>>14100717 (PB)

<an atheist is someone who claims to know that God does NOT exist.

>Incorrect.

>An atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a God.

>Big difference. I'm not claiming anything.

You're claiming to believe that there is no God. Either that is a true statement about the world (i.e,. you believe God doesn't exist), and therefore needs justification, or it's a claim about your mental state (i.e., you believe there is no God but have no proof), and is irrelevant.

Which is it?

<an agnostic is someone who claims to NOT KNOW whether or not God exists.

>Yup, a pussy term of what I just described above.

>I don't know if there is a God or not. I don't think there is. But there might be.

>Ergo: I'm an atheist.

You're changing definitions of words because your position is bankrupt.

An agnostic is someone who:

>believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

You either believe God does exist, doesn't exist, or you don't know. If you believe He does, you're a theist. If you believe He doesn't, you're an atheist. If you believe He may or may not, you're agnostic.

You're somehow an agnostic, while claiming the label atheist, and using really weird terms.

This is now the second time I've had to bring basic definitions to your attention. I highly recommend actually doing some reading on your own, because you're woefully underinformed.

>>14100728

>You expect any one to take you serious when you speak like that?

As if you weren't condescending?

>Yes, obviously. Atheism doesn't exclude metaphysics. I've never stated so…

Ok, then how can you say you "don't have a metaphysics"? It makes no sense.

>I'm not deboonking anything, least of all strawmen that you build.

I'm talking about any one of the 5 ways. I'm very honored that you think I built them, but unfortunately for me they are over 700 years old, and I'm not quite that old.

>

>>14100737

>>14100762

>I didn't. I said i didn't ascribe to a school of metaphysics…

So you have no theory on being, "cats are cats and are just physical". Right. Good argument.

>And I don't care. I'm not here to deboonk or verify them. I'm here to figure out if you actually had Atheists checkmated, which I would have found VERY interesting.

Well the 5 ways checkmate you. So if you're not going to deboonk them, then you're admitting you're checkmated.

So checkmate.

>But it turns out it was just more hyperbole from religiotards (yes, i'm gonna keep using that term) claiming victory when there is none.

If you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and yell "lalala I can't hear you", I guess you're right, you can claim victory!

>>14100785

>Good argument? You asked I answered. I didn't know it was part of the argumentation?

I'm making fun of you. Sorry for being so obtuse.

>Atheist philosophers checkmated atheists?

You don't know what the 5 ways are, do you? You don't know who came up with them, do you?

>Now I am confused.

You're finally realizing it! Yes! Now we might be able to get somewhere.

>Didn't you say these 5 ways were studied by Atheists and were regarding metaphysics not religion?

No, I didn't. This is a very confused question. What does it mean for an argument to be "regarding metaphysics and not religion"? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

When you want to actually put your metaphysical commitments on the table, feel free, though.

>Also, metaphysics can by it's very nature not be either proven nor disproven.

Says who? You claim to not have metaphysics, so I'm going to make a blanket assertion and say your metaphysics can be disproven as absurd.

>So you wanting me to "debunk" philosophy is just retarded.

Why? That's literally what philosophers do.

>And then claiming that you won because I'm not entertaining your retarded notions is even more retarded.

Right. Here's a video of you getting destroyed for almost 3 hours.

>>14100833

>Good for you. I didn't work.

kek

>That the question is metaphysical in nature but doesn't touch on religion which also have metaphysical aspects to it.

So if religion has a metaphysical aspect, and I have a metaphysical proof for God, how is that not "religious"? Do you even know what "religious" means, and how it's a Christian concept?

>It's not that hard.

Which is why I'm struggling to understand why you're so confused.

>Says science.

Do you hold to Scientism?

>What does that mean? Have metaphysics?

Here, take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#History_and_schools_of_metaphysics

>What is a metaphysic?

I already defined it for you, can you go back to (pb) where I wrote the definition?

>Can I get 2 metaphysics?

Well you believe many weird things, so you could probably have more than 2, depending on the question and the commitments it would force you to have and what you're trying to avoid.

>You don't understand philosophy either. Gotcha.

Did you enjoy the video?

>>14100868

Then deboonk the claims. Should be easy.

>>14100892

You asked for proof, I gave you one, you raged. Sorry to make you so mad. Hope you actually do some investigation into this, and don't just stay in your patently absurd Scientism.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity and possibility.[1][2][3] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter. The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle’s works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[4]

Bye!

>>14100916

The 5 ways are not "stories". Why are you lying? Why are you so hostile?

>>14100968

>Philosophy = Imagining things = stories.

That's an interesting story you got there. Did you come up with it yourself?

>Because you are retards and relentless.

Cool story!

>>14100977

He's a product of some "western education", aka jewish indoctrination. Unfortunately he loves it too much because it gave him a lot of power (i.e., it made him a god in his own mind). It's going to be a bumpy road, and I hope God gives him the grace to snap out of it, like He has so many others.

>>14100999

kek, yes.

>>14101125

>>14101141

It would be cruel for God to lie about eternal fire.

You're calling God a liar. Be careful what you say.

>>14101237

Heresy does make me angry.

>>14101256

>He didn't write and edit The Bible so it is perfectly reasonable to say that the editors of that book are Liars.

No, this is heresy. Why would a perfectly loving, omnipotent God let His words be subverted like that. You're making a mockery of God.

>Some may experience heaven some may experience hell when their physica body dies.

This is definite.

>I am convinced that there are spirits all around and have met legit mediums who totally opened my eyes top the spiritual world and solidified my belief in God and the miracles that belief in him is capable of.

There are demons, and angels, obviously. There are witches, wizard, and exorcists, obviously. There should be no doubt God is capable of what the Bible says He can do.

>He want you all to be successful and happy, just make good causes and help other's become happy and you will experience all kinds of abundant joy out of nowhere, it is fucking wild shit!

He wants you to be with Him. Christ was crucified and murdered in the most brutal way possible. Narrow is that road, and suffering will be a part of it. In fact, the less suffering you experience, the more you should question the path you're on. But don't think for a second that this fallen world is the be-all-end-all. It's not. The resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come are at hand. Repent and believe.

>>14101314

I'm a Catholic. I don't believe in sola scriptura. I believe in saints, and angels, and a lot of things that others don't believe in.

I do believe that you're mislead. That you're following a demonic doctrine. But I also don't know how to communicate with you because you don't seem to be open to conversation, but instead espousing your position uncritically.

>>14101394

>The Spanish Inquisition

What is the problem with that? You complain about the inquisition and about molestation? You can't have it both ways.

>to Celibacy for priests

Literally in the Bible.

> It is unnatural so they molest kids

At a rate lower than teachers, who are mostly female.

>something in Canada about indigenous children's skeletons

They ran schools in Canada and people died. Big scandal. Lucky for you, the Canadians have burned 17 Churches in recent weeks. I'm sure you're happy about taht.

Your arguments would work for anyone who follows Jesus. He did pick Judas, after all.

>>14101406

Yes. You know Judas betrayed Christ, right?

>>14101442

He also left a Church. He also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He gave one bishop universal jurisdiction over the Church, just as He promised in prophecy in the Old Testament, reinstating the law of Moses. That Church gave us a Bible. That Church exists today. The only Church that matches that description is the Catholic Church.

You don't have to like the errors of the people in the Church. I bet you I'm more mad than you are. But that doesn't mean the Church isn't the One, True, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that the Nicene Creed, which was the Creed that all Christians had to swear at to at the time, talks about. And since the Catholic Church is the only one that makes sense, I'm not going to run from her like a coward, making up my own religion. I'm going to fight with God for God and His children, to rid the world of satan.

I ask you to fight with me, but narrow is the path to Heaven, and not even Christ converted everyone.

>>14101447

>It isn't both ways One is torturing and killing people because they disagree with the factcheckers of the time

Not what happened. You're a liar.

>and the other is tormenting children.

Right. Which should be punished. With an Inquisition.

>You are trying to have it both ways like one os good the other is bad but they are both fucked up.

No? I'm saying the proper response to evil is an inquisition. You're saying… basically anything you can to fight against the Church, lying and misrepresenting history at will to suit your argument.

>You have 0 numbers to back that up. one priest molests dozens of kids and gets shuffled around from Parrish to Parrish. A teacher molests one gets caught and can never teach again. I bet you that the male teachers who are freemasons don't get caught as much as the non freemason women.

You're delusional.