Atheism - BS

Except that's not what atheism is.

He is always there
right here
you want to know why there is such a hellish mess?
see book:
The Great Controversy

pangolin
and what does it have to do with atheism?>??

there are 2 paths:
Christ
Satan

all that is not christ, no matter the guise whatsoever, leads to satan

i know
its only a thread starter

Myt rips confirm God's existence

huh?

My brain confirms his non-existence.

The lack of understanding of the philosophical relationship between free will, evil, and God’s ability to understand possible futures but allow us to choose between them in this image is embarrassing.

>atheists say God doesn't exist because niggers in africa are starving to death
Isn't this proof that God answers prayers?

Attached: smug_nazi.jpg (233x216, 5.19K)

Are you saying that's the only place people suffer?

that image is pure troll
down syndrome troll
but nonetheless

>are you saying

gunpointingatuser.tiff

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
youtu.be/msZ7lbE4Fiw

Attached: 6451.jpg (1234x695, 61.55K)

anyone using this argument unironically is confirmed idiot, because 'God' has the exact same problem. If you can say that God 'always existed' or some other bs, the same answer works for universe itself, making god a completely superfluous concept. It takes an idiot to not recognize this.

literally the only logical way for god to exist is we are in a simulation controlled by some aliens - making they God(s), as they can rewrite the state of the world arbitrarily - but then the problem repeats: either the alien itself is in a simulation, or there's a universe that 'just exists'

>niggers
>people
checkmate atheist

Pretty sure there's lots of suffering people all over the world right now. Blacks and whites.

Do christians seem reasonable to you? Does OP's image come off as reasonable?

it depends on one thing:
how you choose to filter whatever information comes into your brain

thats it
thats what determines everything, what you think believe how you behave your personality
everything

whatever information you "accept" based on your (wittingly or unwittingly) chosen axioms gets built up within and is your first preferred reference for anything you encounter then on

when one chooses the path of knowledge of only the emprical, then that is constantly reinforced and such becomes impervious to anything else

that is the way with all people
what you start with you only build on by accepting and fact that which validates it and it is reinforced your entire life

anyone who seeks to defy what people "know" are instantly deemed "ENEMY" by the subconscious because to accept what they know as fact would mean:
EGO DEATH
so the psyche fights for its life like a desperate beast

This is closer to the creatio ex nihil doctrine of Christianity, atheists usually subscribe to the laws of thermodynamics

>BLACKS
>PEOPLE
LOL ATHEISTS ARE SO STUPID

in the perspective of anyone who is the least bit nihilist both frameworks are very closer to identically absurd

you have to choose something
or nothing
which is also a choice

Says the guy that needs to deflect just to protect his ego.

(from the last thread)
I appreciate your responses. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic, but I work in formal methods and perform proofs for a living so it is hard for me to move on without speaking the same language as you.

>not what assumption means....
Perhaps I should have used axiom. In my literature they are used interchangeably.

Lets call it Axiom 1 in its place.

>it cannot be an assumption as assumption >requires some tenuousness to the knowledge

All assumption means in the context which I used it is that it is a statement held true for the sake of logical inference.

For example "All cars are red" can be an axiom for a logic problem, even if it did not perfectly map to all of reality (for the sake of hypothetical).

>it all comes back to the non dependability of
>"i exist"
>the very state of being conscious precludes, absolutely:

Now here is where I think we would actually have our first disagreement, and what was at the crux of my first question. I, and exist, are not well defined. The claim that is "non deniable" is unfounded unless there is a precise definition of consciousness. To my knowledge there is no definition.

In a prior post you (I believe) stated
>existence of ones own conscious mind cannot be denied
>to attemp to do borders in schizophrenia (no offense meant, at all)

It is exactly the incongruence such as schizophrenia which cause me to doubt your claim of "non deniabilty".

Why do you think that such corner cases are not worth taking into account?

Attached: while_ye_may.jpg (1200x1470, 473.63K)

>make obvious joke
>"MUH SUFFERING"
>point out obvious joke is obvious
>"Y-YOU'RE PROTECTING YOUR EGO"
fucking dumbass.

We have done everything that warrants another plague, flood, and literal mass extinction. Atheist still think god should stop this and mock religions for it.

Attached: 1291619924019.jpg (560x330, 143.63K)

From this image, I can take it the people calling this a nothing burger are, in fact, atheists.

>people

Attached: 1563827775697.jpg (1242x1195, 433.44K)

>try and get you to engage in the topic
>hurr niggers

I dont believe in the big bang tho i also dont believe in a big man in the sky... Just bc i dont know, doesnt mean i should force something in its space to make sense of something which doesnt make sense

>I appreciate your responses.

yeah im walking a thin line not getting temper lost at the other guy....

Perhaps I'm being too pedantic,

no

> but I work in formal methods and perform proofs for a living so it is hard for me to move on without speaking the same language as you.

yes
we keep slipping around, i know, because we didnt establish formal first precepts
oh well

>not what assumption means....
Perhaps I should have used axiom. In my literature they are used interchangeably.

Lets call it Axiom 1 in its place.

yeah that was curt and rude
i didnt know how else to state

>All assumption means in the context which I used it is that it is a statement held true for the sake of logical inference.

>held
indeed
where in this case no "holding" is required as it is absolutely objective and incontrovertible
due to, again, impossbility of
(what all possible assertions of any subjectivity of "i think therefore i am" reduce to)
"i do not exist"
denying the very necessary consciousness needed to say that
therefore:
consciousness, onesself
cannot be denied if one is even considering any of this or anything at all

>For example "All cars are red" can be an axiom for a logic problem, even if it did not perfectly map to all of reality (for the sake of hypothetical).

those are external to all consciousness
i.e. animate objects
( i assert the are only 3 classes of "things" in this framework in which we speak:
conscious sapient beings, lower beings (beasts etc), and objects)

>Now here is where I think we would actually have our first disagreement, and what was at the crux of my first question. I, and exist, are not well defined.

the words are tantamount to immaterial, or even are totally
i only use them as an intermediary to refer to the >THOUGHTS< that are occuring
whatever labels or abstraction they may take is irrelevant
(see: qualia)

PART2
>The claim that is "non deniable" is unfounded unless there is a precise definition of consciousness. To my knowledge there is no definition.

the words are abstractions or meta abstractions that eh how to be delicate
i dont mean to be rude
try this:
forget the words and all labels, indeed everything that we have to communicate such things
because i am speaking ONLY of the internal cognitive states that ARE the thoughts themselves

>It is exactly the incongruence such as schizophrenia which cause me to doubt your claim of "non deniabilty".

go on?
so yes "i do not exist" is an impossibility, at least as sure as the constant that is the speed of light
it would indeed require schizoprhenia to give that notiong any serious consideration......

>Why do you think that such corner cases are not worth taking into account?

clarify??

and yes even far more than that
we have each done more than warrants gehenna

different subspecies
because can produce fertile offspring with other subpsecies

I respect satan more than i respect jesus. Does jesus allow me to kill black christians?

Read aquinas retard

>fertile offspring with other subpsecies
I've been told that mixed babies only survive because of our medical tech not only that but they also come with health problems down the line if it's truly the case then nature doesn't want these mutts to exist.

bamp

Apologies, I must regretfully leave you hanging just as the conversation was getting interesting.

I was hoping to have a rigorous philosophical discussion about the nature of human consciousness. I had an interesting discussion with a neurologist and an anesthesiologist which could have made fun anecdotes.

Perhaps in a future thread. Thanks for the hospitality.

Attached: waterhouse_shallot.jpg (1536x1177, 251.75K)

you are free to try

he has allowed satan to do such things in the past

what manner of question is that?

thats tin foil hatter quackery

try going to any reputable source

Am i counted as a good boy christian if i kill black christians for being black?

well damn
we will find each other here again

It takes something of greater intelligence of maturity to manifest creation. As example with reproduction maturity and evolutionary development. We follow this basic trajectory. We create impossible possible reality by way of creation. We cheat death by reproduction and copies. This is why abortion is abhorrent to the natural order of evolution. Life can exist in many forms and builds character and armour immune systems to defend oneself from harm. Wings to fly. Life can manifest in any form. That is the power of life. Evolutionary advancement. So what created us? This is the argument. It doesn’t matter all that matters is it is of greater value ir maturity or intelligence to be able to create life. I use human reproduction maturity as my example. Time combined with evolution combined with reproduction combined with intelligence creates potential. When is the date of entropy?

Attached: BABDB820-5B83-496C-8386-952EDD6738FA.jpg (1024x768, 61.37K)

On his throne wondering if man will learn better and thinking about coming down here throne and all.

Okay, look. Pagan, what does that mean? What pagan? Because pagan is often meant as premesshanic druidic beliefs. If that is the case, the last known druid died 20 or so years ago and the knowledge was not passed to a follower of yeshua.

He created us. It is his fault if we are borderline retards.

You mean hasatan, wich is a position. Then there is the serpent. First to fall.

People who believe in god are dull

No. You choose to be that. I suggest you choose otherwise.

Imaging thinking that atheism is a belief. Holy fucking shit.

Attached: 1570487714423.jpg (750x715, 92.51K)

OP cries after he faps.

Attached: fap.gif (360x314, 2.93M)

Value is achieved in that which is created after the fact. That which is created has a history of survival attached to something of greater value behind it. Reinforcing it. A guardian or a master of survival evolution and maturity. If humans survived for an infinite amount of time what would our evolutionary capacity be. Would evolution be infinite depending on time or could we control time? Is evolutionary development infinite? What is the end game and purpose of progression? What is life without survival or existence reflected in law?

give me a link

whatever you want to call it

it was only a thread starter

all of the degradation of the human form since the unfathomably taller fitter faster smarter etc etc etc first parents, all of the deforming and destruction of the human form is thanks only to the author of sin and death

NOT Christ

value is define by:
what people are willing to pay/give up for it

nothing more, nothing else

It's well established that atheism a belief. Calling atheism a "lack of belief" or some other nonsense is just a cope. You can hold a belief concerning a lack of an entity's existence.

For instance, when an atheist's mother asks for help with the rent they will claim without a second thought:

>"mom, I believe there is no money in my bank account for rent"
Which is a perfectly logical statement. They'd never in a million years say
>"mom, I lack a belief there is money in my bank account for rent"

Though this is incredibly obvious to any non-mouthbreather and I just proved it with a simple example, I can also back this up with authoritative sources that reiterate/agree with my argument

The most logically tenable position is that atheism is a belief:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

A "lack of belief" is actually called agnosticism. I know this upsets most atheists but sometimes you just have to admit you're completely wrong.