Atheists will say there's no reason to believe in God cause no tangible evidence

[Meteor21]

Rational arguments don't do it for them.

But then turn around and believe in aliens cause rational arguments.

Why are they so unself-aware?

 

[anthony111554]

All atheists are ugly, cuz they don't believe God.

 

[Meteor21]

Bump

 

[rayhuul]

strawman fallacy

 

[Meteor21]

strawman fallacy

Not even what that means, retard

 

[rayhuul]

But then turn around and believe in aliens cause rational arguments

are your parents cousins you dumbass this is a strawman

 

[mohi_100]

True. Believing in aliens on probabilistic reasoning and then asking for material proof of the creator, is a fallacy

 

[taecell]

Rational arguments don't do it for them.

But then turn around and believe in aliens cause rational arguments.

Why are they so unself-aware?

idiot

 

[Meteor21]

are your parents cousins you dumbass this is a strawman

No, just cause it makes them look dumb and that wasn't their intention doesn't make it a strawman, asswipe. Many hold to what I'm saying so how is it a strawman? Idiot.

 

[Meteor21]

idiot

Yes you are

 

[i believe in angels]

well belief is by definition not justified, so to believe in god or aliens isnt contingent on valid argumentation

 

[Meteor21]

well belief is by definition not justified, so to believe in god or aliens isnt contingent on valid argumentation

Do you believe that?

 

[Interleukin6]

If aliens don't exist why there's so much alien porn?

 

[zeref74]

Spoiler: here's my argument

You're retarded

 

[i believe in angels]

Do you believe that?

no, i know it, considering its true by definition

 

[manhattanbound]

If aliens don't exist why there's so much alien porn?

where u finding ts

 

[Meteor21]

no, i know it, considering its true by definition

How? Do you understand what a boltzman brain is?

 

[Interleukin6]

where u finding ts

just search alien porn nigga

 

[Meteor21]

Spoiler: here's my argument

You're retarded

Aww poor wittle baby atheist mad cause he stupid

 

[Mogs Me]

Bump

 

[i believe in angels]

How?

because belief is a mixed mode and is a concept created by the mind, not tied to any real world substance

so whatever we decide belief is, it is that - and belief is defined to be something which doesnt require justification, and this is true apriori, so i know it with certainty

Do you understand what a boltzman brain is?

yes, whats your argument?

 

[Meteor21]

because belief is a mixed mode and is a concept created by the mind, not tied to any real world substance

so whatever we decide belief is, it is that - and belief is defined to be something which doesnt require justification, and this is true apriori, so i know it with certainty


yes, whats your argument?

Ok so you don't understand what it is, or what belief is for that matter. It doesn't necessarily mean nothing backing it, though it could.

 

[ase]

Theres no way to prove or disprove god, thats why we look at the evidences from both sides, evolution theory from the atheists and different scriptures from different religions. But most atheists will not read the scriptures because they were taught the secular view and think its correct somehow.

 

[Meteor21]

Theres no way to prove or disprove god, thats why we look at the evidences from both sides, evolution theory from the atheists and different scriptures from different religions. But most atheists will not read the scriptures because they were taught the secular view and think its correct somehow.

You dont even need religion

 

[i believe in angels]

Ok so you don't understand what it is

i do, you havent made any argument

or what belief is for that matter

actually i do, and youre free do provide your own definition so we can see if it matches up

It doesn't necessarily mean nothing backing it, though it could.

i never said it's arbitrary and that nothing "backs" it (whatever that means), but simply that it isnt justified or true

if its true and justified, then its knowledge

 

[ase]

You dont even need religion

Thats true but I believe that God would not leave us without guidance if he created us. Some non religious people believe in a necessary existence but they say it doesnt have to be God.

 

[Meteor21]

i do, you havent made any argument

actually i do, and youre free do provide your own definition so we can see if it matches up


i never said it's arbitrary and that nothing "backs" it (whatever that means), but simply that it isnt justified or true

if its true and justified, then its knowledge

i don't feel like educating you on this, you don't grasp it. If you can't see why I brought up boltzmann brains in regards to belief you're not gonna be able to follow.

 

[i believe in angels]

i don't feel like educating you on this, you don't grasp it. If you can't see why I brought up boltzmann brains in regards to belief you're not gonna be able to follow.

i can guess why, but i cant respond to you without you making a fucking argument lmao

do you seriously want people to assume what your argument is and try to read your mind? do you think this is a cogent way to debate?

 

[Meteor21]

i can guess why, but i cant respond to you without you making a fucking argument lmao

do you seriously want people to assume what your argument is and try to read your mind? do you think this is a cogent way to debate?

I tried to explain, you're just dense

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

such a debate is pointless because you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of the abrahamic definition of god

 

[BR32]

Retard the default is that there is no god.

The burden of proof rests on the believer not the atheists

 

[i believe in angels]

I tried to explain, you're just dense

no you didnt, you just gestured at a philosophical thought experiment and decided that it's good enough

 

[Meteor21]

no you didnt, you just gestured at a philosophical thought experiment and decided that it's good enough

Which you didn't grasp the significance of

 

[Meteor21]

Retard the default is that there is no god.

The burden of proof rests on the believer not the atheists

The default is to not have an opinion, goofy.

There is no God is a claim. Life can come from non life is a claim.

 

[i believe in angels]

Which you didn't grasp the significance of

again, i can make guesses as to why you brought it up, but i cant respond without you stating your argument - partly because whatever i assume, you can always backtrack and say its not what you meant

so either state your fucking argument or accept that you havent made a point regarding the thought experiment

 

[ase]

such a debate is pointless because you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of the abrahamic definition of god

Yeah the debate might be pointless but everyone can look at the evidences from both sides and decide for themselves.

 

[Meteor21]

again, i can make guesses as to why you brought it up, but i cant respond without you stating your argument - partly because whatever i assume, you can always backtrack and say its not what you meant

so either state your fucking argument or accept that you havent made a point regarding the thought experiment

Why would I backtrack? Guess and I'll tell you if you got it right.

 

[i believe in angels]

such a debate is pointless because you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of the abrahamic definition of god

you cant really disprove or prove any empirical fact, proof only exists in mathematics and logic

 

[BR32]

The default is to not have an opinion, goofy.

There is no God is a claim. Life can come from non life is a claim.

I'm not making the positive claim that "God does not exist" I'm withholding belief due to lack of evidence. Thats the default epistemic position.
The burden of proof rests on the person asserting the claim that god exists not the person rejecting an unsupported claim.

 

[i believe in angels]

Why would I backtrack? Guess and I'll tell you if you got it right.

do you think this game of posturing is strengthening or weakening your point in this thread?

 

[Meteor21]

I'm not making the positive claim that "God does not exist" I'm withholding belief due to lack of evidence. Thats the default epistemic position.
The burden of proof rests on the person asserting the claim that god exists not the person rejecting an unsupported claim.

Rejecting a claim is saying it's false

 

[Meteor21]

do you think this game of posturing is strengthening or weakening your point in this thread?

Neither

 

[Meteor21]

I love how nobody is addressing the topic of the thread

 

[BR32]

Rejecting a claim is saying it's false

Rejecting a claim means it hasn't met its burden of proof not that its negation has been proved.

"I don't accept P" is not the same as "I accept not-P" I'm withholding belief not asserting the opposite.

You're confusing "not proven" with "disproven" those aren't the same thing

 

[Big Daddy]

i m afraid to even ask what exactly rational arguments don't do it for them

 

[Big Daddy]

I love how nobody is addressing the topic of the thread

it's too stupid for anyone to bother. don't worry, it doesn't mean you "won"

 

[Meteor21]

Rejecting a claim means it hasn't met its burden of proof not that its negation has been proved.

"I don't accept P" is not the same as "I accept not-P" I'm withholding belief not asserting the opposite.

You're confusing "not proven" with "disproven" those aren't the same thing

Do you reject the claim there is no God?

 

[Meteor21]

it's too stupid for anyone to bother. don't worry, it doesn't mean you "won"

Joined Dec 5, 2025

 

[Big Daddy]

ugh responses? what are you, 8? instant block. no idea why i didnt do it the moment i saw this moronic thread

 

[BR32]

Do you reject the claim there is no God?

Yes I reject both positive claims "god exists" and "god does not exist" rejecting a claim means it's unproven not that the opposite is true.

You keep trying to force a binary that doesn't exist.