An invisible skydaddy created a universe 1385522819700292000000000000000000000000 miles in diameter and 13799000000...

Why are atheists so terrible at making arguments? It's just fallacy after fallacy with them

Why are Christards so dumb bros?

youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ

Why would it be reasonable to believe a greater being created the universe?

Would you like to show us your math?

>math determines reason

What if god isn't omnipotent
But still created us?

A human being is the most complicated thing in the entire universe

so god doesnt want you to jack off because it was its so called most complicated invention?

>lol he's god we just can't understand his actions no matter how completely illogical, petty and completely retarded they may seem and you should never question is

Why does the almighty creator of the universe care so much about masturbation? Why does he not want people to masturbate?

Firstly, why do you care so much about masturbation? Secondly, why do you think we can understand what a god would "want"?

what? I mean you could say something less retarded like known universe. I'd say stars and radiation is pretty complicated too.

>"rationality"
>"logic"
>"reason"

>why
Can't answer why he does anything when we don't know what his ultimate goal is. Perhaps there's a reason for it, and perhaps there's not.

I think the important question is why all these rules have been laid down in the first place, assuming that a deity exists. You can judge the logic behind them when you discover what they're trying to accomplish. Perhaps it's because we're a giant experiment, perhaps it's because it causes a negative change in our psyche, or any number of other reasons. It could even be that rules are created for us to follow to have structure, and the rules themselves are meaningless.

What is God's frequency?
Since his frequency dropped (z > 1100) due to expansion (see Hubble), how do we know that the messages we receive from him are correct?

BTW...
Does Jesus have to be crucified on every planet with sentient (sapient) beings OR are we God's special snowflakes.

Just Golly
>pic is, well, just Golly

This would be relevant to me if I thought a deity or group of deities existed, and that I also cared about following rules laid out by said deity/deities.

I'm kinda curious why you think anyone cares about those old rules about sexual conduct anymore in the developed world?

It's possible that due to a difference in physiology and mental composition, that there's an entirely different plan for other sentient species entirely. Or, it's possible that the deity we worship is wholly uninterested in non-human creations. We won't know if there even are other non-human intelligent lifeforms out there until we find them, and it's possible that we're the only type he created.

Well, if you consider Murica as devloped...

Then why is the former question relevant to you? If there's not a deity, then there's no need to ask the question.

I'm just saying, if you're going to ask a question, it's best to take it from the top and work your way down through the rest of it all. In this case, it could be, "Is there a creator deity?" and if the assumption is no, then no other questions need to be asked in that line of thinking.

Thank God that most atheists are this retarded.

Believs something without evidence.

Calls people that want evidence before they believe something >retarded

Think again you are the retard.

>It's reasonable to believe that some greater being created the universe.
reason me, then. I disagree. I do however think it's reasonable to believe it's possible some greater being created the universe. I don't think there's much way to reason that such a being told us not to masturbate some few millennia ago, just authoritarian arguments.

>yes haha I am willing to entertain the idea of an all powerful sky wizard creating everything but I lose my immersion when he starts telling his creations what to do that's where I draw the line haha checkmate christcucks

He doesn't state that there isn't an omnipotent being the OP is just saying christianity is a tool used to control the masses and people should make their own beliefs instead of subscribing to mcdonald ideologies set out by cucks thousands of years ago

>hahaha lmao how ludicrous is it to suggest that masturbation can prevent you from living your life in a good way
>time to post on Veeky Forums and jack off to chinese cartoons

god was literally right

I M P L Y I N G
M
P
L
Y
I
N
G

...

How many times are you gonna make this thread?

You already got BTFO yesterday. The world is not billions/millions of years old, it's 6000 years old.

If you're gonna shitpost atleast get your facts right.

Thinking a superiot being may have created everyting can make sense
But thinking he cares about pity human shit doesnt

If God is all good, and masturbation is a moral wrong, then there's no inconsistency there.

Also, the laws are against lust and adultery, not necessarily masturbation.

>Woah dude

I don't know, therefore god did it.

So what parts of my body do I have to mutilate because they are problematic?
And why isnt it obvious to you that you are dealing with a demiurge?

>he can't even green text properly
>calling anyone retarded

Actually it makes sense

If we had one God, the other life forms would probably call it something completely foreign to us

But let's say Christ is right

The other planets would have received instructions on how to live a moral life

The two societies would be able to live in harmony

Any false religions would become extremely obvious as the other planets likely wouldn't have the same exact falsity

It's the perfect time to prove that the basic concepts of morality are universle

I love how in this thread Christfags do not have a single counter-argument. Just

>t-that t-t-totally makes sense. You just wear a fedora!

>applying logic to (a) God
Beginner's mistake.
>to tell us not to masturbate
This is just something that's mentioned, it barely holds any relevance, so why did you decide to focus on this?

>Dude just turn off your brain.
No thanks.
>so why did you decide to focus on this?
Because it's more than a bit weird that an omnipotent primordial cosmic entity would give a shit.

Naw it's just all part of the long term policies of the successful groups (tribes, religions, etc). The groups that didnt focus on procreation and outbreeding the opposition eventually ended up being outbred. Hence the importance placed on members of these groups by the leaders for things like family and marriage, while opposing things like child control, abortion, same sex marriages, masturbation and homosexuality.

DELET THIS!!!!

Gotta love the guaranteed replies from triggered crypto-kikes.

But the Jews got conquered by the Greeks who loved their masturbation and homosexuality.

>No thanks.
Some believers in God, aka those who believe in everything that is stated in the bible, don't turn on their brain either, which is why it is called ''believing'' in God, these people can't prove that God exists, but atheists can't prove He doesn't exist either. Sure, the believer is at the burden of proof, but he doesn't care, so why do you bother so much to apply logic to something where logic is simply inapplicable? You can have thousands of arguments on this topic and not arrive at a single conclusion, it can drive a man mad.

Because it's not a 50/50 scenario of both cases being equally likely but unprovable. One (biblical fundamentalism) is absurdly unlikely, the other (strict gnostic atheism) is fairly consistent with what we know of the universe, even if it does make some hypocritical leaps of faith. Even if we can't truly know either it's easier to believe that there is for certain no god, than it is to believe the bible is literally true and must be followed rigidly.

>so why do you bother so much to apply logic to something where logic is simply inapplicable?
Because I want less Christians in the world.

>the universe if big, therefore God isn't real

I love this meme. What part of omnipresent and omnipotent do you not understand? Time and space isn't a problem for an infinite, boundless, all-seeing, all-knowing, highest conceivable form of existence.

Nice butt...

>Why does the almighty creator of the universe care so much about masturbation? Why does he not want people to masturbate?
Because He does? Why do you think your mental faculties are superior to a being that is literally boundless? Why do you submit to petty human reason while rejecting divine reason? Even your petty reason must admit that divine reason must be superior to mortal reason.
Evidence does not exist, nor does it dictate belief.
It does make sense, that is a counter-argument.
>applying logic
Fuck off to reddit you nonentity. Goodness me you aren't even logically capable, but still worship it as your new god. So much for piety.
>we know the universe
According to your ideology? Why is it correct? muh fe-fes?

>strict gnostic atheism is fairly consistent with what we know of the universe

Nothing we know suggests there is no god.

We know nothing.

NOT MASTURBATING IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW.

Divine reason says slavery is okay, women are inferior, and that it's totally cool to drown the fucking earth and kill everyone except a handful of people because they're not listening to you anymore.

>i've never read the bible
ok kid

Why?

If God exists why doesn't he want people to masturbate? He lets them have sex. Where in the bible does it say not to masturbate?

Why are liberals/progressives/flavor of the month mild internet leftists ADDICTED to dysphemism?

Do atheists have any rhetorical weapons besides mockery?

nihilism and a wicked sense of humor

New International Version
"'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

New International Version
and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

I didn't say that. I said strict gnostic atheism is consistent with what we know, not that anything we know points to that conclusion. If you believe for certain that there is no god this in no way contradicts any established knowledge, for sure it's a leap of faith but it's not a leap of faith that requires ignoring anything that we know.

Biblical fundamentalism on the other hand does, if you'd like to believe that the world is 6,000 years old that strongly contradicts something we know for certain about the universe.

is atheist reading comprehension this poor?

Does the Bible say it's not okay to hold slaves or that women are equal to men? And I don't think anyone can justify a god judging everyone as "evil" and killing them all.

What would you describe those things as then?

That doesn't say not to masturbate, it just says you'll be ritually unclean if you do, which doesn't even matter since the new covenant replaced all the Jewish ritual laws

it's good advice tho

New International Version
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

It doesn't.
>a perfect and boundless and omnipotent being cannot decide to renew humanity
ok kid

New International Version
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

>slavery is okay, women are inferior, and that it's totally cool to drown the fucking earth and kill everyone except a handful of people because they're not listening to you anymore

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

If you are incapable of assesing a concept in good faith you should
go back to beddit.

Let me guess, you will unironically post the verse that forbids seashells?

New Living Translation
But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else be reconciled to him. And the husband must not leave his wife.

New Living Translation
(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)

What's wrong with either of these verses?

New International Version
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

Reductio ad Absurdum isn't a fallacy.

You're still reducing several verses to very skewed, simple and outright misleading short phrases, and not actually logically attacking the condensed verses when attacking these representations.

That's a strawman fallacy

That's what puts you under the government's control and bound to contracts.

The reductio ad absurdum is actually a valid form of argument and is very often correctly employed in legal arguments.

You should've just linked to the strawman fallacy, if you think that your argument is being misrepresented. The reductio ad absurdum looks similar, but isn't a strawman fallacy.

>legal arguments
Trash arguments. Absurdity is not wrong, it is only wrong to morons.

Well, if you are too good for the legal world, o mighty one so far above us all, then consider that it's also employed in mathematics.

Mathematics is also trash.
>o mighty one so far above us all,
If you disagree with trash, you must be le elitist which is bad for le reasons!

OP, I don't disagree with your sentiments, but you're not going to get anywhere with this line of ridicule. You either take that the story in the Bible makes sense as an article of faith, or you don't.

Nothing we know suggests the requirement of one either.

>inb4 perverse wordgames

I wasn't doing anything except pointing out that reductio ad absurdum is a logically valid argument.

Also, if the content of those reductions is still true to the original verses, it's not a strawman. If the Bible sounds like a ridiculous misrepresentation when distilled, perhaps you just find it ridiculous and aren't aware of the fact.

>Women are equal to men
Youre unironically calling God out on his mistake about this, right? Go hang yourself libcuck.

Quality post

>I wasn't doing anything except pointing out that reductio ad absurdum is a logically valid argument.
Which is incorrect, it is far from a valid argument.

>2017
>still defending the skydaddy meme because your fragile ego is scared of death

When will christcucks learn?

Explain how. It's not a logically fallacious argument.

>absurdity is bad because...? it looks or sounds stupid haha!

You don't know what the reductio ad absurdum is, if you think that it's just about absurdity...

Please read up on it.

>I don't believe and my insecurity leads me to post about my disbelief mockingly online.

Yes I do, do you not see how I am attacking it?

I am attacking it by attacking its fundamental stance that there is an issue with absurdity. What else would I oppose, the reduction? Read for once in your miserable life.

Please, please read up on it, it's a very influential form of argument.

Easy reading:
iep.utm.edu/reductio/

More advanced:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/