Most atheists on here have no grasp of informal or formal logic.

>>18517257
Belief is irrelevant to what is objectively true

>>18517257
There are few "debates" going on here in general, but I'll have to say it probably averages out in slight atheist favour because of all the KJV fags, Muslims and the enjoyhellfag.

>Has the internet really vindicated theism
Outside of 4chan? I think it has. During the 2010s atheists would commonly dunk on theists with how burden of proof works. Today, half the time I see BoP mentioned it's someone explaining to an atheist that "positive" and "negative" claims aren't really a thing in this regard. A weird inaccuracy spread by New Atheists so widely that articles had to be published about how this isn't really a thing in logic and how all claims actually have a burden except some conventionally set exceptions.
>is new atheism still a movement to be a part of?
No, the impotence of that movement was part of the vindication discussed above. The way Sam Harris failed to produce anything resembling his "Moral Landscape" vision, the way Dawkins was exposed as a philosophical-theological midwit, the way thousands of people tried to repeat Hitchens' arguments and realized they only worked due to his outsanding rhetorical skill... The movement fragmented into dozens of sub-groups real quick. Something they used to mock Christians for. And it's not like Jordan Peterson, who challenged New Atheists, is doing great today. But his pushback against this naive atheism is something they (especially Harris) didn't really have an answer for. Despite the fact that Peterson wasn't even a commited theist then.
I think this is part of the reason theism and spirituality is growing among Gen Zs. They see that the millenial protests against religion didn't really lead anywhere and that it can't face objections any better than an average priest can face Dawkins' criticism.

>>18517257
>>18517266
Most atheist here are bad so bad faith and so bad at argumentation. That I would consider taking them as represetation of atheism.

Although , I don't exactly remenber how the theist argue , it seems less like they argue and more like they just claim.

So my anser is null , because no one can win arguments that never start.

>>18517257
No one "wins" debates on /his/, so I'm rejecting your premise. It's just shitposting and shit flinging retards.

>>18517257
Agnostic Theist/Agnostic Atheist prove that you can choose to believe, even without sufficient evidence and that atheists simply choose to not believe because they enjoy their immoral lifestyles more than the prospect of everlasting life and bliss.

Atheists hide behind intellectual slop as a defense but it's all bullshit, it's a heart issue, not a knowledge issue.

>>18517257
If you think the side who has to argue for fairytales can win debates, there's already no hope left for you.

Bruh if evolution is true then how did our vital organs form? You need ALL of them to live and you guys say that it just happened randomly over the course of billions of years. A monkey randomly typing stuff on a keyboard would only result in random garbage.

>>18517569
They developed from the more primitive organs present in more primitive creatures who did not (exactly) need them for their current purpose.

>>18517257
There is no proof or evidence that a God exists

>>18517257
Nice, very disingenuous.

>>18517284
Nothing you said refutes atheism or wins any debates. Atheistic refutations of theistic thinking remain unassailable.

File: PR_2025.02.26_religious-landscape-study_0-07.png (170.9 KB)

>>18517284
The problem with this post is this
>I think this is part of the reason theism and spirituality is growing among Gen Zs.
isn't actually happening. Decline in religiosity has slowed but has not reversed. Gen Z in particular is basically the least religious generation we can measure.
>>18517299
A diagram that doesn't understand the terms it uses is not proof of anything. You will not find someone in real life who identifies as an "agnostic atheist" who will claim they are choosing to not believe in a God.

>>18517818
You definitely "lose" a debate when you can barely get the basics of your own argumentation right, such as the burden of proof. Whether theism or atheism as general positions finally got debunked or not wasn't the question.

>>18517830
>> theism and spirituality
>religiosity
Not to be a pain in the ass but those are not the same thing. There is belief in a higher power and there is subscribing to an organized religion and attending services. Both are spirituality and in many cases theism, but only latter is religiosity.

>>18517861
>You definitely "lose" a debate when you can barely get the basics of your own argumentation right, such as the burden of proof. Whether theism or atheism as general positions finally got debunked or not wasn't the question.
The funny thing is that theism got one-shot by the nu-atheist epistemology too. Modern theists completely internalised the nu-atheist epistemic standard which says that you can't be reasonable in making a claim unless you have straight up completely indubitably proven it to be true. Meaning that induction can be thrown out of the window when it comes to making claims. All of this is ridiculous of course, but for some reason it stuck.
It's also the reason why presup became so popular in online debates.

>>18517861
>There is belief in a higher power and there is subscribing to an organized religion and attending services.
I agree but both of these things are down for Gen Z.

>>18517796
Extremely ingenuous, I'd say

>>18517266
This is blatantly untrue btw

>>18517257
Atheists generally win every debate whether here on /his/ or just in general.
There is a reason why basically the 1 thing that all philosophers agree on is that there is no God.

>>18517266
I agree with this

>>18518014
I have literally never seen an atheist win a debate on here, not once. You are all retarded monkeys eating crayons and crapping your pants, and then you shout “I win!”

>>18517282
this, as well as the debate outcome

>>18518049
That’s crazy. Anyway, evidence of God?

File: Nietzschejak.jpg (125.5 KB)

theists win when it comes to atheism's failure in the modern world, the rise of nihilism, degeneracy, trannies et cetera..

atheists win when they get back to the basics "where's the proof"

Nietzsche concluded we would overcome atheist nihilism, but clearly this has not panned out. Clearly humans need to be a little superstitious or they start to death spiral. Maybe not God, but certainly something. Maybe just recognizing the value of conscious life, realizing yourself in the past and the future is little different from other conscious beings, since particles are constantly in flux in your brain, changing you second by second. This might be the basis of a new "übermensch religion", a new age religion with more substance and less substances than the hippies with their weed, LSD and peyote.

Imagine hippies, but wholesome like a 1950s family. Boomers who realize actually the greatest generation had a point having grown up in the depression and getting PTSD in the war. It is ok to be prosperous and free, just don't turn into a fucking spoiled judgmental self-absorbed brat.

>>18518299
Nigga, conceding that religion is just a psychological mechanism is humans isn’t a victory for theists.