is there any reading people might recommend for people who are questioning?