An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Succubus]

Well then, fuck off you oversensitive dildo.

Aw, how cute.

Will you two shut the fuck up.

[EgoDeath]

Aw, how cute.

Will you two shut the fuck up.

[LastPoet]

Aw, how cute.

Will you two shut the fuck up.

Ahw, but MOOOOM!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Don't make me pull this message board over...

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Anyway, I've made a YouTube video about atheism in Latin. You can see it here (hopefully):
https://youtu.be/vtPkRUp7ZIM
So, what do you think about it?

[FlatAssembler]

Although I was speaking Latin in that video, I've tried to make it universally accessible by putting rough English translations of what I was talking on the pictures I've included.
Most of the atheists would probably begin by talking about the burden of proof. I don't think that's a good idea, there is much better evidence that God doesn't exist than simply the lack of evidence that God does exist. Furthermore, many religious people, thanks to the conspiracy theorists on the Internet, think there is indeed evidence for God, but that it's being hidden by scientists. However, the Omnipotence Paradox is really a 2+2=4-type-of-proof that God, as commonly defined (as a perfect and therefore, among other things, omnipotent being), doesn't exist. However, I don't think people find that psychologically convincing. So, before that, I bringed up the problem of different religions, the argument from inconsistent revelations (though, in my experience, most Christians don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they also don't have a sensible answer to "Why would God let his words end up corrupted?"), the "Why hasn't theology given us any useful answers?" (in my experience, Christians generally agree with me that theology is at least mostly useless) and the argument from natural evil. The argument from natural evil is I think a relatively convincing argument.

[Belacqua]

there is much better evidence that God doesn't exist than simply the lack of evidence that God does exist.

What is this evidence, in English?

[FlatAssembler]

there is much better evidence that God doesn't exist than simply the lack of evidence that God does exist.

What is this evidence, in English?

I've said that in both the video and the post you are quoting: inconsistent revelations (different religions, the Bible containing nonsense), the fact that theology hasn't revealed anything useful to us, natural evil, and, most importantly, the omnipotence paradox.

[Belacqua]

What is this evidence, in English?

I've said that in both the video and the post you are quoting: inconsistent revelations (different religions, the Bible containing nonsense), the fact that theology hasn't revealed anything useful to us, natural evil, and, most importantly, the omnipotence paradox.

The omnipotence paradox isn't the knock-down argument you seem to think it is. There are a number of objections, including one by Wittgenstein, who was no Christian. 

Moreover, it depends on a common-language understanding of "omnipotent" to mean "can do anything." For Aristotelian Thomists, however, that's not what they mean when they say that God is omnipotent. It means that all potentiality in the world depends for its actualization on God, which they say is pure act. Omnipotent, for them, means the full actualization of all potentiality. Actus purus, an old definition of God. It is incoherent to them to say that God "can do anything," because they already agree that God does nothing -- takes no action. 

So those people find the "can he create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" question to be about as challenging as "if people descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" 

Your other arguments help to demonstrate that revelation is unreliable and people don't understand God very well. But since it's a key definition of God that it is beyond human understanding, that won't bother believers. 

I think you've made some good arguments against the simplest Sunday School type of Christianity. A lot of people are stuck at that level.

[FlatAssembler]

Omnipotent, for them, means the full actualization of all potentiality.

In other words, you are saying that Thomism is a form of Pantheism? I don't think that's true.