Word to Your Neighbor

@restless_psycho @Askwhyisit @darwintojesus Understood: they (ie gods) are born from and exist in your mind. More evidence why self-proclaimed atheists and their atheism are irrational.

They are born from our minds to explain why the winter is cold and why lightning strikes, why the crops died or the children died. So they make one up and it’s a lie they want to believe since it beats the fact that their suffering doesn’t matter and when they die they stop existing. So we make something up as a pacifier to ward off the things that go bump in the night.

What explains the existence of any god, @darwintojesus ?

@Your_Wrongest @darwintojesus No. If language is intersubjective, then that means something entirely different. Is your premise ("language is intersubjective") objectively true?

@GetBackToNo @darwintojesus Language is intersubjective. Does that mean someone can't speak, write, understand English better than someone else?

Friendly reminder: there’s no such thing as “better” on atheism.

@AtheistTakes What do self-proclaimed atheists consider themselves to be "good" at? Making contradictory and self-defeating truth claims? Denying objective morality, reason, and logic?

@AtheistTakes The proof that atheists exist:

Smartest discord atheist

@TheSkepticWiz Thanks for clarifying that abiogenesis is just a hunch and not a scientific theory.

@AtheistTakes Says self-proclaimed atheists whose feelings tell them there exists more than one reality.

Wow this goes hard

@TheSkepticWiz x.com/getbacktono/st…

@AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 Can a self-proclaimed atheist please settle this and reveal which claim is true? A. Everything needs a creator. B. Everything that begins to exist needs a creator. C. Self-proclaimed atheists are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the truth (that B is true).

When you've never studied philosophy of religion Submitted by @doofgeek4011

@darwintojesus @atKensai Special pleading: "the claim of being an atheist is evidence of an atheist, but the claim of being a god is not evidence of a god."

You don't know what special pleading is. I know you hear these terms and you want to use them because other atheists do and it has a strong effect, but I would refrain until you have a handle on them. Also my argument is about what follows from what naturalism is, this argument has nothing to do with physics. This argument works for any type of naturalism, not just materialism. 1. You say my definition of “naturalist explanation” is classical, and then you site examples of things without cause or explanation and say these show I'm in the wrong in my definition. So a few things... just because we don't see a cause, doesn't mean there isn't a cause. When you say there's no cause, that's blatantly ignorant and foolish reasoning. It's foolish because if we say things can happen without cause, why are we doing science? Science assumes things have explanation and cause. It's ignorant because you have no idea of it actually has a cause and this is just an assumption you're making. But none of that really matters. What does matter is that naturalism is a cause, it's a type of explanation. That's what it is. When we talk about "natural cause" we mean there is a cause, and the cause is not "nothing." Nothing is not a cause, and nothing is not naturalism. So these two things are totally distinct categories, naturalism is something, nothing is nothing. Something doesn’t equal nothing. Make sense? Therefore if something was "caused by nothing" we wouldn't call that a natural cause, we'd call that a nothing cause. You're trying to conflate a natural cause with an effect that has no cause which makes no sense. If a baseball flew into your bedroom window and we discovered it was a brute fact, it had no cause, we wouldn't say "oh yeah this event occurred naturally." That would make no sense and it isn't how anyone uses this word. So no, the only person that doesn't understand what the word "natural" means... is you. Natural is a type of explanation and nothing is by definition NOT an explanation. I hope now this is clear. 2. There’s a lot I can say here but I’ll just say the important bits. Firstly you’re conceding the argument and admitting that there’s something that exists and doesn’t have a natural explanation, you want to call that “the universe.” Cool the universe has no natural explanation, it’s uncaused. So you’ve conceded my argument. Also, general relativity is a theory that says gravity is not a force, but the bending of spacetime caused by mass and energy. That in no way means that time began with the universe expanding. There’s nothing about a theory within our universe that creates laws or is prescriptive for what exists outside of/before our universe. So that was a total nonsequitur by you. 3. When I said “it’s God btw” that’s not the conclusion to my argument in that post. It’s an aside. However, it does follow that if naturalism is false then God exists, and this argument makes the case naturalism is false, so the conclusion, if it holds (which so far it does because you haven’t even come close to refuting it) would entail that God exists. Also I never said anywhere that everything needs a cause. I said if naturalism** is true then everything would have a natural cause or explanation. Naturalism isn’t theism, and it doesn’t need to be the case **on theism** that everything is caused. It needs to be the case that everything is caused by God (and God isn’t caused.) Avoiding infinite regress is not special pleading, it’s rational. I really shouldn’t have to explain that to you.

You are relying on special pleading and a misunderstanding of physics to reach a predetermined conclusion. - Misunderstanding 'Natural': Your definition of natural causality is purely classical. In quantum mechanics, uncaused events (like radioactive decay or quantum vacuum fluctuations) happen constantly. Nature already contains uncaused phenomena. - Misapplying Causality: Causality requires time (a cause must precede an effect). General relativity demonstrates that time itself began with the universe. Asking what 'caused' the universe forces a temporal concept onto a state where time did not exist. - The Non-Sequitur Leap: Even if we grant the necessity of an 'uncaused causer' outside of spacetime, concluding 'It's God btw' is a massive leap unsupported by your premises. An uncaused origin is just as logically likely to be an impersonal, non-conscious physical state. In fact, theoretical physics models like the Hartle-Hawking state demonstrate mathematically how a universe can be finite but entirely self-contained without a boundary or a 'beginning,' rendering an external first cause unnecessary. You are establishing a rule (everything needs a cause), breaking your own rule (except this one thing), and then arbitrarily assigning that exception to your preferred deity. Exactly your only game.

@AtheistTakes If self-proclaimed atheists recognized that Reason is objective, they'd realize their claims are unreasonable.

Thank you for your submission

@AgainstAtheismX Which version of atheism? The version where the self-proclaimed atheist presupposes God in their premise and concludes, "God doesn't exist," or the version where the self-proclaimed atheist presupposes God in their premise and concludes, "I lack a belief in the existence of God"?

Name a single argument for Atheism.

@AtheistTakes "Dead people do not come back to life after three days. Something like that takes millions of years."

@BryanKemper "Whateverisayitis"

Then enlighten the world as to what species an unborn being conceived by adult humans would be?

@jkbdts @AtheistTakes No. Though you, a moral relativist, believe there’s something objectively wrong with a tautology, it's objectively true bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides. And while the god that exists in your mind is evil, the God that doesn't exist in your mind is good.

@GetBackToNo @AtheistTakes So you believe that genocides and so on can be good in the end... Or how does that work? You do realize that you just made "God is good" a tautology, right? In those cases they were not necessary for anything good to happen at all.

@jkbdts @AtheistTakes Because God being good doesn't depend on what man says or thinks. If you, a moral relativist, believe genocide, rape, and torture are sometimes good to others, then why do you think God isn't good?

@GetBackToNo @AtheistTakes If you say no, then why do you think God is good?

@jkbdts @AtheistTakes No. According to you—a moral relativist who denies the existence of God and believes genocide, rape, and torture are evil to you but sometimes good to others—sometimes, yes.

@GetBackToNo @AtheistTakes Is genocide, rape and torture good?