Showing all 142 replies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18513724
look, your dad doesn't live in the sky, OK? There's no giant bearded male homo sapiens sapiens in the clouds, alright? and if he were, he probably wouldn't be angry if you masturbated, Nacho Burritez
>>18513890
joo tell em, cabrone!
>>
File: 1780529287588356.png (12.9 KB)
Atheism isn't the hatred of God, what you're thinking of is Misotheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. You can't hate something you don't believe in. Misotheists do believe in God, they just don't like God. It's somewhat related to Dystheism, which is the belief that God himself is actually evil or not wholly-good
If an atheist was simply out to hate God, wouldn't they simply call themselves Dystheists instead?
>>
File: Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg (1).png (216.6 KB)
>>18513856
>>
>>
>>18513724
If you actually believe in him then he have to agree he does some truly fucked up shit. For edgy teenagers that's usually what makes them question whether god is real at all. And is a common gateway to atheism.
More adult people usually got past any emotional baggage and just look at it as silly fairy tales that make a lot of people do stupid shit.
>>
>>
>>18513724
Atheists don't hate god. Why do people that believe in god start with assumptions and stretch it with fallacies to create a narrative they project on to others? Pathological belief system in god =/= philosophy (critical thinking)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18514107
>i asked for proof that someone somewhere hates god hurr durr
Yeah I noticed you asked a completely worthless question. I was trying to be nice by ignoring it. Nobody hates god, people hate annoying retards who ask stupid questions, and also annoying retards who dont keep their religious beliefs to themself. Got any other stupid questions?
>>
>>
>>
File: desert pentalogy.png (582.2 KB)
>>18514111
Prove god exists before you ask for proof of peoples feelings about it. You're worthless.. Nobody hates things that don't exist. Why do christians hate history?
>>
>>
File: OGplato.png (860.0 KB)
>>18514117
>what's the connection?
You're too stupid to bother explaining. It's very simple, but basic logic is complicated for your mind I can see that.
>mentally ill
You mean like the authors of the bible? And the goyim who believe in it
>>
>>
>>
>>18514087
>atheism
>American
>[ey-thee-iz-uhm] / ˈeJ θiˌJz əm /
>noun
>disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings.
>the philosophical position stating that there is no supreme being or beings.
Hope this helps, my little ESL friend!
>>
>>18514131
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definit ion
>Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
>>
>>
>>18514128
For there are some eunuchs who were so born from their mother’s womb, and there are some eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
>>
File: 1779095885580782.png (65.9 KB)
>>18514132
Fallacy Fallacy. You have to put in the work to explain why this is applicable in this context. Absolutely lazy debate form anon. Shame on you
>>
>>18514134
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy
>Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
>>
>>18514137
>Fallacy Fallacy
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false
This didn't happen anywhere in my post. Try again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18514143
>>18514145
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusiv e
>Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
>>
File: 6f5ra5j6dfr81.jpg (26.3 KB)
>>18514147
That's the problem anon, you didn't put in any work to explain why said fallacy was committed and how it actually applies in this context. You're performing a non-debate and expecting people to take you seriously. You're not very smart are you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18514156
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false
This didn't happen anywhere in my post. My post doesn't say anything about the veracity of your conclusion, it simply links to an explanation of the fallacy you committed.
Please start taking your anti-psychotics as prescribed.
>>
>>
>>18514160
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy
>Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
>>
>>18514158
>This didn't happen anywhere in my post.
You're literally did exactly this right in this post >>18514132
I'm sorry anon but you can spam and gaslight all you want but you're just not that good at this
>"I wasn't conducting a debate I was just posting links!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
>The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1]
>>
>>18514164
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false
This didn't happen anywhere in my post. My post doesn't say anything about the veracity of your conclusion, it simply links to an explanation of the fallacy you committed.
Please start taking your anti-psychotics as prescribed.
>>
File: 3y1hde.jpg (10.3 KB)
>>18514163
>>18514158
>>18514149
>>18514140
>>18514138
>>18514132
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
>The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Just to be clear, I'm not a professional "quote maker". I'm just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. That being said, I am open to any and all criticism.
>>
>>
>>18514174
>>18514170
>True
Then why did you link to an irrelevant wiki article?
>>
>>
>>18513724
Because they don't pray. If they pray more, maybe GOD would like them more.
GOD probably wouldn't like me too if I denied His existence, and could probably make me into an unbeliever for it. Heck, if I denied anyone's existence, they'd probably don't like me much. But I can see, I have memories and feelings and a consciousness and conscientiousness. Just because I don't see you nów, doesn't mean that I never saw you.
But the word GOD exists, so by virtue of the word existing, GOD exists.
Take the word 'atheist'. Do atheists exist? Yes, because we have a word for it. I may like them or not, if not, maybe I should debate them more, then they would like me more, but I find that very tiring. The possibility of the debate should be on the table, as should the consideration of the existence of GOD be the other way, reasonably. We may not agree, we may not be 100% the same, but that doesn't mean that we have to be militantly mean to eachother.
Call GOD however you will, assign lore to it all you will, but as a common humanity, we'll have to agree on at least sóme points to not kick eachother down all the time and be able to friendlily cooperate.
>>
>>
>>
>>18514232
>Because they don't pray. If they pray more, maybe GOD would like them more.
I prayed every single day (really) and sometimes multiple times a day, and also had other people pray multiple times a day, for the first 19 years of my life. And since I was 20, I haven't prayed at all. That was 15 years ago. Do you know what has practically changed? Absolutely nothing. Praying doesn't do a single thing. The only possible thing you could say it does, is form a bonding ritual for a community, or help you emotionally if you're a simple person and believe your imaginary friend is on your side (despite all evidence to the contrary).
>>
>>
>>
>>18514250
What does your clotmaxxed question have to do with >>18514219?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: IMG_0405.jpg (291.6 KB)
>>18513724
He took their foreskins.
>>
>>
>>
>>18513724
Like 10 years ago you didnt give two flying shits about god, hell or any afterlives, infact you acted as if raking up body count for Hell was all the rage.
I want you to mind these years and compare to your current scizoparadigm.
>>
>>
>>
>>18514657
The next is an explanation that human vermin need to accept: your gods were gonna murder you, I was sent to kill them. They're dead, now we find ourselves in a temper tanty by religious people. Think for the first time: I am only your enemy if you refuse to be taken into the pressence of the other humans from off world that want to meet you. You're expected to be trained, given jobs and allowed to flourish, yet if you're retarded enough to pick up fights with the owner of the universe he's gonna whack you for his amusement.
Now wait for the ships and cease your attacks, you're 5th grade material at best, easily discarded
>>
>>18513724
They won’t admit it, but a lot of so-called “New Atheists” don’t actually simply reject the existence of a God, instead, they resent this hypothetical God, whether they truly believe he absolutely does or does not exist, even if they are completely unsure whether he exists. They’re angry at this idea of a God, whether they think he’s real deep down or not.
A disproportionate amount of “New Atheists” are either just resentful towards their Baptist parents, fell hook, line and sinker for anti-Catholic church propaganda, or were brainwashed by Green Day’s “American Idiot” and clips of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson making glib, condescending quips about religion.
Just to clarify, I’m not talking about all atheists here, just people who are specifically a part of the New Atheist movement. I’ve encountered many respectable atheists, but these types of people are not just atheists, not just agnostics who simply aren’t convinced of the existence of God, but instead, specifically anti-theist, and aggressively so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18514662
I've never thought of it as them resenting the idea of God. But I guess it could be said to be accurate. However, framing the causes of this hatred the way you did is dishonest: the New Atheists, defined as an movement centered chiefly in the united states and lasting from the late nineties to the early twenty tens, lived during a time in which christianity held hegemonic power over society everywhere but a few circles cloistered inside large urban areas, being an atheist in that environment held real social consequences and required quite a bit of endurance to pull off. It's also why atheists absolutely dominated the internet during that time; it was a secular area apart from a world by-and-large controled by the religious, no less at a time period where it seemed the religious right was in ascendance at home (and Islamism was the abroad). In this environment it's natural for anyone to develop deep antipathy toward religion and an aggressive disposition.
If I was an atheist in the 19th century U.S, for example, I'd certainly come to loathe a society that considers me an animal wearing human skin, unable to hold office or testify in court, but would ironically not do so if I adopted the practice of habitual and unbothered lying about my deepest convictions.
>>
>>18514662
>>18515141
"new atheists" haven't been relevant for almost 20 years. Meanwhile, atheism has continued to increase faster than any religion while christianity declines across the world. It has nothing to do with your boogymen of "new atheism". Christianity simply isn't true and there are no good arguments for it. Anyone who does any actual research into the historical reliability of gospels, or philosophical arguments surrounding the idea of an agent being the prime mover or something, realizes that christianity is just a hearsay and more importantly, the concept of a God is actually philosophically incoherent and not real.
>>
>>
>>18515141
>I'd certainly come to loathe a society that considers me an animal wearing human skin, unable to hold office or testify in court
So you hate God because you want a base and degenerate society that doesn't put the truth about you right in your face?
>>
>>18515150
Yea, the "new atheists" basically won and then were replaced by even more sophisticated atheists. Now the modern debates are done on TikTok and YouTube and Discord, and atheists have become so overwhelmingly dominant in both debate and just understanding of philosophy. In fact, new atheism ended in like ~2010, but atheism has only continued to increase over the past 15 years faster than any religion. I find it very strange when the Christians on this board blather about Dawkins or New Atheism or Reddit as though they're passé when, in reality, people only became more atheistic after new atheism ended. "New Atheism" basically won and then left an even stronger atheism in its wake.
>>
>>18515158
The thing with new new atheism is that atheism has become such a dominant paradigm that even the zoomers who claim to be religious are just petersonians who think there's a true message there even though the actual supernatural stuff is nonsense. Those same people don't even see how much of a paradigm shift that is because they think earlier generations viewed religions that way too and nobody ever truly believed in the miraculous healings and levitating messiahs and such.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18514112
This is dumb. Everyone knows Jesus is Jewish. Every Christian church will tell you this. He taught in synagogues. He specifically called out corrupt rabbis. He was the Jew that the Jews hated because he called them out for their religious control BS. I have never met a single person who thought Jesus was anything but a Jew. It says as much, many times, over and over in the Bible. (If I am totally misunderstanding the point please let me know)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18515348
>>18515353
How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
>>
>>18515363
>the breakfast question
>even though Christians routinely fail it at far greater rates than atheists because Christians can't reason and don't understand counter-factuals.
I'm just going to ignore your low IQ attempt at a retort and get at the heart of your low IQ position. Your argument is
>If christianity is false then that means transgenderism is valid
Or even
>If atheism is true then transgender identity is valid
This does not follow and you are very stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: MuhSkySpook.jpg (10.5 KB)
>>18513724
>Why do atheists hate God?
Because he only exists in the same way the fucking tooth fairy does and he has no real power besides his cult devoted to him.
>>
File: 1774062803012641.jpg (31.5 KB)
I think it's because of childhood trauma associated with Western Christianity, particularly in North America. And when I say trauma, I mean minor inconvenience and the perception of religion being "uncool."
My parents never ever went to church and later in life I became very interested in pre-abrahamic religion and the Greeks. I distinctly remember a discussion in a neoplatonism telegram group that I had been a part of for years where I mentioned Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who heavily incorporated neoplatonism into the church in the 5th century. I was speaking positively of him, St. Maximus the Confessor who drew on his work, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in general, on account of it incorporating ideas from Plotinus and Proclus.
Mentioning Christianity in a positive light was like flipping a switch. Everyone started throwing a shitfit, saying that Christianity is evil, causes deaths, and that Christians bully people irl. I tried to guide the discussion back to Christian neoplatonism to no avail. Then I mentioned, out of habit, that I denounce the Talmud so that they'd know I'm not acting in bad faith. To my surprise, they then started defending the Talmud and jews, considering that a valid tradition.
It really opened my eyes. People want to deny Christ, but they can't do it without hating him, or bending the knee to those who notoriously hate him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 1377323612135.png (63.9 KB)
>>18513724
We have the same feelings towards God that you have towards trannies, because they are exactly the same thing; Fakery and Delusion.
I tolerate both religion and trans because it keeps emotionally fragile people from completely losing their shit.
>>
>>
>>
>>18516201
This is the right argument to use here. Even within monotheism, even within Christianity alone, there are many conceptions of what God is and what he's like. OP is running the old bad faith playbook because I guess it's 2010s night in the retard daycare he's posting from.
>>
>>18513724
I don't hate God, I just don't believe he exists
>>18513731
Prove it
>>
>>18516355
Why are namefaging, are you an attention whore?
>>18516822
After a certain both the atheist and theist, understand that they cant "prove" their position, only give compelling reasons why they might prefer one over the other
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>18516871
>After a certain both the atheist and theist, understand that they cant "prove" their position, only give compelling reasons why they might prefer one over the other
Yeah fair enough. I don't have a belief in God but I admit that I can't prove his non-existence. Maybe one or more gods exist, but I don't think humanity can currently prove this one way or the other.
>>
>>
>>
>>18517048
I agree with that.
>>18517157
Your cartoon shows an orb labelled "God". But no such orb exists in real life.
>>
>>
>>18513724
Are these threads made by teenage mexicans? Not even trying to make some snarky shitpost but I've never met a religious White person under the age of 40. I find it hard to believe Jebediah the hardcore baptist is posting these from out in rural Kentucky.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>