Every week until you accept you're all full of shit.
Atheism disproven by science
le atheizm belongs 2 scienz xians hold knowledge back maymay
i ain't reading all that shit
write it out for me
write it out for me
Now why should I put out any effort for those of you who won't lift a finger to justify your worship of the White Lab Coat Gods?
reported for plagiarism DCMA incoming
This retard again. Stop posting pictures of books, faggot. Transcribe it, if it's so fucking important.
Show me which religion put a man on the moon.
Tell me about prayer being a better way of communicating than cell-phones.
The only evidence is proof. Proof me god exists in a way as simple as proving gravity.
Why are you so desperate to make people think the same thoughts you do?
If you're so confident you're right, why do you need other people to know it?
If your faith is so secure, why do you feel the need to prove atheists wrong?
This is going to make me fucking forever to reply to since it's 9 non-transcribed pages, but I'm a madman.
A way of life and thought which denies or ignores the existence of God is bound to end in dissolution and self-contradiction. If this is not sufficiently proved by the state of futility to which Humanism and rationalism has brought us, a state of inhumanity and irrationality
So, god exists because you don't agree with humanism and rationalism?
all that remains necessary is to reason the matter out. From the standpoint of reason the conclusion that God exists is absolutely unavoidable
Not necessarily. If you follow the standpoint of reason then there is potentially a god, but it hasn't shown itself to us in a reasonable way. That is, in a way which is discernible from other old books and from confirmation bias.
(snipped a bit about how important the following finding is) The only way to escape this conclusion is to deny the validity of reason, which is merely to make an argument, philosophy, and almost every form of discussion and thought impossible.
How? You haven't actually presented why here, nor in the next paragraph from me having a glace at it.
Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not.
So, either something exists… Or it doesn't exist.
If it is, then it is what we call God.
I take it by 'it' you mean 'the ultimate Reality' as you put it, but it does not necessarily have to be. It could be unlike anything we've thought of.
If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it.
Yes, either a god exists which is operating the universe, a god exists which created the rules which operate the universe, a god existed which created the rules which operate the universe, or the rules are something inherent of our universe.
To say that Reality is quite beyond thought, and therefore cannot be designated by such small, human terms as "conscious" and "intelligent" is only to say that God is immeasurably greater than man.
I guess, I don't see your point with this.
And the theist will agree that he is infinitely greater. To argue that Reality is not a blind energy but a "living principle," an "impersonal super-consciousness," or an "impersonal mind" is merely to play with words and indulge in terminological contradictions.
I'll give it to you that there is little difference between there being rules for the universe and a super-consciousness operating the universe, since the latter is just a more complicated form of machine than the former, but I don't see how this proves that any god in particular exists.
(snipped a further paragraph about why his previous statement is true)
If the ultimate Reality is indeed a blind energy or process devoid of inherent meaning, if it is merely an unconscious permutation and oscillation of waves, particles or what not, certain consequences follow. Human consciousness is obviously a part or an effect of this Reality.
Well, 'consciousness' as a loose term is part of reality. It is a real thing, whether an illusion or not.
We are bound, then, to come to one of two conclusions. On the one hand, we shall have to say that the effect, consciousness, is a property lacking to its entire cause – in short, that something has come out of nothing. Or, on the other hand, we shall have to say that consciousness is a special form of unconsciousness – in short, that it is not really conscious.
Your conclusion of your first option in this false dichotomy is invalid. Not everything needs to have the exact properties of its constituent parts. I am "conscious" (as horrible of a term that that is) while my cells aren't "conscious" and the atoms making up those cells aren't "conscious". Just because we're conscious and the universe might not be, does not mean that consciousness is an effect without a cause. Though to talk more about consciousness we'd have to go into a different debate which completely comes down to opinion.
That fallacious idea, that if there is consciousness that it has to have been created by consciousness, I can already tell, is what will lead you down the path of "proving" that god exists.
OP/thread, tell me if you want me to continue or if this is satisfactory.
spreading the truth to others is the only way to fight propaganda
Just because you're eating up the propaganda who tells you that other people are eating up propaganda, does not mean that your propaganda is right.
well if what you believe in is true in the case of Christians you sorta have an obligation to save their souls because they're going to hell otherwise.
I'm pretty sure OP would love it if we all went to hell. Most Christians revel in that.
Most Christians revel in that.
I can tell you as a devout Christian that isn't even remotely true. We don't want to see any humans cast into hell.
either God is conscious and intelligent
or he is simply the sum of consciousness and intelligence
even if you simply call it "reality," you're really talking about God
Sure, OP. By this idiot's logic, the concept of God is meaningless, and we should all just call "the universe," God instead. Semantics.
2pleb4me, you can't philosophize for shit, OP.
SCIENCE DISPROVES ATHEISM
strap man's towards a narrative
Don't you mean straw man?
If that really was true you'd spend all your waking hours trying to save people by getting them to see the light, not shitpost on an anonymous imageboard.