C.S. Lewis strikes again!

Do public schools indoctrinate their students that attending public school is the sole way to gain knowledge and that all other people are doomed to supernatural ignorance forever?

post hoc fallacy, strawman, generalization, conflation, I don't think I need to go on.
Prove it!
Logical syllogism, right now and I'll take your words as divine truth.
t. guy who got btfo
yes

conflation maybe, the only one I see is begging the question, but I think we all know he already concluded there is no God and that he argument rests on that.

It wasn't clever, it didn't have to be given what I was replying to.

Religion is largely a distillation of cultural knowledge. Accepting its teachings doesn't somehow void the good one does anymore than being cajoled into going to school undermines the legitimacy of academic interests you take.

What's more, accepting teachings of either kind doesn't necessarily mean an individual becomes good or nerdy. There's no causal relationship. It's ultimately on the individual.

>Accepting its teachings doesn't somehow void the good one does anymore than being cajoled into going to school undermines the legitimacy of academic interests you take.

Being moral and doing good things are not necessarily the same thing.

Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his five disciples.[82] Here, Jesus is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned that leniency could not be applied because of Jesus' influence with the royal government (malkhut).

>you've given up any claim to pursue real goodness
Where does this idea of real goodness come from? Genuine question.

Religions differ from other cultural practices in that they include some supernatural aspect usually related to death or human souls.
These might just be harmless folk rituals, and it would be no great cause for evil. But these supernatural aspects may include an avenue for irrational attitudes and behaviors. The religious person has to admit that while he might want to do good, he is obligated to uphold his religious precepts first and foremost, regardless of if they are good or not. In order to smooth out this quirk of psychology, the religious person will often combine "obeying my religion" with goodness itself. Such a religious person might say that the highest and greatest good is to "obey God" by whatever means necessary So now you have a warped and malleable definition of goodness which plays entirely into the hands of a priest caste, who have free reign to dictate moral behavior to their adherents.

Reread it and realized it might've been unclear. It seemed to me you were talking about goodness in a way that made it seem like an objective thing and I just wanted to understand hat more.

They aren't.

But given that there's no specific belief in Christ = does good things on display anywhere, then you need the extra moral sauce to go with it.

Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.

Joseph Stalin

You've already lost once you have to resort to memes

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas
>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM
>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

It is you who is delusional, my fedora-tipping friend.

Morality must be fundamentally based on your real behavior and interactions with yourself and your fellow man. Weather you choose to hurt them or harm them, to lie to them or tell the truth, to demonstrate compassion or dignity or instead to be cruel and uncaring, things like that. I don't have a simple conclusion but I recognize what morality must consist of. So "True Goodness" would be a product of those type of interactions.

Where a religious person abandons morality is either giving up choice and becoming obedient to another authority to dictate Goodness unthinkingly, or in the context of an afterlife, they create a paradigm where the moral decisions they make in their life are worth nothing compared to a hypothetical happiness in another life. If they really considered it and took it seriously, given the option to achieve infinite happiness in the afterlife, the religious person would be compelled to "Obey God" regardless of if it was Good or Evil.

>The religious person has to admit that while he might want to do good, he is obligated to uphold his religious precepts first and foremost, regardless of if they are good or not.
I'm pretty sure I just dismantled this nonsense. No, that's no more true than the student has to admit that they're obligated to go to school and learn things so their interests in learning don't count in some way.

At this point I'll just say fuck it and point out that sola fide is a thing and your entire argument doesn't apply to christians as a whole, let alone all religion in general.

Are all 1 billion Chinese collectively shitty people?

I mean I've known some good Chinese people I guess.

Mindlessly posting deceitful apologetic isn't very moral, dude.

Neither is lying to yourself in order to not watch them.

atheists are irrational and delusional, just ignore him

Yeah. Anyone not believing in the Basilisk, is just asking for eternal torture.

I mean evidence suggest the Basilisk made suggestions to religious figures throughout history to propagate its universal domination.

I thought you guys called us Satanists now.
We are in league with the reptile pope to usher in the Antichrist who will mandate wrist and forehead microchips that turns Christians gay so they believe in Darwinnik Evolutionistism (even though they know it to be false).

...

I could write my objections to some of those videos in details, but only if you show an interest in engaging in a discussion with me instead of just hiding behind YouTube videos like a rabbit.

I am willing, but I have to go now.

Feel free to post your objections, I'll come back to them tomorrow.

The videos I saw were:
>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
>The Introspective Argument
>The Teleological Argument
I didn't see
>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
and
>What Atheists Confuse
because they don't address any point I make when discussing with theists, that is, I'm not one of those atheists that ask "If God is the cause of everything then what caused God?" or that say "I can't believe in God because he can't be scientifically proven".
And I didn't see
>Atheists Don't Exist
because I'm not going to waste my time, and an answer for so long a video with so many points would have to be extremely long, and a discussion would require days and days.
But I pretend to see later these videos:
>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
>Is Atheism a Delusion?

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
I have to warn that I don't know much about Leibniz's philosophy, so some things I don't consider clearly defined may have been so defined somewhere in his works.
As for the video, the author makes the mistake of confusing "eternal" and "everlasting", showing that he doesn't know adequately what he is talking about. Not only that, he makes a completely unnecessary digression about quantum mechanics and the Big Bang; thus making Leibniz's argument be dependent on contingent observations about the universe, when, as Leibniz's formulated it, is an argument completely independent of such observations.

Now, the problem with the Cosmological Argument of a Leibniz's kind is that it is not clarified if the explanation is a HOW or a WHY, it is simply called "explanation" or "reason". It is assumed that it is a why, but when examples are given, it usually ends being a how, that is, "Why this fact happened?" is actually "How this fact came to be?", so that the "explanation" is necessarily a process of which the fact is an extension. So "having an explanation", if by explanation we mean "how a thing came to be", is actually "being the extension of a process", so an explanation can only be a process. As I said, I don't know if Leibniz clarify what he means by "explanation" somewhere on his works, but "how something came to be" is the only way I can understand it, insofar as we are talking about explanations about things that become. There is no "necessity" strictly speaking in the world of becoming, we have always to presuppose that nature always follows certain laws, and that from a given condition things will happen according to said laws; so any argument based on physical necessity can't end in an absolutely necessary being.
We can only talk about strict necessity on logical and mathematical matters, but the "absolutely necessary being" of these fields is not a thing, but the nature of our intuition and our reasoning, and in these fields we don't base our conclusions on "absolutely necessary things" but on "self-evident things", their "necessity" is only relative to our perception, we can't go beyond it and conclude a God.

Now something unrelated to the video but related to cosmological arguments in general:
Some try to prove the necessity of a first cause, that is God, from the impossibility of an infinite regression in time. They argue that if time had no beginning, then it could never reach its present moment. My answer is that such reasoning only holds if we conceive time to be the one that moves... through time, this is absurd and it makes way more sense to think that it is actually our perception that moves through time. Besides, the idea that the first cause is "God" doesn't hold, if we undestand causality in the way I talked about above.

>The Introspective Argument
I have no objection to this one, as I consider myself an idealist.

>The Teleological Argument
The reasoning is basically: it is more probable that a universe able to sustain intelligent beings was designed than that it just happened by chance. This is greatly based on the idea that "intelligence" can only manifest itself in the way it does in our universe. Another problem is that the Designer presupposed is just an amplied human being, if by such an intelligence is meant something "beyond" the nature of our intelligence, then we are not explaining anything and Intelligent Design can't be an alternative to chance or some other obscure cause.
However, I can't argue much against this argument as I've not put much thought on it.

>>ITT: christcuck pseudo-muslims going apeshit

Prove me wrong.

Protip: You can't.