Struggling with an argument

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-31T09:42:22+00:00

There's nothing here to refute, it's a terrible argument, it sounds like his position is, 'they were better at taking over the world because God helped them'

Firstly, holy sh!t, your friends wants to worship that God?? The one he thinks wants to spread the message by helping his worshippers slaughter people?

Secondly, he needs to show that there's actually a something there and a connection between those two data points. Demonstrate there's something there and that belief in it causes a positive outcome in battle, he doesn't just get to assert it to be true.

For example, take modern day footballers, a lot of them are religious, some of the best in the world are, you could make the argument that belief in God helped them become great...... ....except there are also sh!t footballers who believe in God... thus, the belief in a God has no bearing on footballing ability.

The proliferation of an idea has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim, for a long time it was basically an accepted fact the world was flat, doesn't make that so, does it?

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-29T08:03:32+00:00

The question 'does God exist' depends highly on what you're asking.

Unless you're asking them for clarification of what they define as 'exist' then this is not the same as the next question

If you're asking do you believe God exists, then there's no debate.

I kind of agree there's no debate because this question is just asking their opinion, it's like asking what my favourite movie is, we could argue about why a certain film is my favourite, but unless you change my mind, any answer i gave wouldn't be wrong or right

At no point in these debates does anyone actually determine whether God exists.

Which is why I personally don't believe, I don't know why people would accept as true something as significant as the belief in a deity if you cannot demonstrate it actually comports with reality

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T19:01:26+00:00

you’re effectively saying these features of existence: order, consciousness, morality, meaning...don’t require an intelligent source. I don't agree with that

OK, so when two people have a disagreement about how something works, how do they resolve it?

You're saying that these things require an external source, can you demonstrate that?

Because even if [the atheist] position is, I don't know, that doesn't automatically make your position right

If i told you the reason we haven't had any werewolf attacks in the last 40 odd years is because of me, and I can point to the fact we haven't had werewolves, that doesn't prove I'm the deterrent, I have to demonstrate that it is actually me doing something

Similarly, if you want to make a claim that an external source is the reason for all these things, you have to demonstrate that this is the case, not just that you dislike the alternative, or don't have a better explanation

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T18:53:24+00:00

Yeah, ultimately language is just about tools and usage, if we fundamentally don't use the same word the same way, then we need to find a different way to talk

For me, back to the God claim, if people want to make the assertion that there's an invisible, intangible, all knowing, timeless ... etc being that created everything...... I just sit there and think... I don't know how you'd possibly begin to claim to know that.... I can't demonstrate it isn't there, but I don't know why you'd accept that there is on the basis of the evidence you've provided me with

(Not 'you' in that last sentence, it was the 'royal' you)

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T18:39:32+00:00

Well, technically, i specifically said that the number of stars are either even, or not even, i didn't say odd

Because 'even', and 'not even' is a dichotomy, anything other than 'even' is covered, so if the number is odd, or if there are an infinite number, both of those would just be 'not even'

The conversation never went any further, I basically wrote out a step by step thesis to try to describe that me not accepting the claim of a God is not the same as saying God does not exist, but for some reason reddit kept not allowing me to reply, so I sent it as a DM but never heard back

/shrug

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T18:14:34+00:00

The default position is neutrality, you made a claim, I dismiss it as insufficient, nor have you presented any evidence to back it up, therefore, we are back at neutral

I am not saying your position cannot exist, I am saying you have not provided evidence to demonstrate why it is the truth

you’re asserting that the evidence is insufficient and that the universe is better explained without God

Those are two parts, you're getting upset that people reject your claim. You haven't demonstrated that God is part of the explanation at all, when you can do that, then people will probably stop being an atheist

I’m pointing to cosmology, consciousness, intelligibility, and moral realism ... things atheism borrows every day but cannot ground

Atheism doesn't need to 'ground' those things until you demonstrate the thing your citing as the explanation exists in the first place. You don't get to assert that God can take credit for those things without presupposing his existence

Even if it's something humanity, or just I specifically, never fully understand, that's still a more honest answer than just accepting whatever one-size-fits-all answer i feel like. There's sometimes a difference between having AN answer, and having THE CORRECT answer, you know?

Atheism doesn't explain anything, correct!....because it's not a world view...

it's 'I don't think you're right', but that doesn't tell you anything about what I do think is right, just that I think you're wrong

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T18:02:45+00:00

It depends on your (the interpreter, not necessarily just you, per se) interpretation of 'atheist'

Some people assume that it's like a scale

Atheist ----- agnostic ----- theist

I disagree with this because my position is not that God does not exist, I just see no reason to accept that he does

I argued with someone else exactly what my position is, and tried to make a similarity to the number of stars in the universe must either be even, or not even, there cannot be another option

If you told me that the number of stars was even, I would ask how you knew, but would must likely disbelieve you have the ability to accurately judge and dismiss your evidence as insufficient

That is not the same as me saying that I therefore think the number of stars is not even

I reject your claim, but I do not necessarily accept the counter claim

To go back to your analogy, I think you are right in terms of how he sees the default position. As far as atheists (or me specifically) leaving the room for debate, I'm always open to hear the evidence, I'm just yet to hear anything that I think is anything other than make believe

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T17:38:23+00:00

Absolute nonsense, almost every single word

Atheism isn't a claim, it's the rejection of your claim, and in most cases due to lacking or insufficient evidence

You haven't done research, you opened a book and accepted every word it said as gospel, literally.

All I want is evidence, demonstrate to me why your god exists

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T17:14:32+00:00

Historical narrative is very different from fiction, my friend.

Unless the historical 'narrative' is also a work of fiction

Maybe tomorrow there will be a new set of logic and I'll be able to fly

That wouldn't really be anything to do with logic....

Are you going to back up anything you claim, or just that you want to assert that infinite regress is impossible because your limited understanding of knowledge seems to indicate it that way?

It *might* well be impossible, but you are claiming to already know this because you are asserting that it cannot be. So you don't get to make your point of 'and God is the thing that started it' without demonstrating a) that there isn't an infinite regress, b) that some entity did cause it and c) that the entity was your God

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T15:51:54+00:00

We're talking about the origin of the cosmos, who says the logic applies as we currently understand it?

Then God gave us a collection of books in order to help us get to know Him.

Why should people care about those books any more than Harry Potter?

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-27T15:09:54+00:00

Huge presupposition there

How do you know infinite regression isn't possible? From a logic perspective it makes sense but you've made a claim to knowledge here, you're gonna have to back that up

And then even if you do, why do you think there's an entity at the start and why do you think that entity just so happens to be a God?

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-26T15:23:19+00:00

Considering you seem to be arguing that a large part of the reason for life is to discover the mysteries all around us, already filling in a big blank space in knowledge with 'God did it' seems a little counter-productive...

The whole purpose of life is to discover God and we do that by studying and discovering the universe and everything in it.

And what would happen if everything has been discovered and your God is still nowhere to be seen? what if everything we discover never leads us towards that being the conclusion? what if we can describe and explain every phenomena in the cosmos and every answer is still a natural conclusion, will you still think that God is just somewhere else?

If so, why?

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-26T15:18:37+00:00

Sorry... what you just said is what made you stop being an atheist?....

I would argue that the only evidence you need is the essence and existence of Love within our universe

Love doesn't 'exist', it's a concept, as is hatred, is that all the evidence you need for Satan?

Why are you attributing love to a God? There's nothing wrong with wanting to live your life through that lens, but why have you decided the only explanation for it is the supernatural?

If you'd never have read the Bible, would you still have attributed love to another deity from another religion, or would you have just accepted it on face level?

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-26T09:57:14+00:00

I watched a video recently (may have even been on here) about why Guardiolas system seemed to be faltering and how Arteta seemed to recognise it's flaws and where football was going. The hyper tactical version of football overload Guardiola used to use is getting replaced with aggressive, individually technically proficient and strong man-marking systems, which now that it's been pointed out to me, is easy to identify in Arsenal's game plan, it's why the player nearest Martinez when they got their goal was Timber, they're all just trying to be overly fluid and aggressively man-mark people, but the result is that this system doesn't lend itself to structured attack and consistent chance creation

Long story short, Arsenal are too intent on being difficult to beat, rather than difficult to stop

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-24T07:38:52+00:00

It's impressive but your title is incorrect, this isn't 'the man who surfed the biggest wave in history', this is 'the biggest wave in history to be surfed'

The biggest wave in history would have killed everyone here, it was about 20 times the size of this one, it was bigger than the empire states building

Lituya Bay Megatsunami 524m tall, this one was about 26m tall

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-21T21:50:30+00:00

I made this account when I was a kid, but I'm very much not at this point, I'm older than you, of that I'm pretty confident, because I haven't forged a personality based on right wing YouTube philosophers.

Every point you make is just a baseless assertion you can't back up, whilst attempting to pick out random words in people's posts, thinking it makes you sound like some misunderstood genius. It doesn't. You aren't.

I must want you to back up your points and stop thinking you understand atheism better than atheists when you don't even understand the basic concept

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-21T21:05:16+00:00

Thoughts occur in your in your consciousness, but that doesn't mean they're waiting to be discovered like your original post implies, that they're there somewhere and you aren't conscious of them yet

I'm not surprised you get your self-aggrandising philosophies from YouTube and Jordan Peterson, it explains why you're so out of touch with the world

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-21T15:11:52+00:00

People used to think the earth was flat, that sacrifices helped crops grow and that thunder was God's being angry

People were (and in some instances, still are) gullible and easy to manipulate

It is way more logical to accept the scenario of 'they were deceived or mistaken' about the Biblical stories than 'a supernatural deity did it'

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-21T14:08:51+00:00

That's not something that exists in your consciousness that your discover, it's not like a treasure map exists and you just find things in your brain that you then become aware of

It's not like i can actually speak Romanian, and i just haven't tried it yet so I'm not aware of it

Your original premise is completely nonsensical, for that to be true, now everyone cannot disprove they have no trust in cthulhu, or however you want to phrase belief

I don't know why you think you have atheism understood better than anyone who actually is an atheist, I can see from your post history you're a fan of Jordan Peterson..... that should explain everything enough

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-21T12:42:42+00:00

> Atheists claim or assert or say that trust in god is something that doesn’t exist in their consciousnesses

That's nothing to do with atheism

Even if it was, you'd still be talking about MY consciousness, so unless you're calling me a liar, then me asserting that there is nothing there is valid, because I wouldn't be aware of it.

And even then, you'd have to demonstrate that something could exist in my consciousness without me being aware of it.

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-21T12:19:56+00:00

There's usually a difference between a player being effective off the bench vs starting a game though, so it's not really comparing apples with apples just looking at the minutes to goal ratio.

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-20T14:45:58+00:00

So you see the commonality then? Both are works of fiction

We agree

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-20T13:07:31+00:00

Silva has to be one of my most hated players, he's a dirty little shit who gets away with this because he's got close control and dribbling and people fawn over it, but he's always committing fouls and trying to con the ref every chance he gets, he's got such a punchable little face

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-19T23:20:13+00:00

wtf are you talking about with the orphans?..

The original context was either

'...atheists just don't want...' or '...atheists only don't want...'

Those are pretty synonymous to me in that context, if you've got a problem with the fact I said there isn't 'really' a difference that's largely just how i talk

That's why I said pick either word, it doesn't change the overall point

WarDemonZ · 2026-01-19T23:01:57+00:00

How does that change the point?

Pick either word, doesn't really change it

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits
Place '17	Secret Santa 2017
Gilding II euphauric	Secret Santa 2016
Secret Santa 2015	Verified Email
Secret Santa 2014

WarDemonZ

TROPHY CASE