Just finished reading this

I actually think this book is the primary reason atheists on the internet are so incapable of interacting in an intelligent way with any of the arguments for God's existence. Even if you ignore the reductionism and scientism he writes some genuinely baffling things like this:

>"I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" ( God Delusion , p. 84).

>muh evidence
>treating God like a thing that requires proof
For a supposedly smart person, Dawkins is pretty stupid.

Attached: 1551172532496.jpg (1716x1710, 1M)

kek

I don't understand this picture

the thing about god is people who are religious in our society all almost all chrisitans and jews and muslims, they only want to talk about and debate god in the most vague possible "what if god started the big bang, you can't prove he didn't" terms

but that's not the god they believe in and build churches to, they think a talking snake told a woman to eat an apple so God created cancer as a punishment, they think God impregnanted a teenage middle eastern girl so her child could be killed as a blood sacrifice... because that makes sense

never forget what they actually think about god but won't defend and you won't have to read any books to see how stupid it is

The picture is a very bad protrait. The "scientists" on the right are closer to being TV show celebrities than anything else. They dont represent jack shit in the scientific world.

I see this sentiment a lot but I think it's a little disingenuous or maybe it's just coming from a place of ignorance, and I don't mean that as an insult. No Christian or any other religion person who knows what they're talking about will claim that logical or metaphysical proofs will prove revelation. What we get from arguments like the first mover is a metaphysical ground of all being which is in continuous interaction with the universe because it's sustaining all movement. This primary mover would also have to be eternal, omniscient, non physical, and so on. Ultimately it looks a lot like the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This is sufficient to prove atheism wrong.

This obviously doesn't prove Christian revelation and as I've said, nobody claims it does. What we can do now that we're sure a god does exist is investigate the various revelations from around the world and determine which of them are true or likely to be true. I say Christianity is true because I look at certain facts which almost all historians agree on, such as the tomb being empty on Easter morning and the post crucifixion appearances to crowds of people and Saul of Tarsus, and I come to the conclusion that Jesus being who he said he was is the best explanation.

This has to be b8....

>I say Christianity is true because I look at certain facts which almost all historians agree on, such as the tomb being empty on Easter morning
yeah that proves it

nothing like a translation of an oral story written down decades after the fact to prove that a body was not in a tomb.

I mean if there was a god of course he would have to impregnate a teenage girl so her baby could be butchered, i mean duh, it just makes sense. It's not some kind of stupid middle eastern folklore or anything like that, just facts

The tomb being empty is probably the least controversial claim anyone could make about early Christianity the Jews and Romans themselves admitted it was. The reason the tomb was originally guarded was because they were trying to end what they thought was a heresy and rebellion. In modern time we may have trouble appreciating why women discovering the tomb was so significant, but if the Christians were lying they were not helping their case by claiming women originally discovered it.

Why would the omnipotent creator of the universe need to impregnate a teenage middle eastern girl so the baby could be sacrificed and the story told and if you don't believe in such a claim that god will send your ghost to a bad place forever when you die

why does that make sense to you

If you want to know you can read the bible.

>If you want to know you can read the bible.
never forget this is actually how christians think

Yes they think you should read books if you want to know stuff.

Did you guys Katie this chick? She’s cute but I can’t find her.

Just finished reading this
Phenotypes surely got long hands.

Attached: Front.jpg (1396x2255, 169K)

That’s the point dummy. Real world-changing guys like Einstein recognize the necessity of philosophy to science. TV preachers of Scientism don’t understand how philosophy and science inform one another because they’ve never been within sight of the cutting edge.

>Yes they think you should read books if you want to know stuff.
I am asking you personally why you think it is reasonable to believe the creator of the universe impregnates teenage middle eastern girls and demands their baby be killed as a blood sacrifice to him. The bible does not sate why in this day and age that is a thing for a reasonable man to believe, it just says it happened in the context of middle eastern religion

I've given you the reason why I believe revelation itself is true, but now you're asking for a summary of that entire of revelation. That is a big ask even if you were genuinely interested. Frankly, I don't think you're worth the time.

9/10 troll

>I've given you the reason why I believe revelation itself is true, but now you're asking for a summary of that entire of revelation. That is a big ask even if you were genuinely interested. Frankly, I don't think you're worth the time.
no you have not

why does god need to impregnate teenage middle eastern girls on a fundamental level so the baby can be killed? why is that reasonable to think of as something a god would do vs. the kind of thing a bunch of sandbaggers would have made up thousands of years ago?

>In 2019, Yea Forums contrarians think that evidence is for brainlets

I hate this board. A satirist couldn't invent half of the stupid shit that is typed in these threads.

I did though, you obviously didn't understand it. If Jesus is who he said he was, it follows that the Church he set up and resulting scripture is also true. I believe Jesus is who he said he was because that's the best explanation for the empty tomb and post crucifixion appearances. In asking why Jesus had to come to earth you're asking a summary of the entirety of scripture and I'm just not going to do that. It'll take more time and effort than I'm willing to expend on you.

but why did god have to impregnate a teenage girl

could he have not done that or did he logically have to?

Yes, she was a titcow and actually read classics

Damn that sucks

This.
I actually find comfort in praying to God and I'm not part of any religion.

women only discovered it in one gospel, in the other three had wither a man in white already in the tomb, or an angel, or two angels. If you read the OT though women were expected to handle burial rights, so it's actually pretty in line with what a Jewish audience would have expected. Kind of moot though, because the tomb being empty proves nothing supernatural

There is only one reason I even browse this den of pseudo-intellectuals and, in this case, absolute retards who pretend to be well versed in religion, but in actuality are only christian because their families were, rather than because they came to the conclusion of it being worth following themselves.
That reason is that there's literally no better alternative.
/r/books is filled with idiots who don't fucking read "I am 50 and I just read my first book ever - Harry Potter. Just Wow!". /r/literature is very slow and have narrow reading habits. There are some OK discord servers, but they are highly specialized. Not sure where to turn.

>Be on Yea Forums
>Talk everyday about preferring search of truth and improving yourself as a human being.
>Also christian who does not require evidence
>Because "it brings comfort"

she was the harshest loss

Attached: 1491251026106.png (638x359, 198K)

>everyone on Yea Forums is the same person

>impregnate a teenage girl
Name one thing wrong with this. She is not having intercourse. She just has a baby in her womb.

>be on Yea Forums
>a board about literature
>no desire to improve or learn things
Even worse

>hurrr mommy why do the ducks quack? Why don't the moo like the cows???
This is literally you right now. Why did God do anything the way He did? He could have saved humanity through another method, many theologians state this. Aquinas says this in the summa. The bottom line is He did it through the incarnation as accounted in the bible. And He certainly didn't ask you if you approved before He did it.

When did I say this?

Unfortunately, they represent lazy reductionism that dominates the methodology of “free” goalless science.

I've read some renowned contemporary scientists who rail against it just as hard.

Is these threads the "Martin Luther did nothing wrong" of Yea Forums?

Damn. Anymore screenshots? Wish someone had saved her videos.

If you are the christiananon you implied this, by stating that you will accept God's existence, because it "brings you comfort", rather than "because after extensive thinking and reading I believe it to be objectively true".

Kek

Avoiding a question because the answer you've already decided on is comforting strongly suggests that you aren't interested in truth or improvement.

Not the guy.

Attached: 1491253399601.png (816x480, 54K)

You don't seem to get what makes New Testament (and Christianity) different from Old Testament (and Judaism). Shouldn't you at least try to refute the proper thing?

What is “evidence”?

t. Pantius

The entire point of faith in God is that it's something you have without evidence

My parents were atheist and I came to the conclusion that Christianity was worth following

All per your magic fairy book. Which, of course, is better than any other magic fairy book. Except the people who believe in other magic fairy books, just as earnestly as you believe in yours, think yours is magic fairy nonsense, and theirs is the one, true, divinely inspired magic fairy book.

Almost all religion comes from a intuitive belief of divine purpose. Every religion is to some degree right.

The bible is a library of all sorts of different books with genres ranging from poetry and law, to history and biography. Fairies don't have anything to do with it.

>intuitive belief of divine purpose
Imagine being so full of yourself that you can't handle life for what it is and have to believe that you're one of the protagonists in a space-drama where you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe just to cope with existence.

Read my post again, and try to understand the point. Hint: It's got nothing to do with fairies.

Imagine having such low self esteem that you genuinely believe you are nothing.

Why do you call them fairy stories if fairies got nothing to do with them?

Who let R*ddit out?
I'm not even a Christian, but some of the criticism here is brainlet tier.

Almost all religions began as a supstitious belief of divine purpose. Yes, they all have elements of truth. So does Aesop. Doesn't mean either are divinely inspired, and their adherents have no right to prescribe behavior based on claims of divine mandate alone.

But I don't think I'm nothing. I think I'm experiencing an amazing world from a unique perspective and should make the most of my time. Believing you need something beyond that to be worth anything is bizarre.

4chin IS reddit now, newfag

You wish.

Jesus fucking christ. Is this bait?

Your indignation doesn't answer the question. I'm trying to understand why you believe fairy stories are analogous to the entirety of the bible because I think it's an absurd thing to say. I have a lot of experience talking to internet atheists and I understand they're deficient in thinking and communication but I'm continuously disappointed.

>why do you call the unsubstantiated supernatural being around which every store in the Bible revolves a fair
Perhaps you have a developmental disorder which makes it difficult for you to pick up on such cues.

>Fairy tales doesn't explain physical phenomena accurately
>Bible doesn't explain physical phenomena accurately

Sophists

Attached: hemlock.jpg (260x194, 8K)

You can tell they really thought these things through by how they communicate through greentext.

Poking fun at someone who refuses to engage with reason isn't sophistry.

Its fair for a person to say that literal interpretations of many religious stories can be nonsense, and that living by literal interpretation can be counterproductive. Its foolish to throw out thousands of years of life advice from various peoples around the world. Not every author does well at getting the point across, but that doesn't mean that nothing they wish to convey cannot still be constructive in one's life.

Attached: Dorks.jpg (436x298, 38K)

>“I don’t know the words ‘epistemic’ and so on, so I’m not going to use that.”
This is a direct quote from Dawkins in a debate.

/thread

Nobody is saying religion is wrong, it's just that science is more accurate, and in the future probably there will be another dicipline,
which will be more accurate

>dude religion is just self-help lmao stop taking it so seriously
proof that religion has lost

>Dawkins is correct
You could've saved yourself a lot of words there. Pretty sure he agrees with everything you said.

I know you're joking but I've actually seen atheists talk like that. Poor fools.

I am not joking, will you engage in discussion or just ad hom?

Fuck you guys we could have had a great time together. I wonder what she thought of Joyce.

God exists. And He isn't interested in us until we become interested in Him, in Him exclusively.
Do you understand what I am saying? Ex-clu-sive-ly! Twenty-four hours a day. Your hearts and minds filled only with God.
There's no room for anything else. No room for free will, no room for liberty, no room for emancipation. "Free yourself from God", I've heard people say. "Liberate yourself from God." But the pain of liberation is unbearable, sharp enough to kill. Without God... you are as good as dead. Dead, abandoned strays wandering the streets.

Attached: 1527438056534.png (642x705, 303K)

You can believe that the Bible is the word of God while not reading it completely literally

Oh dear, it wants to have a discussion.

God is an amazing bullshitter but can't be bothered to update his bullshit with human progress. So this is the power of Christianity.

What are some things you think God should update

Maybe all life is one entity.

Its okay if you are afraid user

Yeah you're spooky

Im not religious but why is the alternative much better? People have ironically become more unengaged with life than ever. This website is a testament to that.

People accept suicide as a general act of life more sacred than prayer to God. It's self destructive to reject God's guidance

this is one perspective among many, yet you think it's an alternative to religion. religion isnt about being something beyond what you are, its about understanding whats beyond what we are and applying it. its that simple yet people still think its so ludacrous even though its more of what brought us to this point in human history, even more so than scientific discovery.
The fact that religion taught us about morals before science taught us where the organs are placed is so significant

If you really want to go that far, then evidence doesn't exist and therefore doesn't matter. You can't even say what evidence means under certain terms and even if you could, you couldn't prove that it exists undoubtedly, brainlet. I fucking hate this reddit invasion

Attached: 1517589821728.jpg (211x239, 8K)

>The fact that religion taught us about morals
Morality has detached long ago from abrahamic scripture

>god was just messing around with all those parts that I don’t like

Some parts of the Bible should be read literally, others metaphorically, and still others both literally and metaphorically as the Church teaches. All of it is valid and to be accepted in its entirety. There is no "picking and choosing."

>Evidence is Reddit
Astounding.

Fool. Civilization collapses without religion for the reason that morality ceases to exist. Reason ceases to have importance when God is denounced and this results in a self-destructive, hedonistic, ticking time bomb of a civilization. Science may tell us morals are needed but that means nothing because without religion, we will have no incentive to have morality or to help ourselves, but only to please ourselves. It can be argued that this happens because God forsakes those who have no interest in following him, resulting in their destruction (on Earth, I believe all will acquire salvation in the end, after paying dues), this was shown to us in the story of Noah. Following this logic, it can be inferred that if God leaves those who don’t bother with him, then he must, in that case, interact with those that seek him out. This interaction results in a spiritually complete life, even when in a state of absolute physical desecration such as in the lives of apostles such as Paul. If you’re observant, you will notice this in the lives of the faithful, if you know faithful people. And these people are the very ones who espouse morality and have taught people like you all the ideas you have about it today. To summarize, your point that morality is detached from religion in the modern world is the epitome of stupidity and I would expect nothing less from an internet dog of Dawkins. Educate yourself, read the testaments and their interpretations. Read the works of the saints and stop thinking that science is the end all be all. That’s stupid and all the greatest scientists knew that.

thanks for this

Bullshit. Xians and their preachers do it all the time.

Which god exists? The one you like, of course.

>some people like Dr Pepper, some people like Pepsi
>this shows carbonated soft drinks do not exist
Atheist logic

ad hominem, post hoc, etc

That was a sorry ad Hominem.

Your fairy story book has talking snakes and donkeys, magic wizards (prophets, whatever), zombies, giants, . . . .

Their fairy books have genies, flying carpets, elephant-headed twelve-armed demigods, shape-shifting deities . . . .

But, of course, yours is the right one cuz it says so. Just like theirs.

He's being intentionally obtuse. He doesn't want to face the truth: Even if, and it's a huge if, there is a sky daddy, it's not the god of the bible, koran, whatever "holy" book.

I have a really hard time telling if you guys are serious or not. Me calling you stupid is an insult, not an ad hominem. Now if I were to tell you that your argument was wrong because you're a stupid person, that would be an ad hominem. I couldn't even commit an ad hominem against you in principle because we're not even having an argument or debate. I asked a question and it wasn't answered, so I essentially called you stupid and you prove me right.

Ad Hominem.
Tell us why your magic fairy stories are more true than any other religion's magic fairy stories.

Like how much to pay your rape victim's dad so you can marry her and get out of trouble.

I know, like those horrid largely atheist societies like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden that actually among the best places to live, as opposed to those religious bastions of progress like the Philippines, India, Pakistan, and Guatemala.

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Of course, YOURS is the right one because your book says so.

Your logic here implies you are a henotheist. Is this true?

Your question had been answered several times.
And more ad Hominem.

You're implying Divinity will be experienced the same way by every person, which doesn't make sense because we are all different. All religious people are 'right' to a certain extent, because all human churches are flawed due to being human. No religion is perfect, that's not possible. Only atheists are wrong

If by Divinity you mean the spark, the preciousness, the beauty of life, then of course you're right. If by Divinity you mean god(s), as described in whoever's holy book who rightfully demands behaviors/beliefs x, y, and z or face eternal punishment, then I call bullshit.

Christianity has had many schisms and deviations from its original true doctrines, which are preserved in Orthodoxy, as pronounced in the councils and dogmas. Certainly, those who would introduce revolutionary subversive counterinitiatic ecumenical tendencies are absolute heretics. The infiltration of churches by intelligence agencies (in accordance with the will of the elite) is well documented towards these dissolutive ends.

What if God lives in the 4th dimension, though? How would you even get such proof or evidence?

checkmate, atheists.

195:6.8 Materialism reduces man to a soulless automaton and constitutes him merely an arithmetical symbol finding a helpless place in the mathematical formula of an unromantic and mechanistic universe. But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician? Science may expatiate on the conservation of matter, but religion validates the conservation of men's souls—it concerns their experience with spiritual realities and eternal values.

Attached: cde20e42bc50a4a8a960824e863a1b7601ff69795979930102b771da0aa8c746.jpg (506x455, 38K)

Reality isn't real it's a hallucination in our brains.

atheists just experience Divinity as a lack of Divinity idiot

>all those times we picked and chose which books count were just a joke

Not sure what you mean by this. For what it's worth, the Canon is closed.

>the canon is closed because we’re done picking and choosing which books are allowed in

>Civilization collapses without religion for the reason that morality ceases to exist.
This is incorrect, the rest of your post I didn't bother

>Pretty much every 200iq man believes in God.
>The new religion of science utterly incapable of creating .0000000000000000000000000001% of what God created
>But some psued and a bunch of french cucks say the Bible is silly so there is no God apparently

Good luck with yourselves lol

What was the most convincing argument in the book?

>No religion is perfect, that's not possible
If you already know your religion of choice is flawed why following it's precepts? are you not a searcher for truth?

why would you have beliefs that aren't backed with evidence?

You might want to investigate Saul of Tarsus further.

Yeah buddy I'll do that.

The major problem is that very few people read books nowadays.

Now which one would that be?

as a prescientific presupposition that grounds all rationality and being it would be prior to any evidential existence claims

Attached: rick-atheism-comes-from-his-cynicism.jpg (1600x900, 945K)

You do not sound smart. Please read a book.

what's wrong with what i said? it's standard presuppositional apologetics.

Admiring Dawkins as a thinker is an admission of stupidity just as much as believing the Earth is 6000 years old.

Dawkins is at best a crowd stirrer. His views on philosophy and religion have as much value as a stink bomb, so you can easily identify the dolts when they can still feel the stink after a decade.

I must be using the word "evidence" in a different or wider sense than everyone else (not saying that in an insulting way). Even Thomas Aquinas takes time to make an argument for the existence of God. He didn't just say "heh, evidence is for brainlets." Am I missing something? This is a serious question.

>It's standard presuppositional apologetics
Yeah there's your problem right there.

faggots on lit thinking these these nobel prize winners are talking about sartre and foucault

Yes, I suppose it is, but your statement neglects the ontological-interpretational side of the issue. I'm thinking of people like Aristotle who approach the question ontologically, but not in a preposition ally ontic way.

"Evidence" suggests an argument from empirical or theoretical reason, whereas you could argue God constitutes the conditions of the possibility of any such reasoning whatever or even all existence itself to begin with as the ground of Being, and thus ontologically prior and superior to any particular piece of evidence.
Kant refuted the classical metaphysical arguments for God while arguing from morality in practical reason, which for him was the foundation of the theoretical and speculative reason (which in turn founds science), the theatre of the traditional proofs like those of Aquinas. There's layers to it.

dude wrote a whole book about an irrelevant matter lmao

This baffles you? He adapted their arguments to flying pigs and suddenly logic and probability became consequential to his interlocutors again. Perhaps you aren't the best judge of 'intelligent interaction'.

High IQ post.

As an atheist, I must say that Dawkins cannot know if there is or isn’t a higher being or group of beings behind aspects of the universe or various tiers of multiverses. As an atheists, we must be agnostic. Anything else is dishonest.

Forget about the actual argument, in attempting to even make the argument that pigs fly, Dawkins is engaging in modal logic. He's smugly deriding philosophers and theologians for resorting to modal logic when that is precisely what he was doing. He didn't know what modal logic is while mocking people for using it and that level of stupidity is baffling to me. I don't know how his friends and editors could read that and let it go to print.

>I can't remember my argument but it was so good that when I argued it everyone stood up and clapped

a creator is still in check, but every religion on earth is bullshit

If it doesn't require proof, then you should abstain from the ontological argument. Unless you think all things people believe actually exist, that same skepticism must still apply.

dawkins is a midwit

Every religion contains absolutely zero wisdom or spiritual truth?
How do you know this?

>muh godless universe
fucking normies everywhere, god its weird that the counterculture now is to actually be religious

>I need delusions to live

Religious people are pathetic

>delusion
fucking brainlet

broke - god exists
joke - god doesnt exist
woke- god exists

Because if they had evidence they wouldn't be beliefs. What about that can you not understand.

He's not, he's deriding them for resorting to any logic at all when ostensibly they think faith alone is sufficient to make ontological claims.

Woosh

jimi hendrix pls go

Hallucination in Gods brain

So no beliefs are more probably true than others?

>universe came from nothing
>something always was and made universe
I cant believe people pretend one of these makes more sense then the other

>universe perhaps always was but we aren't sure what was going on past a certain point
This is where educated people have landed on the question of universe origin. Go back to awing grandmas in Mississippi with that other bullshit.

>something always was
>makes more sense then something else always being
>educated

Attached: 1512685228782.png (1296x1458, 217K)

>insisting on the necessity of a conscious entity in the face of an unsolved problem
You're adding an extra step for no reason other than that it would hurt your identity to not do so.

>god isn't a delusion

To your fables, child

>You're adding an extra step for no reason other than that it would hurt your identity to not do so.
Nice projection there champ, I'm pretty indifferent since it's ultimately unknowable. You're probably some faggot that can't accept the difficulties of life, and the idea that it there were consciously placed on you rocks you to your core.
Haven't met many militant atheist that aren't insanely bitter people.

i dont know whether i want to read a book by someone who can definitively claim there is an absence of god :/

no worries then

I've been saying that it's unknowable. You're talking as if that's a reasonably equivalent position to insisting that a conscious eternal entity must have created everything. Surely you see how those are different positions.

Just finish Psych 102? Getting analyzed is fun!

>As an atheists, we must be agnostic.

Once upon a time, the categories atheist and agnostic were mutually exclusive.

That's evidently changed for purposes of internet discussion; has the OED caught up with this?

Attached: DrhpO9vUUAArehi.jpg (800x1200, 268K)

Theist and Atheist are beliefs. Gnostic and Agnostic refer to the nature of those beliefs.

Gnostic Theist: I know that God exists

Agnostic Theist: I think it most likely that god exists and live my life accordingly but I don't know it for a fact.

Gnostic Atheist: I know that there is no god.

Agnosti Atheist: I think it most likely that there is no god and live my life accordingly but I don't know it for a fact.

Now you should read the 5 proofs of God

Attached: FB_IMG_1550196413828.jpg (516x960, 48K)

"Man, you must be puttin' me on"

Atheist = There is no god.

Agnostic = I'm not sure if there's a god.

>Theist and Atheist are beliefs.

Agnostic is also a belief - a belief that one does not know, or cannot know.

>Gnostic and Agnostic refer to the nature of those beliefs.

Say what?

Anywho, the distinctions you draw seem drawn from the distinctions that have arisen in debate about these questions on the internet over past two decades or so.

Go back to a book written in the 1950s or earlier, and the distinction between "agnostic" and "atheist" is clear-cut.

Attached: attack!.gif (409x304, 2M)

1 of 'em.

Attached: Aquinas Unmoved Mover Argument.jpg (630x6143, 465K)

I'm a Gnostic Gnostic

You seem like someone who only has a cursory understanding of theology.

>Agnostic is also a belief
No it is not. It may have gained that connotation from the uneducated, but literally in the Greek agnostic means "without knowledge". It's odd that people willing accept the term because it only means that one is ignorant. I'd be willing to wager a vast majority of people who use the term "agnosticism" really mean "apatheism" meaning it doesn't matter to them whether or not a god exists. One cannot actively "believe" in "an absence of knowledge"-- it simply means they have not put the effort into investigating the idea for himself/herself. That's fine as long as they refrain from talking about the topic of theology.

>Anywho, the distinctions you draw seem drawn from the distinctions that have arisen in debate about these questions on the internet over past two decades or so.

And the distinctions you're making date to the 19th century. When do you draw the line? It's arbitrary no matter when. No one prior to the 19th century would use the term "agnostic" in any sense other than pejorative.

Attached: fuherfedora.jpg (700x609, 163K)

>largely atheist societies like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
Wester civilizations built on the foundation of Christian culture.

Pre-Christian Denmark raped and pillaged for an economy. Hardly tolerable by today's standards.

Attached: 103.jpg (480x608, 70K)

Aquinas makes the same mistake any christian "proof" of god makes. He's making base assumptions that don't necessarily need to be true.
For example, the starting point doesn't have to be necessarily one thing. It could also be several things at once. If ice needs cold air, then water cold air could have existed in the beginning instead of just one creator god.
He's also showing his monotheistic conviction when he argues for one perfect, immutable god. Could be two different but equally valid beings, for example. Nothing says that only one thing has to be perfect. Would you say that red is perfect, while green is not?
The perfect existence could also be a system, not a single actor. Had Aquinas been familiar with eastern concepts of reincarnation as he was intimate with Christianity, he might have understood the overall system to be perfect and eternal, not any single god.

tl;dr
Like Penny Wager Aquinas only reinforces existing christian faith, but does nothing to non-believers.

Christianity also built on antique culture. Does this make Christianity Roman?

These “atheist societies” were produced by their christian ancestors that sacrificed everything to produce a moral, righteous society as per their religion. Their children, blind to the stories of their ancestors and having been born into what is essentially Heaven on Earth, fell into indifference and hedonism and forgot Christ. By disguising their indifference as altruism(to please their ego, it is not real altruism because there is no real altruism without God), now they invite hordes of barbarian invaders that are tearing their nations apart from the inside. This is just another of many ways that a godless civilization falls. These nations will be minority white by 2050 at the current rate at latest. Did you start browsing this site this year? You should know about the current state of these nations before making your first post. You must lurk for another couple of years before posting here again, newfag.

Give me ONE example about a civilization that survived without the morality produced by religion, and don’t name me one that survived for a few decades only by running on the fumes of it’s recently forsaken religion. You seem to think that morality consists of only things like saying thank you to the grocery store cashier? Morality is the application of moral principles, it is the backbone of civilization, it does not consist of only the “good feels” you get when you thank the cashier, some applications of moral principles don’t feel good at all but I digress. Name me one civilization that survived for an extended amount of time without religion. And when you can’t, don’t post here again until you change your views.

Want to know how I know you're a larper?

Totally btfo by ur witty based one liner. If you don’t know how to argue with me then get the fuck off this thread.

Not the one you were arguing with, but this
>Give me ONE example about a civilization that survived without the morality produced by religion
Is not a strong argument for your case. You might as well demand a revolutionary shipwright from the 16th century to give you one example of a ship made out of metal floating. Just because something hasn't happened in the past does not mean it can't do so in the future.

And stuff like this
>there is no real altruism without God
makes no sense too. Why is god necessary for altruism? Why can't I be altruistic just because? Why do I need either coercion by threat or the bribe of divine reward to be altruistic? That's the opposite of selfless.
But hey...you can surely point out multible religions that didn't coax such behavour either by carrot or stick.

You're speaking as a mortal, questioning the actions of God and putting little thought into it. Not saying that to insult you, I'm just saying that if you want to have a serious conversation about this you might want to change into smaller britches. A christian isn't going to be concerned with how God "ought to have done things." I'd suggest going through the whole book. Do a little research into the Old Testament prophecies about the messiah and the stuff Jesus says and does will make a lot more sense. I think you view the bible as just a bunch of simple fables and rules, but there's actually a startling amount of nuance and numerous loose ends being tied throughout the entire collection of stories.
This is why people make fun of atheists with fedora memes - it's a parody of the sense of superiority over the literal greatest book ever written

Brainlet tier book

There's no material reason to be altruistic. According to darwinism we should all be psychopathic animals with no empathy since that's the best way to get ahead. Think of the richest people you know of. Are they good people? Probably not, but they're damn sure smart. Think of Trump in the 80s. He was aggressive and antisocial as fuck, and it helped him surpass his father in business success. Why would anyone want to do anything other than what he was doing?
Because for some odd reason you know you're supposed to be fair and considerate, for no clear cut logical reason.

>According to darwinism we should
cringe.

I used to be an atheist too OP, hopefully you get over it some day

So Nobels are smarter than C-list celebrities? Wow!

Empathy and altruism are elements of survival strategy involving mutual support.

First of all, assumes a real dichotomy between potential and actual, which is not demonstrated. Potential could simply be the deterministic actual of the future, or an actual potentiality underlies all. Secondly, the assumptions about the nature of base existence are absurd... Omnipotence and omniscience inject the assumption of a mind/will to base existence which is not demonstrated. Perfection is also a 'potentiality', as it is a judgement made by a valuing agent. The other assumptions rely upon the aforementioned hard divide between actuality and potential which is an unfounded assumption.

You make my point for me... Obviously 'nothing' doesn't even exist, and so that something always was obviously makes more sense. This belief -- or even apodictic fact -- makes more sense because of basic logic, which is a kind of evidence (it is observed). We see then, that what is considered more probable/sensible must always relate to evidence, no matter what we call the claims themselves (beliefs, facts, hypotheses).

Of course you try to smuggle the word 'made' in there to inject your assumption of a willed creation rather than natural consequence, but that is undemonstrated.

An atheist worldview allows me to be altruistic either as the consequence of a survival strategy or as fluke result of human ability for empathy. A religious worldview justifies altruism either by divine punishment or divine reward.

The complaint of theists that atheist are selfish and immoral without god is a really dishonest one. For the very same theists admit they're moral because an almighty tyrant ordered them to be so. It's not a choice of theirs or a mark of their character, it's somebody elses will.

They're quite convincing. Too bad they have nothing to do with the batshittery of the Bible.

>Old Testament prophecies about the messiah
Jesus never lead Israel to military victories against its enemies.

Psychopathy is a mental illness, but it is indeed extremely useful for success in business, to fuck over everyone else without remorse.

>Give me ONE example about a civilization that survived without the morality produced by religion
This society appears to be doing well, and it's based on liberal-democratic values, you could argue that it arise from a christian culture but I repeat
>Morality has long ago detached from abrahamic SCRIPTURE

>You seem to think that morality consists of only things like saying thank you to the grocery store cashier? Morality is the application of moral principles, it is the backbone of civilization, it does not consist of only the “good feels” you get when you thank the cashier, some applications of moral principles don’t feel good at all but I digress.
I agree, morality in your example would be refraining of doing theft, but this is hardly a semblance of christians values, but a mechanism of our economical and judicial system which again is base on liberal-democratic values

You can find evidence for God if you search in yourself quit easily.
But bugmen don't have enough strength for that.

>This society appears to be doing well
Let's see if you still think this once rural people are forcibly removed to a miniscle cuck closet sandwiched into a highrise overlooking scenic "uniform landscape" such as the wonderful establishments of Wal-Mart Corporation in fully automated blockchain fourth industrial revolution urban smart cities, given daily pornography consumption quotas, hundreds of vaccinations (currently sitting at 80 vaxy waxies per youngling lma0), highly adulterated tap water that plants time activated cancer bombs and RNA mutations as well as brain destroying poison. Liberal-democratic values, whence come they and where go they? I tell you thus: from Satan and unto Satan. Correct thou art that such has arisen in the presence of Christianity however that is due to a corruption of Christianity, particularly Western dogmas harmoniae (hence the Pope's Perennialism and "Chrislam" interfaith services). Individualism leads to atheism. Capitalism and communism are both atheistic. Both are wrong, false. Usurious institutions have effected much. Propaganda propagates endlessly and "Hollywood is the most powerful weapon in the world." Gender confusion hijacks discourse. CIA niggers isn't just a meme. Political solutions are not the answer. The circus of voting holds the curtain in place. Technocratic transhumanism is their goal. Global warming climate change vegan Darwin mega Huxley death cult. Morality is not produced by religion, it is revealed through it. It's not over yet.

Attached: 1488538611896.jpg (236x253, 11K)

prove it fagot

And this is how flyovers perceive things, true and honest position, though isolated and out of touch. As it should be.

Atheism is the only rational position. The End.

Larpers, flyovers, any type of conservatives, or westernworldmeme knuckledraggers may fuck themselves.

I already have

I am not championing the given state of affairs btw, angels, archons and robots are the same to me, religion is self-tyranny, liberalism is self-tyranny.

You can't prove it without sacrificing millions of lives in the process, like the atheistic philosophy of communism did. IF YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH ON HISTORY YOU WILL SEE THAT THESE ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE. THEY FAILED. REPEATEDLY. You literally want to sacrifice millions of lives, since there is no other way to do so, just so you can be able to look into yourself and say "I don't need God." And then you have the gall to tell me you don't need God for morality. Wretched.
>But hey...you can surely point out multible religions that didn't coax such behavour either by carrot or stick.
First of all, spell properly when you're arguing with me. Second, we're human and that's our nature. If you don't have a noble goal like pursuing God "dangling by carrot", as u so crudely and tastelessly put it, then you will only end up pursuing the newest iphone being dangled by apple "on a stick", as is in the case in the modern world. I suggest to you to follow your own thought process to it's final conclusion before posting about it here and making yourself look like an idiot.

Our society is not doing well. Get a clue on the jews and degeneracy, newfag. Liberal-democratic values are founded on christian values. The founding fathers, who founded the values you speak of, declared America a christian nation. Please, get a clue, the way you talk is embarrassing.

>
Lived in the city my whole life. You realize all these things at once as soon as you reach a certain breaking point. An argument being out of fashion does not equate to it being falsified.

hmm baterica, and the baterica,.. hm baterica,.. hm the baterica

/thread

I always find it odd when people "believe" science will solve everything we dont know already. Why are they so sure?

WRONG

Just finished reading this post

OP literally doesn't exist

He exists, he is just busy choking on dicks as usual.

What a fuckwit. Does anyone seriously think that the universe came from nowhere, without cause?

Attached: philosophy mark 2.png (862x3832, 3.43M)

Don't be such a pedantic ass.

>the jews and romans themselves admitted it was
[CITATION NEEDED]

This just makes me upset

A shame to see heresy such as this spread so widely. If god COULD have done something else, that would be to admit that there is some potentiality to god, which is incompatible with the view that god is pure actuality.

you're just retarded

Technically it's not incorrect to say "God does not exist" since existence denotes entities of creation, in the realm of time and space and so forth, whereas the God of monotheistic theology was understood to be outside of time and space.

Revolutionizing society into something new and radical is not the same as trying a moral framework without faith in god. The first can be atheistic, but doesn't have to be. In fact, fascism and communism both used faith -just not in god- to justify their rule.
This is completely different from a theistic society evolving into an atheistic/agnostic one. History is pretty clear here. Social norms and inventions need first the right makeup of society to appear. Feudalism was a consequence of the people and their society and only changed with growing cities slowly offering new ways of life to peasants. Same with atheistic societies. Large scale atheism that is able to maintain modern society might need an educated populace for instance.
And yes, I don't need a god for morality, but the needs of individuals and current society are separate. Western society has been on a trajectory of shedding christianity for centuries now. Curiously, the problems with that come not from westerners, but foreigners that moved in. Which came because of globalization and would have come to a christian west as well.

>iphones
Who cares about that? You, because you have only strawmen. Religious thinking is not moral. Any religion involves promise of reward and or punishment. A moral religious person is therefore coerced to be that way or would be moral on their own without religion too. God is no more necessary for morality than the one wielding a whip.

Addendum:
Organized religion, like cities, needed many centuries to come about, grow and evolve. Why do you demand humanities attempts to shed past structures to be immediate, seamless and effortless?

Most people figured this out without reading a book, how's high school treating you?

contemplation of god is the contemplation of his absence. like death, it is ungraspable in the 'real' world. god and death are within the lost intimacy of continuity

Attached: 1547424459280.png (651x598, 582K)

I haven't read the book. Does it bring valid arguments to the table or it's just fedora tippings?

>mfw cant find evidence for god because im a dummy dummy bugman.

Attached: .jpg (165x115, 3K)

>bugman
I always know the person is retarded at this point.

According to Dawkins

It's been more than 1 1/2 decades since I've read it, but it's a good overview over scientific arguments against religion.
It's pointing out the ridiculousness of human religion in the face of the scope of the universe both in time and space.
The book is quite effective at what it does. It's telling that religious arguments against it are always metaphysical in nature.

On the other hand, the book does nothing to adress faith based arguments for religion, as those do not fit easily into a scientific worldview.

They accused the Christians of stealing the body. It's an admission the body was missing.

>It's telling that religious arguments against it are always metaphysical in nature.
And one should be surprised by this?
It seems a bit like pulling out strawman arguments.
Or maybe the book was meant for creationist burger biblebelters?

You are right, of course. The book was written when US fundamental christians were pushing for creationism to be accepted.
That the religious position has to give up reality and instead argue in a world of forms, also does not come as a surprise. It's the old play of the god of the gaps.

oh, ok I got it thank you based honest user

You're an imbecile. People who ascribe to the cosmological argument _identify_ God with the originator of the universe. That's it. There's no assumption about it being "willed" anywhere.

No one reputable does this retard. Stop acting like retarded american evangelicals somehow speak for theology.

Nobody said he did, the point was that religion was good for society and now that we don't have it our society is literally falling apart.

On the positive side, the future religion of the west will be islamic, because it's the only one nobody is allowed to critique and live.

>No one reputable does this
That might be true. My post however was directed at somebody who did claim that there is no altruism without god. Whether some user on Yea Forums is reputable is up to you.

>There's no assumption about it being "willed" anywhere.
Don't be so dishonest. God is clearly understood to be a self aware actor. If not we would use phrases more akin to eastern mythologies; the wheel of life comes to mind.

Don't play the definition game if you have nothing else left.

*blocks your path*

Attached: 9780226505657.jpg (828x1280, 135K)

If god has no supposed will/agency or whatever you want to call it, why call it god? It's not a neutral identification in any way. Just call it a 'base state/reality' if that's all you mean to suggest. Take your self-righteous pseudery elsewhere.

Where did the accuse the Christian's of this?

I only know of it being recorded in the gospel. I never looked into it because it's such a bizarre thing to question. Jews to this day will accuse the early Christians of stealing the body.

Dawkins is a humanist though. He thinks there is something special about a certain type of ape, but gives no reason why.

Attached: AntiSci.png (1234x816, 131K)

you fucking brainlet. imagine believing that quantum mechanics has anything whatsoever to do with the social and empistemological cancer that is postmodernism.

WHAT IS SCALE?

Doesnt science basically make evolution worthless?

How so?

unironically baste