*Has Yet To Be Refuted*

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Geku

    The sphere you experience in death is God. The book cover is the refutation, it refuted itself. Dawkins is a goofball.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting considering god is an omnipresent omniscient omnipotent being that is not limited by “spheres of experience”, you Black person homosexual homosexual pseud

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    absolute midwit trash. the center thesis of the book appears to be, "if god created the universe, who created god?" and that, along with his straw manning of st thomas' 5 points, is so intellectually dishonest i cannot believe people take this man seriously.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't hear a refutation there. If you state that everything which exists needs a creator, you cannot complete your syllogism by saying God exists without, himself, having a creator.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you're repeating the fallacy that dawkins makes, which is the entire premise of this trash book. the god christians believe in is outside of this finite construct of space, time and matter. something like that wouldn't be beholden to his own creation because an eternal being has no beginning or end; his understanding is fundamentally flawed and it shows when he summarizes st thomas' 5 points, never quotes, and then attacks the straw mans he creates.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Define what you mean by "outside of this finite construct of space, time, and matter". I'll help you along, such a concept is literally meaningless. It has zero frame of reference, and it would be insane to even conjecture what such a concept would entail, much more insane to claim that a being exists there that has made contact with human beings. It also assumes that there isn't a dimension of the material universe which fits the bill of being uncaused. In short, it's just a bunch of woo woo made up nonsense to enable belief in the projected father figure in the sky, unironically.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this universe scientifically has a beginning and an end. all that it encompasses, time, space, matter, etc. the mover of the this would have to logically be outside of this frame work. this is the god of christians, not a finite being that would require a creator per dawkin's logic.

            Read Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene. In short, systems which are stable tend to continue to exist, and systems which are unstable tend to cease to exist. This holds for stars, galaxies, planets, and, yes, chains of protein. Once you have chains of proteins in various patterns with the capabilities of replicating, there is no great leap to life as we know it, it's actually a very straight forward, mechanical process. When Darwin published, the religious denied it for decades, now into being centuries before finally a growing proportion are being dragged forward into the truth, and I expect the same of Dawkins, the religious will lag behind by decades or centuries, but the Christians of the future will merely retreat once again into the gap of this anon [...] and claim that God exists in some made up space outside of space (a meaningless concept) and that he just sort of got things going for patterns and evolution to fulfill the actual process of life arising.

            the foundation of this is biological compounds being polymerized from non biological compounds, correct? science can't prove this and will never be able to because it's impossible. the only trials i've read about being successful used mrna but that isn't the same idea.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is where language breaks down entirely. Are you implying a creator outside of time stepped into time at the first moment of time to "cause" time, even though cause and effect didn't exist yet because there was no time in which a causal link could exist? Or are you implying cause and effect are not temporally related? Also, why do you assume the first moment of time in our universe could not have sprang out of the last moment of a different universe? In either case, the idea of a conscious creator makes no sense at all. Also, excuse me, but the Christian God is a personified being whom one can have a relationship with, not a neutered first mover as Aristotle conceived of.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The universe has no end, it's constantly expanding

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the foundation of this is biological compounds being polymerized from non biological compounds
            It's just chemistry. Physics doesn't give two shits if something is biological or not.
            >science can't prove this and will never be able to because it's impossible
            Under the right conditions, basaltic glass can stitch together RNA pieces into larger structures. As time goes on, we keep finding more and more puzzle pieces to how it happened. It's certainly more robust than religion's insistence on "dude trust me"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No one has found a set of plausible prebiotic conditions that would cause hundreds of RNA letters—each of them complex molecules—to link into strands long enough to support the complex chemistry needed to ignite evolution.
            >A bigger issue, Szostak says, is the shape of the long RNA strands. In modern cells, enzymes ensure most RNAs grow into long linear chains. But RNA letters can also bind in complex branching patterns. Szostak wants the researchers to report the type of RNA the basaltic glasses created. “I find it very frustrating that the authors have made an interesting initial finding but then decided to go with the hype rather than the science,” Szostak says.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If we can't demonstrate every single step scientifically at this very moment, it's clear it must have been God

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >we can't and actually won't ever be able to prove abiogenesis and kind bringing forth different kind but just trust us and become hyper individualist practitioners of hedonism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We can prove that organic matter is made of the same shit that the rest of matter is made of. We haven't brute-forced the exact chain of reactions, but we've gotten continually further with it as time goes on.
            >and become hyper individualist practitioners of hedonism
            Everything in moderation. Dawkin's The Selfish Gene does a solid job at demonstrating how social cooperation emerges from an otherwise indifferent world, all across the Tree of Life.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the god christians believe in is outside of this finite construct of space, time and matter.

          Why?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything that exists has a creator
          >Yes
          >Does God exist?
          >Yes
          >So he must have a creator then?
          >No
          >So everything that exists doesn't have to have a creator contradicting the initial assumption.
          >Shut up you just don't understand.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything that exists has a creator
            >Yes
            Already fricked up at step one.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            god is eternal though. that is without beginning or end. this is dawkins' mistake and shows he doesn't have a good understanding of the religion, also shown when he summarizes what he thinks st thomas' 5 proofs are, never quoting btw, which is why it's a chapter of straw manning. this is also why if you ask him about the "universe creating him, who created the universe?" he won't have an answer for you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            special pleading

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this is also why if you ask him about the "universe creating him, who created the universe?" he won't have an answer for you.
            atheists deny a creator of the universe exists you stupid fricking moron, it's in the name, it's why you are arguing with him in the first place

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but it's simply his question reversed back to him. it's supposed to be ironic.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what are dimensions
        That's like assuming the only dimension is the third one we live in and any higher dimensions are unfathomable even though it is pretty simple to prove they exist mathematically
        If we can easily create anything on a 2D surface why shouldn't the same logic hold on a 4th dimension?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So the universe itself could have more dimensions and not require a creator then?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >even though it is pretty simple to prove they exist mathematically
          You haven't studied math. Dimensions are presupposed and in physics they're useful abstractions used to refine the mathematics of a given theory.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but to refute that is simple, you just need to say that there is the possibility of god being everything and that everything has always existed. i don't know if that fits in christianism tho, but there's still the possibility of a god

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why call that "god" and not just "the universe" or "existence"? You might just as well call it "Brahman" or "Allah", it's purely a way to smuggle in cultural artifacts of dubious origin. If you want to dabble in possibilities, why not suggest that universe-creating-pixies did it, and that these pixies are special in that they don't require a creator?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why not call it the universe
            because while there is this impersonal god that you could call the universe, there could also exist a personal god at the same time, which is the hindu doctrine. these things are not excludent
            >dabble in possibilities
            the "there is no god" is also a possibility

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but formal religions are built around assertions. The thesis of the book is that these should be regarded as delusions, since, on the whole, they must be delusions since the majority of them are categorically false beliefs.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    secondly, why do "intellectuals" like him and hawking always create a zero sum situation between god and science? as if you have to choose an explanation for the ford engine between combustive engineering and physics vs henry ford.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's kind of like saying "provide a theocratic argument for the steam engine, otherwise it doesn't exist". Well, no actually.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      More like people clamoring for alchemy to be an accepted school of thought on the level of chemistry. One is fraudulent, the other is legitimate.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tell me how abiogenesis and evolution theories are more reasonable than intelligent design signaling to a designer. everything came from nothing and because of dna, we all have a common ancestor. the leaps of faith you zero sum people take are incredible and you don't even realize them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Read Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene. In short, systems which are stable tend to continue to exist, and systems which are unstable tend to cease to exist. This holds for stars, galaxies, planets, and, yes, chains of protein. Once you have chains of proteins in various patterns with the capabilities of replicating, there is no great leap to life as we know it, it's actually a very straight forward, mechanical process. When Darwin published, the religious denied it for decades, now into being centuries before finally a growing proportion are being dragged forward into the truth, and I expect the same of Dawkins, the religious will lag behind by decades or centuries, but the Christians of the future will merely retreat once again into the gap of this anon

          you're repeating the fallacy that dawkins makes, which is the entire premise of this trash book. the god christians believe in is outside of this finite construct of space, time and matter. something like that wouldn't be beholden to his own creation because an eternal being has no beginning or end; his understanding is fundamentally flawed and it shows when he summarizes st thomas' 5 points, never quotes, and then attacks the straw mans he creates.

          and claim that God exists in some made up space outside of space (a meaningless concept) and that he just sort of got things going for patterns and evolution to fulfill the actual process of life arising.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's true, chemistry is totally made up

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They don't. They accept the possibility, but deem it extremely unlikely. Scientists operate on probabilities, not absolutes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they quite literally frame it as one versus the other though.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because the way many religions frame their gods is contrary to science. Look at this shit and tell me a single person here is scientifically minded in the slightest

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The point of pushing science into the mainstream was to destroy the belief in god.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds cruel, robbing a creature of belief from its very life force.

        dawkins recently outed himself as a cultural christian. he was never atheist, just islamophobic.

        Christianity has generally mellowed out a lot and the average person can actually look through the religion and pick out the valuable bits for themselves. It falls apart if you scrutinize it too much, but the general gist of what Jesus was getting at, specifically in terms of cooperation instead of blood feuds, fits fairly well with Game Theory's optimal strategies for cooperation.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we all had our teenage atheism phase

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Glad that shit is passé now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, you are older now and closer to death. So you return to the fairy tales told to you in childhood, you have regressed.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          when i was 8 i also though that 14 years olds were super old
          its ok ull grow out of it too

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How did you know I was over 40? Stalker…

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Child...

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Dawkins publicly sided with Zionists, parroting the line about Hamas c omitting another holocaust. When asked if he could believe the protestors were just genuinely shocked by the mass-slaughter of the Palestinians, he refused to answer and demanded the person asking shut the camera off.

    Dawkins has always been a cheap ideological apparatchik.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >atheists are titans of intellect
    >[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
    >atheists stand for free-thinking
    >[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
    >atheists are champions of reason
    >[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
    >atheists are anti-dogmatic
    >[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
    Atheism is an intelligence LARP that morons indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weak point is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love how scripture is suddenly metaphorical as soon as science disproves biblical events as having actually happened. That way, you can pick and choose which facts in the bible are true and which are false. It's a win win situation.

      Get off of reddit. If I generalized all Christians as flat earth, anti-evolution, poor morons then you wouldn't like that, would you?

      The problem you're running into is that most atheists wouldn't actively label themselves as such. It's only when a random religious or militant atheist questions them, they have to give an answer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the irony is that science "disproved" many things, then as time passed, we discovered things like sulfurous bulbs near the dead sea by sodom and gamorrah and evidence of an actual earthquake when jesus was crucified.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Barkon

          It is the most mad, in that mad can be equal to less mad but more technical. I am the most mad and others may be the same genetic tree. 'look up to trees' is my name, like that dimensional guy who gets abstractly mad but expects you to pursue good correctly as a sacrifice, the voice of the trees, I am the autobot metaphorically of him

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >sulfurous bulbs near the dead sea by sodom
          and the archeology revels that the city was abandoned, not destroyed by something coming from the sky; directly contradicting the biblical narrative but pointing that it might have been use as inspiration for a moralist fable

          >evidence of an actual earthquake when jesus was crucified.
          there isn't, the evidence is for an earthquake in the first century in an area known to be geologically active and suffer earthquakes every few years, nothing impressive or supportive of christian claims

          interesting how quick christians are to lie and twist things to fit their narratives

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I love how scripture is suddenly metaphorical as soon as science disproves biblical events as having actually happened.
        The Bible isn't a science textbook and you don't even know calculus, moron.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Bible isn't a science textbook
          I remember some moronic christcuck on here called it a 'maths textbook'.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it is a math textbook you stupid pedophile

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it is a math textbook
            >Pi = 3
            And no, the mere presence of numbers doesn't make it a math textbook either. Stop deluding yourself by trying to portray the Bible as something that it isn't. It's a fundamentally flawed position that even someone with little familiarity with the Bible can see through.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pi is a Greek letter you wienersucking moron, it's not just a mathematical symbol. stupid frick

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pi is the symbol used to represent the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. The value of this number is approximated as 3.14 and the actual number goes on indefinitely. The Bible however (specifically 1 Kings 7:23) claims that pi is exactly 3, which is incorrect. If the Bible is a math textbook, then it's a shit one. Also the Bible offers no actual instruction in mathematics in the first place, which is the essential feature of a math textbook. You are a very stupid person trying to act intelligent.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            3's close enough, bible wins this round

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >3's close enough
            Close enough isn't good enough for a math textbook. Congrats pseud, you BTFOed yourself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            motherfricker they're a bunch of homeless men in a desert, they left their protractor back in the other pyramid

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe God should've furnished them a protractor then if He wanted people to take His 'math textbook' seriously.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            god doesn't think about you at all

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything that exists is in the mind of God.
            >I exist.
            >Therefore, I exist in the mind of God.
            Q.E.D.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            R.E.P.E.N.T.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            C.O.P.E.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >3's close enough
            Close enough isn't good enough for a math textbook. Congrats pseud, you BTFOed yourself.

            Kek I assure you that if the Bible had said Pi = 3.14, fedoras would go
            >Um it's actually 3.14159265359. So you're wrong

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Funny you should say that... since the Bible says there is one God apologists have to tie themselves into knots to explain how a Father, Son, and some sort of helpmeet or intermediary daemon must be identical to one another, that 3=1.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Funny you should say that... since biology says there is one body apologists have to tie themselves into knots to explain how a head, butthole, and some sort of helpmeet or intermediary torso must be identical to one another, that 3=1.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you mean a triangle you gorilla

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The reason why it's silly to hold the Bible to that standard is because it isn't a math textbook.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The level of conversation relates to the company. There will always be morons dragging it down from either side.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

        11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

        “Though seeing, they do not see;
        though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

        Jesus was always speaking in parable and metaphor, so it doesn’t really ‘got cha’ Christianity except for one small segment of low income America that adheres to a certain denomination.

        If you’re seriously mad and offended this you’re not even being fair or thinking in a smart way

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A lot of Jesus's teachings were horrible though. "Consider the lilies" is insane advice, the idea that, since wild animals don't gather into barns and yet continue to exist, that you don't need to plan and save for the future and practice thrift and industry is genuinely brain dead. If some random leftist hippy college student said these things they would be mocked for eternity, but since it's the cult icon Jesus, people suspend any critical thinking.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s good advice

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it's not. Unless you are naked and emaciated sleeping in a field somewhere, you prove it's bad advice by ignoring it and living a better life by industry and planning for the future.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The point of that whole sermon is that you should focus on living a full life in the present rather than constantly stress about the future.
            The birds don't save up money or build a wardrobe, but they still go out to find food and build nests for themselves.

            Never got why those religious debate threads almost never mention Augustine, he's the founder of christianity serious takes on philosophy. Everytime you throw some problem of evil or whatever argument you are going against him.

            Because few if any people have read Augustine.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because few if any people have read Augustine.
            Which is insane because at Luther time anyone who tried to debate christianity in any way had to mention Augustine every 5 minutes and if you didn't know anything about him you were seen as no better than someone who didn't read the bible to talk about it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He verbatim says not to worry about feeding or clothing yourself since God will provide everything. You would hope that a divinely inspired person would be a littler more precise than to advise such nonsense. He also advises to sell all your possessions to be perfect and that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. He very clearly wanted his followers to have no possessions and be penniless vagrants.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            those last two lines were for a specific rich man asking what he has to do to get to heaven. it was jesus calling the insincere rich young man out for not being genuine.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That is your interpretation. He said "To be perfect, you must sell all your possessions", but because you like your possessions, you interpret that one not to apply to you. Thus, it seems to me, you are exactly the kind of insincere person Jesus was talking about.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > "To be perfect, you must sell all your possessions"

            Unironically true. And I'm not even christian.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is funny how people say "that advice only applies to insincere people, and I'm totally sincere except I will never part with my possessions." I guess there really was only one Christian to ever live and he died on the cross.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I guess there really was only one Christian to ever live and he died on the cross.
            Hey, you're finally getting it, fedora. Baby steps, I guess

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, hypocrite

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

            The point is that if you are not willing to get rid of your possessions on the word of Jesus, YOU are putting your worldly possessions above God. When you are confronted with the direct words of Jesus, you would rather deny them in service of protecting your worldly goods at the expense of your heavenly ones. You are that young man who put money before everything else and was being dishonest with himself. You are. And you'll continue denying it while you cleave to your possessions and deny Jesus. Sad.

            >And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny. And he called his disciples to him and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” (Mark 12:41–44)
            You guys are really bad at reading the bible.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >concedes that Christ was the only perfect man
            >thinks that a normal human being imperfect is being a hypocrite
            yeah just keep digging that hole deeper for yourself, anon

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Believes a man is literally God
            >Ignores his teachings in favor of personal possessions
            kek, how do you live with yourself?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Ignores his teachings in favor of personal possessions
            He doesn't though. He explained this to you on previous posts.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >lolz how are you not perfect??
            >checkmate christcuck
            homie, read your shit before you post. I love how the discussion went from
            >God is le fake
            to
            >actually, in order to be a REAL Christian you need to be immaculately perfect. I know this because I glanced once or twice at a bible verse on a reddit post

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If I thought God himself spoke some advice in very clear and simple terms I would not be able to spend a single day not pursuing the very letter of his direction. You claim to believe in God, and have a personal relationship with him, and that he wants what's best for you, and yet you ignore his advice and do the opposite! I suspect it's because you rank worldly possessions as a higher belief, you know they exist and you love them, whereas this whole business about God is awfully wishy-washy, so it's safe to just ignore all of that. In short, you are a hypocrite, and that verse of Jesus chastising a wealthy person is literally explicitly meant for you, yet you'll go away from Jesus just like the man did. Sad.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but humanity is fallen and you're not expected to be perfect. Hence the idea of "grace," moron.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I find it weird that Christianity sees us as fallen divinity.
            I prefer to see us as ascended beasts.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >baby's first paganism

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            has their been righteous rich people in the bible? yes. we have old testament abraham, isaac, joseph and solomon to name a few who were clearly in god's good graces. like i said before, jesus was calling out this young man who put money before everything else and was being dishonest with himself. gold was his idol which is why he simply walked away at the thought of putting christ first. your last line is childish.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

            The point is that if you are not willing to get rid of your possessions on the word of Jesus, YOU are putting your worldly possessions above God. When you are confronted with the direct words of Jesus, you would rather deny them in service of protecting your worldly goods at the expense of your heavenly ones. You are that young man who put money before everything else and was being dishonest with himself. You are. And you'll continue denying it while you cleave to your possessions and deny Jesus. Sad.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm clarifying something taken wildly out of context to mean you should own nothing and that is simply not the case here. you're also assuming a great deal about myself as some kind of way to reinforce your fricked up view of the passage. you can be wealthy and still be righteous, fact proven in my earlier post. the caveat is putting gold before god, that is where this young man found himself insincere. he clearly wasn't doing god's work with his many possessions and couldn't think of being separated from them. a lot jesus' parables had this theme of this world's possessions not being ours to begin with, so it is god's intent for us to do good things with them and help others. the dishonest steward, parable of the talents, parable of the laborers, etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can be wealthy and still be righteous
            How convienent for you to hold that opinion since it excuses you from following the actual words of Jesus

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >literally the meme
            NTA btw.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't care about having coherent views?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if you want to be coherent to Christ's world view, you need to be an absolute fricking rug
            Where does the definition of compassion say you have to open your ass cheeks to illegal refugees to rape you and your family?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You left the door open to a spread the other ass cheek joke. But yeah, fedoras are moronic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't but the meme that you posted is still moronic. I can point out inconsistencies in your views without holding the view myself, you can do the same. If you say that there is no inconsistency, that's fine but if you just accept the inconsistency you have a weak theory.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't post that meme, anon but it was 100% true. You're taking what Jesus said and finger-wagging at what the actual interpretation is (as an atheist who thinks of us as christcucks, mind you) despite showing time and time again you don't even know there are other verses that either clarify or add more context

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >(You)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Claim to believe in x teachings
            >Someone point your hypocrisy for not follow y part of x teaching
            >Claim that y part is absurd and start reeeeing

            Either you believe in the christ and follow his word, or you don't. You seem to not like the logical conclusions of christ's words though.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You guys are making a disingenuous argument based on a narrow reading of scripture and the other anon pointed out where you went wrong (which you ignored). Remember the part of the NT where Judas gets shot down because he's angry Jesus allows expensive oils to be used to anoint him or the part someone else posted where Jesus emphasizes the relative nature of offerings from the poor versus the wealthy? It's clear you haven't read the Bible with any seriousness and are just literalizing a cherry-picked passage you yourselves don't adhere to as a lame gotcha. It's pathetic but fedoras gonna fedora tip.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, it's more about you being an hypocrite and ignoring explicit commands of your lord when those aren't convenient and then coming with BS interpretation to excuse yourself

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >real examples from the bible to reinforce the point
            >bs interpretation
            there's no reasoning with you.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most redditors are atheists and leftists

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but expect you to be impressed because they don't believe in santa
      the issue is, you do believe in santa.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You engage with something at the level of which you're capable. Good luck pondering the existence of Santa Claus as an adult, lol.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are you under the impression that atheism is something more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's the sperg that spams those unfunny fedora copypastas. He can't be reasoned with because he's still butthurt about atheists from 2009.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nta but yes, the belief that this universe did not have a creator and that it came out randomly (or whatever atheists believe) is no different than religious people believing it came into existence by a grand omnipotent being.
        >its a lack of belief you dunce!
        It is a belief since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven by either parties, our only options are to believe, theists and atheists are two sides of the same coin, if that wasn't clear already. Agnosticism makes more sense in this case.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >that it came out randomly (or whatever atheists believe) is no different than religious people believing it came into existence by a grand omnipotent being
          it's less dogmatic to deny specific religions' gods than to affirm them, but to propose a known origin of the universe is the same concept as god itself

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but to propose a known origin of the universe is the same concept as god itself
            That is what atheists do, they reject the notion of an intelligence being creating the universe and instead claim it came out randomly or whatever the latest scientific consensus is, which is no different than people who believe in God because after all there's no reason God can't be that randomness itself that brought about our beings.
            The desire to disprove religious people and their beliefs is merely an attempt to assert your own belief instead, and the sad thing is most atheists don't realize this, which is why I'm not exactly too fond of them. I don't think a truly intelligent would label himself an atheist, it is a moronic concept.
            >it's less dogmatic to deny specific religions' gods than to affirm them
            I would argue it is equally dogmatic since it's an attempt to claim your own belief as the truth in a concept that can not be proven/disproven. It is the same exact exercise of faith masquerading as truth, it's dumb.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I would argue it is equally dogmatic
            if someone makes a dogmatic claim, i.e. without any sort of evidence or sensible reasoning, i should be able to throw it out without him dishonestly shrieking that he is the real critical thinker and open minded one; negating or rejecting something is not the same as positively positing something... you can try to argue for proof of not-god, I guess, but a distinction should be drawn between that and scrutinizing the claim of god

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Are you under the impression that atheism is something more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god?
        It is. The idea that it's not is an attempt to avoid association with the ideological trappings fedoras project onto religious understanding while deflecting the onus of all understanding onto the religious (and in many cases the agnostic that take religion as a serious subject).

        Anyway, it's always funny hearing atheists make that argument given the fact the people they're parroting supposedly built their personas and often careers on a nom-belief. Quite contradictory to the point of being absurd if you reflect on it for 5 mins.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The central argument is that god isn’t real because science can explain everything. And if we can’t explain it now then eventually it will explain everything.

    This is the argument of that book.

    Do you really think this is a good argument?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not the argument at all. Science can't explain everything and that is made explicitly clear in the book. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism has to be the single most pathetic waste of intellectual minds, maybe if they were agnostic they'd be able to achieve more and live more fulfilling lives but because they're atheistic, they feel a need to convince others of their belief and end up looking like fools because they fail to comprehend the most basic context of religious belief.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So what's this most basic context of religious belief?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People who believe an omnipotent being gave a bunch of mongrelized semitic-Iranian priests the truth in the form of ambiguous texts are really in this thread claiming that Richard Dawkins’s argument has holes in it.

    Revealed truth “humans” are worse than naive fedora tipping atheists.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      refute things mentioned then. you can flip dawkins on his head just by reversing his question.
      >the universe created you, then who created the universe?
      the guy seems like a great biologist but as far as philosophy goes, he's a mid wit and doesn't understand what he's straw manning in this book.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you're repeating the fallacy that dawkins makes, which is the entire premise of this trash book. the god christians believe in is outside of this finite construct of space, time and matter. something like that wouldn't be beholden to his own creation because an eternal being has no beginning or end; his understanding is fundamentally flawed and it shows when he summarizes st thomas' 5 points, never quotes, and then attacks the straw mans he creates.

        There is no evidence that the universe needs to have 'started', it's entirely possible that it always existed in different forms. It's completely realistic to suggest that the universe doesn't need a creator, such as the following cases-
        1. The universe as a total entity/object may easily be free of the 'finite construct of space, time and matter', by virtue of being the container of said finite constructs. Therefore it doesn't need a creator to exist - instead it existed/exists, just as Christians suggest God exists, and then caused the 'finite construct of space, time, and matter' to exist finitely within its own infinite existence. Why can't the universe have the same infinite property that God does?
        2. There may be a set of mechanical, non-wilful, non-intelligent natural laws that exist 'outside the finite construct of space, time, and matter.' The 'prime mover' or cause of the 'finite' universe could be literally anything, to the point where the only thing stopping us from calling it an extension of the universe, or stopping us from changing our scientific view of 'the universe' to encompass it as well, is our own current inability to detect such a thing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >it existed/exists, just as Christians suggest God exists, and then caused the 'finite construct of space, time, and matter' to exist finitely within its own infinite existence
          What makes this different from a conception of God?
          >The 'prime mover' or cause of the 'finite' universe could be literally anything, to the point where the only thing stopping us from calling it an extension of the universe, or stopping us from changing our scientific view of 'the universe' to encompass it as well
          Again, what makes this different from a conception of God?

          As soon as you identify an origin for space, time, and matter, especially one that encompasses all of it, you are just identifying God by a different name.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes this different from a conception of God?
            The presence of a mind, or intelligence, with intent or will. Are you proposing a conception of God that has no mind, and no will, that created the universe as a simply inevitable process, and not out of choice?
            Do you think that is what Dawkins argued against in the book? Do you think it's a relevant conception of God to anyone discussing the book, or God at large?
            >As soon as you identify an origin for space, time, and matter, especially one that encompasses all of it, you are just identifying God by a different name.
            If I meet you again, I will identify the origin of reality, which I describe as reality itself, as 'God'. In discussions with you, I will endeavour to say 'God' whenever I mean to describe 'simply the cause/origin of reality in any sense concerning the finite vs the potentially non-finite, but without any other aspects whatsoever, without making any claims about creation, intelligence, or belief in anything more specific than the above'.
            However, when discussing God with any other person, I will probably assume that they mean a conception of God that balances cultural relevance with philosophical/theological leeway, and also somewhat comports with the reasonable definition of words in whatever language we're discussing Him, probably English. Basically, what I could reasonably assume he means when he says something like
            >the god christians believe in is outside of this finite construct of space, time and matter.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The presence of a mind, or intelligence, with intent or will
            I can sketch a proof of how God becomes an inevitable consequence of these points.
            >that created the universe as a simply inevitable process
            The "universe" you define is intended to prevent an infinite regress. Making the creation of reality into an inevitable process implies that there are natural laws already in place before reality, which implies that these processes were created. The creation of the universe as an inevitable process thus fails.

            The true nature of willing is its ability to end these regresses purely by its own power. If I believe the sky is green, then it is unquestionably true that I believe the sky is green. Furthermore, this phenomenon is unique to willing something.
            Thus, if there is a regress-stopping origin of reality, it must be willed by nature of the fact that willing something is the only way to end a regress.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Making the creation
            There was no moment of creation, it's always existed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is this any different from saying God has always existed? That claim loses whatever scientific backing it had once you go to the time before the Big Bang.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There was no moment of creation, it's always existed.
            That's logically impossible. If infinity stretches back forever you'd never come into existence to have this conversation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I can sketch a proof of how God becomes an inevitable consequence of these points.
            Please do, I want to see.
            >Making the creation of reality into an inevitable process implies that there are natural laws already in place before reality, which implies that these processes were created.
            No it doesn't. There is no reason why the natural laws couldn't have always existed. Why would they need to have been created?
            >If I believe the sky is green, then it is unquestionably true that I believe the sky is green.
            Yes.
            >The true nature of willing is its ability to end these regresses purely by its own power.
            No. The example you provided shows 'willing' is able to BELIEVE that it ended regresses, not actually end them. If this is not the case, then there is no such thing as 'the true nature of willing' to begin with, or even 'the true nature' of anything.
            >Thus, if there is a regress-stopping origin of reality, it must be willed by nature of the fact that willing something is the only way to end a regress.
            Willing yourself to believe that the sky is green does not make it green. The ability to believe through will does not demonstrate will's ability to negate cause and effect or finite spacetime. Infinite regress can occur simply by asking 'why did you will yourself to believe the sky to be green', or similar cause-addressing questions. Asserting that potentially mechanical processes in actual fact constitute will, because they necessarily must do, because will is the only act that stops regress, isn't justified until you demonstrate that
            A. Reality necessarily requires a regress stopping origin
            B. Will stops regress in real terms and not mental terms
            C. This phenomenon is unique to willing something, despite acknowledging that there exists a realm outside of the 'finite', and thus something regress-stopping that is explicitly not will, must exist
            You've prescribed utterly bizarre definitions to 'will', 'reality', 'regress-stopping' and 'origin', and provided extremely fast-and-loose justifications.

            >There was no moment of creation, it's always existed.
            That's logically impossible. If infinity stretches back forever you'd never come into existence to have this conversation.

            No. If infinity stretches forever in all directions then he necessarily must come into existence to have this conversation.

            How is this any different from saying God has always existed? That claim loses whatever scientific backing it had once you go to the time before the Big Bang.

            >How is this any different from saying God has always existed?
            It's not. That's the point, there's no reason to believe God must have existed out of logical necessity, because the possibility of something 'having always existed' isn't limited to God.
            >That claim loses whatever scientific backing it had once you go to the time before the Big Bang.
            Why? Big Bangers aren't saying the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. Perhaps the universe existed in a different form before the Big Bang, one currently incomprehensible to us, but fundamentally different to any meaningful definition of God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If infinity stretches forever in all directions then he necessarily must come into existence to have this conversation.
            No, that's a contradiction of logic. If infinity stretches backward that means an infinite amount of time has to come to pass for anything to come into existence. This means there is something beyond the concept of causality as linked to the passage of time. You can argue it isn't the God of whichever religion, although the fact you misunderstood the argument in the first place probably means you're not well equipped for such discussion, but trying to shoehorn materialism puts the onus on your descriptors (which are self-evidently impotent) and any resort to Scientism is laughable.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your insults run off me like water. Have one in return - it's incredibly womanly to call me 'not well equipped' and accuse me of 'resorting to Scientism'. Your high horse will soon rub your vegana raw.
            >If infinity stretches backward that means an infinite amount of time has to come to pass for anything to come into existence.
            Perhaps so, then I amend my statement by saying 'If infinity stretches forever in all directions then he necessarily must have always existed, always have been existing, always be existing, always exist, to have this conversation, and the nature of what it means to 'COME INTO existence' is questionable'.
            Or how about this - an infinitely backward-stretching timeline of causes can exist without us as individuals experiencing it so. We don't truly know the nature of infinity or even individual consciousness as it relates to the perception of the passage of time, so we can't say 'It would've taken infinitely long for me to get here, so how am I here', because we as finite beings may be able to exist in our current time without having experienced the infinity of cause that led up to our existence.
            >This means there is something beyond the concept of causality as linked to the passage of time.
            Perhaps it just means that we don't understand time's link with causality yet, but that if we do understand it, we might see there is nothing beyond it worth distinguishing from causality itself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >spergs about being wet and men having veganas
            Gross.
            >pseud rant that makes an assertion about always existing that doesn't address the point
            Rejected at face-value because it's a meaningless assertion (it's obvious that material existence is finite by its own bounds). Again, if an infinite amount of time must pass for you to come into existence you can never exist. Simple as.
            >Perhaps it just means that we don't understand time's link with causality yet
            Scientism of the gaps, everyone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no reason why the natural laws couldn't have always existed
            That's exactly the point. Saying "there's no reason why the natural laws couldn't have always existed" is identical to saying "there is a reason why the natural laws have always existed." But why do they exist?
            At the point when we're talking for reasons behind the fabric of space and time, that requires the existence of God.

            >Willing yourself to believe that the sky is green does not make it green
            You're conflating willing something with having the means to make it reflective in reality. One can will the sky is green, but they are only delusional because they lack the power to make that representative in reality.
            However, since we're talking about this with respect to an all-encompassing universe or God, there aren't limits on the ability to translate what one wills into reality.

            >You've prescribed utterly bizarre definitions to 'will', 'reality', 'regress-stopping' and 'origin'
            You don't understand their basic definitions?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't understand their basic definitions?
            He clearly doesn't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Saying "there's no reason why the natural laws couldn't have always existed" is identical to saying "there is a reason why the natural laws have always existed."
            No it isn't. It's saying that it's possible that they have always existed, without cause.
            >But why do they exist?
            They may not have a cause, just like how God may not have a cause.
            >At the point when we're talking for reasons behind the fabric of space and time, that requires the existence of God.
            You have not proven that space and time need reasons behind them. If you had proven it, those reasons would only 'require the existence of God' because you yourself have defined 'God' as 'the reasons behind space time'
            >You're conflating willing something with having the means to make it reflective in reality.
            I believed that you were conflating those two things, because of the example you used. You used one willing oneself to believe that the sky is green as an example of 'willings' ability to 'end regresses simply by its own power'. In the example no such thing occurred, so naturally I assumed you conflating power with delusion.
            >Since we're talking about this with respect to an all-encompassing universe or God, there aren't limits on the ability to translate what one wills into reality
            You've defined 'will' as 'the process by which reality 'becomes'', so there's nothing to say here. Your definition of 'will', 'intent', or ''mind' is indistinguishable from 'uncaused-cause', but that doesn't mean God exists, that is precisely the thing we're disagreeing on - you are defining God as uncaused-cause, and I am saying you haven't demonstrated
            A. That uncaused-cause exists
            B. That uncaused-cause needs to exist for cause to exist
            C. That uncaused-cause, if it exists, would necessarily be God, and not simply uncaused-cause or any non-God force that possesses the property of uncaused-cause
            >However, since we're talking about this with respect to an all-encompassing universe or God, there aren't limits on the ability to translate what one wills into reality.
            There aren't limits on what lies outside reality at all. So will need not be necessary.
            >The requirement of a regress-stopping cause/origin/whatever you want to call it is necessary for any epistemology, at the least. If no such reason or origin exists, then science as a whole fails.
            That's not true at all.
            >I never said that it is explicitly not will.
            I know. You said that it is uniquely will. I then said you must prove that regress-stopping reasons are uniquely willed, DESPITE acknowledging that the infinite exists, and thus non-will-regress-stopper must exist.
            You still did not show that regress stopping reasons are uniquely willed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also, let me address the three points.
            >A. Reality necessarily requires a regress stopping origin
            The requirement of a regress-stopping cause/origin/whatever you want to call it is necessary for any epistemology, at the least. If no such reason or origin exists, then science as a whole fails.
            >B. Will stops regress in real terms and not mental terms
            Addressed above
            >C. This phenomenon is unique to willing something, despite acknowledging that there exists a realm outside of the 'finite', and thus something regress-stopping that is explicitly not will, must exist
            I never said that it is explicitly not will. My point is an elementary syllogism: there is a regress-stopping reason for reality, regress-stopping reasons are uniquely willed, thus the reason behind reality is willed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes this different from a conception of God?
            It's requires one less step in its explanation, resulting in a higher chance of being reality. We can both observe the universe exists and share our observations on it. Some being on a higher plane pulling the strings behind it all requires a lot more explanation and unlikely circumstances to both be true and evade any attempt at perception.
            >As soon as you identify an origin for space, time, and matter, especially one that encompasses all of it, you are just identifying God by a different name
            The difference is that even if there is such a being, atheists aren't making any claims what that being's (or force of nature's) wishes or demands regarding its own creation. Religion is, which is why atheists say that theists are full of shit. Not a single person on this planet has a fricking inkling of knowledge on who or what sparked this whole shebang. Nobody knows if such a being, assuming they are intelligent, can even perceive us, given the gargantuan difference in scale. And yet we have guy dressing up in fancy robes telling millions upon millions of people that the guy managing the whole damn universe has hyperfocused on making sure you never stroke your wiener. It's peak hubris.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"be kind to eachother, don't cheat and don't murder"
            >christians are such fascists with THEIR demands!
            instead you're forced to swallow a nebulous "human flourishing" concept where we now have to accept men as women, you're a transphobe if you don't frick one, abortion is not murder and alphabet gays are powerful. even if you maintain the traditions of christianity, which dawkins does, pretending as if you believe it is better than the alternative, as he writes in this very fricking book.
            >"There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"be kind to eachother, don't cheat and don't murder"
            These kinds of Christians aren't a problem at all. Problem is, it's not those kinds of Christians that are making laws based on religious nonsense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            name a few laws and why they are nonsense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >prohibition of weed
            Wastes court and prison resources while depriving citizens of self-determination
            >prohibition on abortions, under any circumstances
            Enabling the proliferation of rape/incest babies. Add that onto all the would-be mothers that are gonna just dump their meth/heroin-addicted infants at a police station for the state to sort out.
            >banning homos and trannies
            Spits in the face of self determination. I don't give a frick which bits someone wants to frick or how they want to rearrange their own.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >being against a mind altering substance where there is no dui type test for is christian foolishness
            >the less than 1% outlier should determine the rule and my perception of human value should matter more than the simple thing that makes us all equal
            >letting mentally ill, disease infested homosexuals do anything is the biggest slippery slope in the last 20 years

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >being against a mind altering substance where there is no dui type test for is christian foolishness
            Saliva tests seem to have a range of a few hours.
            >the less than 1% outlier should determine the rule and my perception of human value should matter more than the simple thing that makes us all equal
            The fact that your rules have outliers in the first place is a clear demonstration that your rules are insufficient at describing reality.
            >letting mentally ill, disease infested homosexuals do anything is the biggest slippery slope in the last 20 years
            Nice projection, but let's not pretend that the Bible-Belt is doing so hot in regards to STDs and teenage pregnancy rates. As it currently stands, the gay-infested cities have a better quality of life than the miserable fricks living their lives in accordance to some ancient guy's imaginary friend.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the point is, you can argue against any of these things with regards to science and not christianity. it is murder to kill a human life, regardless of what stage, and punishing an innocent life is also unethical. casual sex and hook up culture are almost all of the abortions and scientifically, this is sociopathic behavior and hinders the ability to pair bond. the alternative of abstinence or safe sex is objectively better.
            >whataboutism
            yes, and males with wieners are in women's dressing rooms and sports teams infringing on rights of actual females. we drop the monkey pox story from the news when we realize it's weekly gay piss orgies spreading it. we have 150 days out of the year dedicated to this movement of degeneracy. quality of life line is a gigantic ass pull and children raised under a church have 20-30% lower rates of depression, promiscuous sex and drug use. google the harvard student's study.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the alternative of abstinence or safe sex is objectively better
            Yes, but again. Look at the results from the various states. Clearly the liberal states are handling the situation significantly better. It's a bit hard to nurture a culture of safe sex when everybody is so hush-hush about the topic.
            >it is murder to kill a human life, regardless of what stage, and punishing an innocent life is also unethical
            Yes and no. We value the complexity of human consciousness; ie the soul. Abortions are typically carried out before that consciousness is even formed. There is nothing being punished, since there isn't enough hardware there yet to support any higher thought. It doesn't yet have the capacity to suffer.
            >yes, and males with wieners are in women's dressing rooms and sports teams infringing on rights of actual females
            I don't give a frick about dressing rooms. Sports is a bit more of a sticky issue given the clear biological advantage male anatomy has, combined with the economy of scale making it very cost prohibitive to cater to such a small demographic.
            >we drop the monkey pox story from the news when we realize it's weekly gay piss orgies spreading it
            It's because it was easily fixed by people not being total morons about disease control. You don't have to hate on people for being gay, but hating them for the disease-ridden piss orgies is fair game.
            >we have 150 days out of the year dedicated to this movement of degeneracy
            There isn't a day that goes by that some group or other is claiming a moment of time to be dedicated to them. Just ignore it.
            >quality of life line is a gigantic ass pull and children raised under a church have 20-30% lower rates of depression, promiscuous sex and drug use
            I'd argue they're just more hush-hush about it since admitting to it gets them socially ostracized.
            >google the harvard student's study
            I'm getting a bunch of official harvard listings regarding studying. What you suggested is so vague that it could be anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >liberal states
            states with zero or near zero boundaries for abortion are naturally going to have lower teen pregnancy. they don't even prosecute you in california if you kill the child post birth. this is not "handling it". this is an unethical band aid for a problem we all know exists.
            >Yes and no.
            brain waves are at 6 weeks and the vast majority, 96% of abortions are in the 10-15 week period. i can only assume this has a little bit to do with the genetic testing time in the term, but i'd wager it has more to do with women not showing in their stomachs or not paying attention to missed periods(as women can be late with these). perception of human worth is a slippery slope easily mended by the simple realization that the one thing we all share is being human. enough people get together and killing the infirm and mentally disabled might sound "right". and the punishment i spoke of was denying the product of rape or incest, the extreme fringe of the cases, the right to live.
            >i don't give a frick
            of course you don't. why would the comfort level of woman having to be nude or share a restroom with fully grown men with penises bother you? let's massively change things and enforce these changes to schools and businesses for the 1% outlier. i don't know if you realize yet, but this purity spiral will never end until everyone, even today's allies of the movement, are devoured. there is no appeasing these people.
            >i'd argue

            this gentleman says these things were accounted for in a conservative parent vs liberal parent analysis when the liberal pundit took that same argument that conservatives would keep their head in the sand about such things. and this is the study i referenced prior.
            https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/11/2355/5094534?login=false

            my original point, though, was that these ideas can be argued against with reason rooted in science. it's always cheap to make sweeping generalizations as if religion is the sole reason for a divide.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's requires one less step in its explanation, resulting in a higher chance of being reality
            No, it doesn't. If anything, it's an intellectual surrender because you simply say "we can't inquire any further."
            >atheists aren't making any claims what that being's (or force of nature's) wishes or demands regarding its own creation
            Agnostics aren't making these claims, because they're the spiritual equivalent of people who let scientists do their own work.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it doesn't. If anything, it's an intellectual surrender because you simply say "we can't inquire any further."
            Sure, let's inquire further. Who created God? Who created God's creator? We could go down these further inquiries for eternity. Simple logic is that if God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need a creator?
            >Agnostics aren't making these claims, because they're the spiritual equivalent of people who let scientists do their own work
            Could you help me parse what this is supposed to mean? I'm at a loss here.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Simple logic is that if God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need a creator?
            Is the universe an end in itself, from which all laws are derived? Or do natural laws constrain the universe?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good question, but i dunno. It's quite the bizarre Ouroboros.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just another boomer mindbroken by abrahamism. Unable to formulate or internalize any idea of divinity that's not the biblical God, because that's the regime he was raised in. Unable to argue from any other framework.
    Sad!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Glad you agree the biblical God makes zero sense, most posters here can't even make it that far! Talk about being mindbroken by Abrahamism!

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >there are still people falling for the fedora fad and recommending Dick Dawkins in the year of our Lord 2024

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        imagine explaining why you made that meme to ammit the demon when he devours your soul

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God made us in his image, for example are you going to drop everything and fly to Africa to help the starving masses? The police are more responsible since it's their job, god never agreed to help us whenever. We are lucky he doesn't get bored and throw a meteor going the speed of light at earth.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >God made us in his image
          I argue that we made God in our image

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Depends: Is the speaker right?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Totally, also you should sell all your possessions and take no thought for the morrow and dedicate yourself wholly to this dude. Also, symbolically cannibalize his flesh and drink his blood. He is totally right about everything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone is a saint
            Lol, imagine being this filtered by religion. Good luck getting out of your fedora tipper phase, bro. A lot of people have been there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about what Jesus asked his followers to do while he traveled around the area building a cult. Not surprised you weren't able to follow along.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >NOOO, YOU SEE WHAT I WAS DOING WAS...
            Lol, shut up.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            kek, you're brain dead

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >symbolically

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Some of the cults can't even do that properly and insist it literally turns into his flesh when they reenact it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think that contrarian Christianity has sort of run its course online by now.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's a Christian now btw.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dawkins is a Christian now

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, he's a "Cultural Christian", i.e. a regular shitlib who recognized that the Enlightenment didn't happen in a vacuum.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he hates Muslims
        he is not a lib

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He hates Muslims for not being libs.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll never forgive New Atheists like Dawkins for giving Christians fish in a barrel to shoot, while people who actually knew what they were talking about were making substantial arguments that went ignored. God Delusion alone set back atheism is a serious intellectual position by decades, at least.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How? Religiotards haven't been able to refute a single thing posited by new atheists.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh please. The NAs had no interest in getting either the arguments or the historical facts right. It was "IF GOD MADE EVERYTHING THEN WHO MADE GOD????" caliber stuff, and, fundamentally, just a rhetorical victory lap over the death of religion as a social force. Pretending to be revolutionary by affirming the established status quo.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It was "IF GOD MADE EVERYTHING THEN WHO MADE GOD????" caliber stuff
          I'm not hearing any refutation, anon. Why does everything need a creator?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >How? Religiotards haven't been able to refute a single thing posited by new atheists.
        Fedoras are so cringe.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >How? Religiotards haven't been able to refute a single thing posited by new atheists.
        David Bentley Hart and Edward Feser made new atheists look like 12 year old homosexuals complaining about their grandma forcing them to go to church

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >New Atheists
      they're not very deep, their main objections to theism revolve around it being a belief associated with stupid conservative anti-intellectuals, and all the new atheists really do is affirm atheism to both spite these people and show it is a better fit with liberal values, which are just more universal Christian values writ large, better Christians than the Christians themselves, as Nietzsche foresaw

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >jan assmann

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Start with the Assmann, egyptologist Jan Assmann

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hehe, stupid Christians and their stupid god, *barf*
    >What about Allah and Isla-
    >WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA cool it with the racism there buddy!

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The main thesis itself has yet to be refuted, but Yarvin/Menicus Moldbug's 'How Dawkins Got Pwned' essay absolutely took Dawkins down as a serious thinker.

    TLDR, Dawkins rejects theological delusion but embraces all the delusions born from it (mainly fraternal equality between races, of a Christian quality)

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the best Richard Dawkins book to read?
    I tried reading the Greatest Show on Earth but I found it to be a bit too light on details

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scientific atheism is inherently flawed, because science demands the existence of universal laws to have any merit. The existence of universal laws demands a regress-stopping origin in the form of a universal legislator (i.e. God).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the existence of universal laws demands a regress-stopping origin in the form of a universal legislator
      no it doesn't. You are making an analogy between scientific and political law, and extending it beyond what is appropriate. A natural law means nothing more than "all natural objects do, have, and will behave this way. This does not demand a consciousness to be the case

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You are making an analogy between scientific and political law, and extending it beyond what is appropriate
        Not at all. The only difference between scientific and political law is the degree of enforcement. Political laws can be evaded, scientific laws cannot.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The only thing assumed for a scientific law is that all objects follow them. You have yet to prove that they demand a conscious agent. If you claim that they demand a legislator because they are "like" political laws, you must clarify what this likeness consists of, and prove that it holds.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you can't refute theistic or atheistic arguments
    people arrive at these conclusions based on their personal gut feeling and then form arguments in justification of a position they were going to have no matter what

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >there are no good arguments for the existence of God
    >therefore I don't believe he exists
    do we really need a whole book for this?

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i want to have faith but how do christians reconcile things like evolution, dinosaurs, age of the earth, etc. with faith? i'd like some recommendations on contemporary theology beyond st. augustine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're only incompatible with respect to Genesis, which isn't even an issue when you view that book allegorically.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >evolution, dinosaurs, age of the earth

      THE GUBMINT WOULD NEVER LIE TO US

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >beyond st. augustine.
      Augustine is all you even need for this regardless.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Never got why those religious debate threads almost never mention Augustine, he's the founder of christianity serious takes on philosophy. Everytime you throw some problem of evil or whatever argument you are going against him.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's the old testament that the israelites wrote, not Christians. Ancient Greeks knew their mythology wasn't real, and just metaphor. The fact that you're living thousands of years later and still can't figure that out is mind blowing.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ancient Greeks knew their mythology wasn't real, and just metaphor
        So what was the point of the sacrifices and such?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          to acknowledge a higher power
          are you 12?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is the power of metaphors higher than that of the humans that created them?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have no idea what you mean. Why is poetry beautiful or a rose smells sweet? Who the frick knows.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you seriously saying Greeks sacrficed humans for... metaphors? Fricking midwits, I swear

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >knew their mythology wasn't real, and just metaphor
        it was understood that the poets were telling stories, but the Greeks (and Romans) were deeply religious people regardless, and atheism was seen as misanthropic

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        is interpreting genesis as metaphor the mainstream christian stance? most christians i've seen take genesis literally. also is all of the history to be taken as metaphor? are there books that delineate between metaphor and actually existing history?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's impossible to take it fully literal otherwise you have a snake speaking to a human. it is a mix with metaphors woven into it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Christian apologists relying on a kind of neo-euhemerist reading of the old testament to defend the bible against atheist criticism is pretty wild

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Christian apologists relying on a kind of neo-euhemerist reading of the old testament to defend the bible against atheist criticism is pretty wild

          There's more than one creation myth in Genesis which indicates what you're reading isnt meant to be literal, pseuds.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but what parts are meant to be a literal history? even if genesis is meant as metaphor, genesis isn't the only book that conveys history.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but what parts are meant to be a literal history?
            I haven't studied the Bible closely enough to give you a list but the general idea is that the language we use to describe the world isn't that which the ancients used. The Bible is a blend of different modes of language ranging from the direct transcription of legal codes and historic events to poetry and myth. If you go into it thinking you're about to read a modern history textbook you're going to come out hopelessly filtered and no amount of projecting how strongly opinionated you are will confuse others of that fact.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            sure. i just mean that there has to be some parts that are meant to be taken as literal history. both the position of "it's all literal" and "it's all metaphorical" seem absurd. I'm specifically asking for resources like study bibles or theological essays that clarify on this subject. I have a NOAB but it doesn't seem to broach the subject with sufficient depth, probably to not come off as too opinionated.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >i just mean that there has to be some parts that are meant to be taken as literal history. both the position of "it's all literal" and "it's all metaphorical" seem absurd
            It's a blended text, anon. Even if we're to disregarding the nature of the content being expressed, modern historical writing has only been around for less than a century so why would you expect something written thousands of years ago to follow such a format?
            >NOAB
            Is a great resource. Read the footnotes. Also check out writing that approaches the Bible from the perspective of non-theological disciplines (e.g. Northrop Frye's books).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The idea of writing grounded factual accounts of historical events has been around for a long time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he heard someone say Thucidides is the precursor to modern history, took that generalization literally, and can't differentiate it's narrative aspects from that of modern history
            NGMI. Well, maybe. Let us know when you finish your first year exams.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In The Great Code, Frye briefly mentions how texts written as history evolve literary merit despite the differentiation that comes between them and contemporary methodology as our idea of how to write history changes. Confusing the idea of Thucidides being a precursor to modern history with the notion it is modern history, with reference to The Bible which contains elements written centuries before, is hardly the point you think it was, anon.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ancient historians are also known to lie and embellish. They make up stories that realistically could have happened but are nevertheless fiction, and tell them as truth.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what you're reading isnt meant to be literal
            So God did not create the world? Or just not in 7 days? Or just not the garden? Or not woman from man? There are 4 Gospels—since they are multiple back to back versions of one narrative those are not meant to be true either? Jesus, just some guy? No miracles, no resurrection?

            Atheists
            >prove to me how a spiritual being beyond the material world is real

            This line of thought is so fricking stupid I don't even know where to begin. It's always been a philosophical debate but leddit atheists want you to not only prove God is real with evidence but also get them to believe in said God. How arrogant and dishonest do you have to be?

            >arrogant and dishonest
            cope and seethe christkanger

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So God did not create the world? Or just not in 7 days? Or just not the garden? Or not woman from man?
            You didn't know Genesis has more than one creation myth in it and that, though related thematically, aspects of them blatantly contradict one another? It's almost like those that collected the stories together didn't care about being literal and didn't do it to placate fedora tipping plotgays with a myopic understanding of history, lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am aware of two creation stories which were written for an audience that believed in a covenant with a lawyerly volcano demon, that doesn't mean you get to deploy relativism in defense of dogmatism and argue that we can't interpret the Bible critically because we aren't Bablyonian israelites.

            i feel like usually these posts are in bad faith but i'll humor you. when reading the old testament you have to contextualize things and what is written in that time period. ancient story telling used metaphors and mythology to tell history. myths are not stories that are not true, but rather a truth communicated through story.

            now to the point of the books of gen 1 and 2 contradicting each other; this only happens if you do not understand my first point. the theological messages of book 1 is a telling of the sequence of events from primitive to sophisticated, as per the theory of evolution(ie vegetation and animals coming before man). book 2's message serves the purpose of placing mankind before all those other things to illustrate that world was created for humans to preserve. mankind is the center of it all.

            So the Old Testament is an educational myth. What about the New Testament? At what point do you admit you are an atheist or mere platonist?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >completely avoids the fact that the Bible opens with contradictory creation myths indicating you're not reading a modern textbook
            Hopelessly filtered. My suggestion is you find something else to devote your energy into because fedora tipping will lead to a lack of growth and future embarrassment.

            >Ancient people were actually atheists the whole time

            At last I truly see.

            Nope but I'm willing to bet those that collected the texts were a lot more intelligent than you imagine yourself to be.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the old testament is made of myths, history, wisdom and poetry. i wish the ones objecting to it would actually give it a chance or at least read more about it. the new testament are eye witness accounts to the word of god, jesus christ, as well as epistolary work of paul and others. these letters and accounts are rooted in history by other secular and non secular sources.

            you both get very slick around the problem of which fantasy elements are meant to be fantasy and which are meant to be literal—two creations mean that part of genesis is not literal, but the miraculous conduct of Jesus is? How does that solve the problem your atheist opponents are raising if you deny some of these stories and not others? It comes across as totally arbitrary to someone with no belief

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >slick
            i think i made it clear as day. the new testament is written by eye witnesses; most of it being luke who was basically a detective trying to get as many details as possible about what happened, and paul, a former persecutor of christians who helped establish the church. the miracles were real and the resurrection happened. read what i wrote here

            i feel like usually these posts are in bad faith but i'll humor you. when reading the old testament you have to contextualize things and what is written in that time period. ancient story telling used metaphors and mythology to tell history. myths are not stories that are not true, but rather a truth communicated through story.

            now to the point of the books of gen 1 and 2 contradicting each other; this only happens if you do not understand my first point. the theological messages of book 1 is a telling of the sequence of events from primitive to sophisticated, as per the theory of evolution(ie vegetation and animals coming before man). book 2's message serves the purpose of placing mankind before all those other things to illustrate that world was created for humans to preserve. mankind is the center of it all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the miracles were real and the resurrection happened
            Then why consider the OT to be spurious mythopoeia? How does quasi euhemerism make for good apologetics?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because the ot contains myths defined as such in my other post

            i feel like usually these posts are in bad faith but i'll humor you. when reading the old testament you have to contextualize things and what is written in that time period. ancient story telling used metaphors and mythology to tell history. myths are not stories that are not true, but rather a truth communicated through story.

            now to the point of the books of gen 1 and 2 contradicting each other; this only happens if you do not understand my first point. the theological messages of book 1 is a telling of the sequence of events from primitive to sophisticated, as per the theory of evolution(ie vegetation and animals coming before man). book 2's message serves the purpose of placing mankind before all those other things to illustrate that world was created for humans to preserve. mankind is the center of it all.

            ; and again, it's not solely myths. i really don't understand the hang up here but i'll try. along with myths, it contains genealogies, the chronicling of wars and events, poetry, wisdom and writings of prophets. the new testament, on the other hand, is biographical in a very straight forward way in the gospel and acts. things happening here are also attested to by other historians, both secular and non secular. the rest of it are mostly letters written by paul to groups of people. saying the ot contains myths, does not assign the bible in its entirety as metaphorical fiction and surely you can understand that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the new testament, on the other hand, is biographical in a very straight forward way in the gospel and acts. things happening here are also attested to by other historians, both secular and non secular.
            Do secular historians attest to the miracles and resurrection? If not, why not? Are biographies inherently true while other genres of writing less so? Why are these historians disputing the biography? It's not a metaphor, they should know better?
            >saying the ot contains myths, does not assign the bible in its entirety as metaphorical fiction
            Again this is a sort of slippery non-answer—that the Bible contains multiple genres does nothing to improve the credibility of its non-metaphorical components. Boiling off Genesis for being too... biblical... how does that preserve the other claims the Bible makes non-metaphorically?

            >you both get very slick
            There's nothing slick about pointing out The Bible is a blended text, anon. It's a basic fact.
            >the problem of which fantasy elements are meant to be fantasy and which are meant to be literal
            That's just not how The Bible works, anon. Again, it contains items ranging the direct transcription of legal codes and historic events to poetry and myth. These things are frequently blended together in order to get across something more than the sum of those parts.
            >two creations mean that part of genesis is not literal, but the miraculous conduct of Jesus is?
            The creation myths in Genesis make it apparent that what you're reading isn't a straightforward textbook that delineates history grounded in literalism. It's obvious that the editors didn't care about putting together a narrative that dictates a straightforward plot and the fact this constitutes the opening of The Bible is a giant signal fedoras seem to completely miss (i.e. being filtered from the very beginning betrays an almost poetic ignorance in itself). As far as the Jesus narratives go there are types and antitypes that reflect back on stories contained in the OT, note that the OT does this within itself as well, and plenty of prominent historical figures have edited their own versions of such which attempt to convey the same messages by removing what they perceived as mysticism (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy, etc).
            >How does that solve the problem your atheist opponents are raising if you deny some of these stories and not others?
            First, I think the whole "debate me" culture of Nu Atheism is childish and given the fact they're largely ignorant outside of repeating the same arguments over and over there is nothing to be won from them. Second, it's foolhardy from the outset to treat the Bible as if it were a modern textbook and by the standards of how modern academic writing exists today. It's a poor path by which to approach The Bible and discussions that revolve around such are likely to be low level assertions based mostly on the shallow readings of others.
            >It comes across as totally arbitrary to someone with no belief
            Fedora tippers are possessed by beliefs, anon. The problem is partially that they believe them to be their own and partially that they don't want to admit them as such. There's a great lack of personal humility on the part of internet atheists and until they can manifest that everything will seem arbitrary according to the frame they force upon the subject matter.

            >the fact this constitutes the opening of The Bible is a giant signal fedoras seem to completely miss (i.e. being filtered from the very beginning betrays an almost poetic ignorance
            >There's a great lack of personal humility on the part of internet atheists
            Calling people ignorant and arrogant for not agreeing with your baseless and dogmatic claims about the nature and origin of the universe is pretty funny

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Calling people ignorant and arrogant for not agreeing with your baseless and dogmatic claims about the nature and origin of the universe is pretty funny
            What baseless and dogmatic claims have I made, anon?

            Atheists confuse being strongly opinionated with being knowledgeable. The problem is that such is a very thin veneer and when it's scratched fedoras tend to become accusatory and reactive (this always eventually devolves into accusations of "no you"). The bottom line is that unearned condescension toward religious understanding doesn't signal the intelligence they think it does and that's why the Nu Atheism fad eventually became the embaressing fedora meme.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Atheists confuse being strongly opinionated with being knowledgeable

            >You should be able to defend the worldview that makes theism possible
            We do. And thinkers much more intelligent than I have done as well, centuries ago. It's funny how you say I'm conceding when you never even acknowledge this or if you do, you don't even deny that what I'm saying is right. You don't believe in the spiritual, so why even have that discussion in the first place? Why would I even give an argument if the argument isn't even relevant to your material worldview? Again: how do you prove materially a spiritual question? I'm sure you're gonna evade this, all the same

            [...]
            Not that hard to understand

            >you don't even deny that what I'm saying is right

            Funny you should say that... since biology says there is one body apologists have to tie themselves into knots to explain how a head, butthole, and some sort of helpmeet or intermediary torso must be identical to one another, that 3=1.

            >biology says there is one body

            you mean a triangle you gorilla

            >triangle
            christkangers are not sending their best, the argument for the volcano demon's wife's son's immortality is that i haven't denied that experts told them triangles have anuses

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no response
            Sorry you had to find out that fedora tipping isn't the shortcut to being perceived as intelligent you though it was, anon. Good luck building your personality around an internet fad that played itself out a decade ago.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Good luck building your personality around an internet fad that played itself out a decade ago

            Yeah, keep sperging and deflecting kek it took you about an hour to come up with this and all you could say was
            >c-christcucks btfo
            without any sort of argument. Leddit fedora tippers truly are a special kind of moronic

            >Leddit fedora tippers truly are a special kind of moronic
            You do realize that christkanging about how complex and edifying it is to read the bible and that doing so makes you euphoric and your opponents can't because they are big dumb dumbs who are merely posturing as intelligent is the exact pattern that was ridiculed a generation ago

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You do realize that fedora-tipping about how complex and edifying it is to reject the bible and that doing so makes you euphoric and your opponents can't because they are big dumb dumbs who are merely posturing as intelligent is the exact pattern that was ridiculed a generation ago

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >keeps bringing up irrelevant shit
            This is my last (You) but what the frick does this have to do with anything? I'm not calling you moronic because you're too le dumb to read the Bible, I'm calling you moronic because in the last ten posts you've literally never addressed a single point I made and just went
            >christkangs, amirite?
            At least engage with the topic at hand. You had your chance and you lost, my dude

            Why is Jesus allowed to commit miracles but the Old Testament is too mythological to be literally true?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you both get very slick
            There's nothing slick about pointing out The Bible is a blended text, anon. It's a basic fact.
            >the problem of which fantasy elements are meant to be fantasy and which are meant to be literal
            That's just not how The Bible works, anon. Again, it contains items ranging the direct transcription of legal codes and historic events to poetry and myth. These things are frequently blended together in order to get across something more than the sum of those parts.
            >two creations mean that part of genesis is not literal, but the miraculous conduct of Jesus is?
            The creation myths in Genesis make it apparent that what you're reading isn't a straightforward textbook that delineates history grounded in literalism. It's obvious that the editors didn't care about putting together a narrative that dictates a straightforward plot and the fact this constitutes the opening of The Bible is a giant signal fedoras seem to completely miss (i.e. being filtered from the very beginning betrays an almost poetic ignorance in itself). As far as the Jesus narratives go there are types and antitypes that reflect back on stories contained in the OT, note that the OT does this within itself as well, and plenty of prominent historical figures have edited their own versions of such which attempt to convey the same messages by removing what they perceived as mysticism (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy, etc).
            >How does that solve the problem your atheist opponents are raising if you deny some of these stories and not others?
            First, I think the whole "debate me" culture of Nu Atheism is childish and given the fact they're largely ignorant outside of repeating the same arguments over and over there is nothing to be won from them. Second, it's foolhardy from the outset to treat the Bible as if it were a modern textbook and by the standards of how modern academic writing exists today. It's a poor path by which to approach The Bible and discussions that revolve around such are likely to be low level assertions based mostly on the shallow readings of others.
            >It comes across as totally arbitrary to someone with no belief
            Fedora tippers are possessed by beliefs, anon. The problem is partially that they believe them to be their own and partially that they don't want to admit them as such. There's a great lack of personal humility on the part of internet atheists and until they can manifest that everything will seem arbitrary according to the frame they force upon the subject matter.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >dumb atheist doesn't know christians don't believe in the bible
            stellar apologetics

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >dumb fedora tipper doesn't even know what the Bible is
            FTFY.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's not true, or even attempting to be, apparently, so what is your issue with atheism?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's a religion midwits adopt because they think it indicates intelligence. Fedoras are lolcows and engaging with them provides opportunities to laugh at their expense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            one of your Christian comrades ITT is arguing that it would be conspiratorial and therefore wrong to suggest people could believe in false religions and spread them, and that the most intelligent explanation is therefore that whatever spreads successfully must be true—what will such midwits be saying when half the planet is Muslim I wonder

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'd have to read his argument but there's a grain of truth to what he says based on your post. Beliefs that have utility, spiritual or social or both, spread whereas those that are harmful often die on the vine. This isn't to say that negative aspects of human nature don't bleed into everything and always fail to propagate (the nature of our imperfections is central to all major religious creeds).

            When it comes down to it you're an individual and have to construct your own relationship with God (call it the universe if you're an atheist) and when you realize crying impotence in the face of multiple belief systems says more about you than the systems there's room for growth.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            my posts are here

            because the ot contains myths defined as such in my other post [...]
            ; and again, it's not solely myths. i really don't understand the hang up here but i'll try. along with myths, it contains genealogies, the chronicling of wars and events, poetry, wisdom and writings of prophets. the new testament, on the other hand, is biographical in a very straight forward way in the gospel and acts. things happening here are also attested to by other historians, both secular and non secular. the rest of it are mostly letters written by paul to groups of people. saying the ot contains myths, does not assign the bible in its entirety as metaphorical fiction and surely you can understand that.

            ,

            there are two irrefutable things about the new testament. john the baptist and a man named jesus being crucified under pontius pilate. if you want to question that, we might as well be skeptical of all historic figures because less content exists for a person like julius ceasar. from here, you follow the evidence. insular israelites would have to see something pretty spectacular to cause a stir among their rigid system. it doesn't seem very reasonable for the disciples to then also make up a lie about a resurrection, which makes little sense theologically for them at the time, and then to also die for a known lie(paul crucified upside down, peter beheaded, etc). is it possible for 500 people to hallucinate the jesus sightings following the resurrection? the earliest christian traditions started immediately after the crucifixion as paul and luke noted, so not only would these sightings have to be fake, but then spread like wildfire to reach 1400 miles away rome within a 20 year period. i say that because nero massacred christians there at around 64 ad. we have tacitus, josephus who lived within living memory of jesus writing about his events; polycarp and ignatius who were john's disciples also writing. is this a little bit clearer the evidential difference in the ot and nt? i'm not saying it doesn't require faith, but there's clearly a different amount of substance here.

            and

            >israeli christian converts turning on their rabbinic teachings to evangelize salvation to gentiles
            >not crazy
            you're out of your mind if you think this happened due to conspiracy. there is probably no evidence to even satisfy you. you'd provide a naturalistic explanation to the heavens opening up and god speaking to you.

            . i'm not surprised the anon you're responding to is straw manning it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where did I misrepresent this

            >israeli christian converts turning on their rabbinic teachings to evangelize salvation to gentiles
            >not crazy
            you're out of your mind if you think this happened due to conspiracy. there is probably no evidence to even satisfy you. you'd provide a naturalistic explanation to the heavens opening up and god speaking to you.

            >you're out of your mind if you think this happened due to conspiracy
            where is your response to this

            >you're out of your mind if you think this happened due to conspiracy.
            uhhh, you literally had a group of people collecting donations from devotees who thought the world was imminently ending, and the framework of mystery cults already existed in the mediterranean, which by their very nature were initiatory and conspiratorial

            you seem to have tapped out

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there's no point in engaging with reductionist responses. to even suggest the manuscripts and movement of christianity is remotely similar to muhammed's just trust me is being intellectually dishonest. i didn't even get into the mountain of authentic tells in the book of luke that modern academics have found like onamastic congruence.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >taking your argument of propagation makes right to its logical end is being intellectually dishonest
            hey it's your paradigm not mine

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're doing it again. does it make you feel intelligent to just reduce something you disagree with down to the bare bones to reach a comparative basis with something else you also disagree while hoping no one sees it for what it is? for instance, your very first post i can tell is boiling the disciples and followers down to israeli anarchists that not only rebelled against roman occupation, but against their own insular "chosen people" culture. a rebellion to spread salvation to gentiles, not just in italy, but all over the south and east as well. it makes zero sense to think that the case, but you wanted to make a smarmy remark about muslims.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it makes zero sense to think that the case
            yeah the wizard shit is way more plausible than any human motivations, there's no evidence of discontent with the local religious authorities or the imperial power that could possibly account for the popularity of the cult, and there are no comparable movements or cults that this one outlived and memory-holed, very silly of me to doubt your profane claims of esoteric wisdom

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for directing me to your posts.
            Nothing you wrote is unreasonable but you have a higher level of faith than myself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            religion being more socially effective than irreligion is less an argument for the truth claims of any particular religion and more of a deficiency of the mere negation made by atheism
            consider—the Romans viewed the early Christians as misanthropes and ATHEISTS for denying the Roman gods, the Romans who never denied anyone else's gods were deeply perplexed by this movement which refused all known religion in favor of death; the Buddhists in Asia demoted all the pagan gods to supermen but never did away with them or with ritual
            it is western atheism which has to grapple with its own success at kicking a half-dead Christianity in the ribs while Islam waits around the global corner
            an education—read Nietzsche, Bataille, Houellebecq, who proclaims there is no Israel for the secular French... well there is no Kingdom of Jerusalem for the christkangers either

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >religion being more socially effective than irreligion is less an argument for the truth claims of any particular religion and more of a deficiency of the mere negation made by atheism
            It depends on how you frame it. There are apocalypse narratives in several major religions, and cults like to spring up around them, but nowhere does it say that religious understanding isn't meant to evolve in a way that's reflective of society, or an individual's role within such, contemporary to those that are alive in the here and now. The fact that religious understanding is itself reflective of a universal human experience regardless of where you are and at what time you exist says a lot about its "truth value."
            >there are different religious creeds at different points in time
            Yeah, and that's why the onus is on you to do your due diligence when it comes to exploring them so you can understand them to the best of your ability. Patting yourself on the back while stating a rather shallow version of the obvious isn't conducive to spiritual growth.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >keeps bringing up irrelevant shit
            This is my last (You) but what the frick does this have to do with anything? I'm not calling you moronic because you're too le dumb to read the Bible, I'm calling you moronic because in the last ten posts you've literally never addressed a single point I made and just went
            >christkangs, amirite?
            At least engage with the topic at hand. You had your chance and you lost, my dude

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You do realize that christkanging about how complex and edifying it is to read the bible and that doing so makes you euphoric and your opponents can't because they are big dumb dumbs who are merely posturing as intelligent is the exact pattern that was ridiculed a generation ago
            Wow, the christcucks are really seething at that statement. They know deep down they're projecting.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Fedoras are around here. I hate fedoras.
            Go back to 2009, homosexual.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >REEEEEEEEEEEE
            Lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:08:34 No.23372763▶
            >

            >Fedoras are around here. I hate fedoras.


            Go back to 2009, homosexual. (You)

            >Lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >seething so hard he fricked up the greentext
            Lol, never change.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:16:45 No.23372786▶
            >

            https://i.imgur.com/4OvqFWB.jpeg

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:08:34 No.23372763▶
            >[...] (You)

            >Lol. (You)
            so hard he fricked up the greentext
            >Lol, never change.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can you do that one more time?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nope

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            K. I'll work with what I have.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/4OvqFWB.jpeg

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:08:34 No.23372763▶
            >[...] (You)

            >Lol.

            https://i.imgur.com/epWsXru.png

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:48:22 No.23372882▶
            >[...] (You)
            >Good to know "fedora" still triggers you way harder than "christcuck" has ever triggered any Christian lol
            >Maybe it's because there is no real analogue to what a "christcuck" would be that applies to how normal people live their lives, but an autistic atheist teenager is something everyone has had to suffer through at some point.

            Please stop. I can't breathe. The fact that Mr. Seethio Fedora is fricking up copypastas of other anons and putting basedjaks is beyond autistic. Not even joking, thanks seething anon. I hadn't laughed like this in a long time

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)12:52:06 No.23373562▶
            >

            https://i.imgur.com/7RsvuyT.jpeg

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:16:45 No.23372786▶
            >[...] (You)
            so hard he fricked up the greentext
            >Lol, never change.
            >

            https://i.imgur.com/4OvqFWB.jpeg

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:08:34 No.23372763▶
            >[...] (You)

            >Lol.
            >

            https://i.imgur.com/epWsXru.png

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:48:22 No.23372882▶
            >[...] (You)
            >Good to know "fedora" still triggers you way harder than "christcuck" has ever triggered any Christian lol
            >Maybe it's because there is no real analogue to what a "christcuck" would be that applies to how normal people live their lives, but an autistic atheist teenager is something everyone has had to suffer through at some point.
            >Please stop. I can't breathe. The fact that Mr. Seethio Fedora is fricking up copypastas of other anons and putting basedjaks is beyond autistic. Not even joking, thanks seething anon. I hadn't laughed like this in a long time

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good to know "fedora" still triggers you way harder than "christcuck" has ever triggered any Christian lol

            Maybe it's because there is no real analogue to what a "christcuck" would be that applies to how normal people live their lives, but an autistic atheist teenager is something everyone has had to suffer through at some point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anonymous 05/11/24(Sat)08:48:22 No.23372882▶
            >

            >Fedoras are around here. I hate fedoras.


            Go back to 2009, homosexual. (You)
            >Good to know "fedora" still triggers you way harder than "christcuck" has ever triggered any Christian lol
            >Maybe it's because there is no real analogue to what a "christcuck" would be that applies to how normal people live their lives, but an autistic atheist teenager is something everyone has had to suffer through at some point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe it's because there is no real analogue to what a "christcuck" would be that applies to how normal people live their lives
            You mean the average Groyper?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but an autistic atheist teenager is something everyone has had to suffer through at some point
            I'd say it comes the sheer embarrassment you lads must feel explaining your own belief system to a person that isn't gonna just believe a book saying, "He rose from the dead! I saw it with me own two eyes I swear on me mum," just because their father and their father's father also believed it without question.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, keep sperging and deflecting kek it took you about an hour to come up with this and all you could say was
            >c-christcucks btfo
            without any sort of argument. Leddit fedora tippers truly are a special kind of moronic

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there are two irrefutable things about the new testament. john the baptist and a man named jesus being crucified under pontius pilate. if you want to question that, we might as well be skeptical of all historic figures because less content exists for a person like julius ceasar. from here, you follow the evidence. insular israelites would have to see something pretty spectacular to cause a stir among their rigid system. it doesn't seem very reasonable for the disciples to then also make up a lie about a resurrection, which makes little sense theologically for them at the time, and then to also die for a known lie(paul crucified upside down, peter beheaded, etc). is it possible for 500 people to hallucinate the jesus sightings following the resurrection? the earliest christian traditions started immediately after the crucifixion as paul and luke noted, so not only would these sightings have to be fake, but then spread like wildfire to reach 1400 miles away rome within a 20 year period. i say that because nero massacred christians there at around 64 ad. we have tacitus, josephus who lived within living memory of jesus writing about his events; polycarp and ignatius who were john's disciples also writing. is this a little bit clearer the evidential difference in the ot and nt? i'm not saying it doesn't require faith, but there's clearly a different amount of substance here.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >spread like wildfire to reach 1400 miles away rome within a 20 year period
            yeah that's so crazy how did israeli anarchists end up in the capital city of the empire that conquered them and appointed governors to their homeland and deployed military units there it's just so inexplicable

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >israeli christian converts turning on their rabbinic teachings to evangelize salvation to gentiles
            >not crazy
            you're out of your mind if you think this happened due to conspiracy. there is probably no evidence to even satisfy you. you'd provide a naturalistic explanation to the heavens opening up and god speaking to you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you're out of your mind if you think this happened due to conspiracy.
            uhhh, you literally had a group of people collecting donations from devotees who thought the world was imminently ending, and the framework of mystery cults already existed in the mediterranean, which by their very nature were initiatory and conspiratorial

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there are two irrefutable things about the new testament. john the baptist and a man named jesus being crucified under pontius pilate.

            The Jesus thing is not a big deal to be honest, it could be any other guy called Jesus which wans't an unusual name and Baptist is mysterious outside the bible. Plus we don't know the exact decade anything on the bible was written nor the events but Paul letters nor we know for sure who wrote anything but Paul part. In fact Paul is basically alone in his generation, every other christian of his time pretty much disappeared from history.

            It's undeniable that Paul existed and he was a christian as we know, the debate is if he was always telling the truth or if he lied a lot because almost everything we know about him is from his own words.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            another thing we know for sure about Paul is that the guy had a lot of fans and a lot of haters, by the way his letters were so quickly mass produced and carefully protected it's pretty clear he was a celebrity among christians, although I'm not sure if he was seen as infalible and holy as he is to modern christians or that his letters were treated as holy scripture or simply something fun and educative for christians to read

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you both get very slick
            There's nothing slick about pointing out The Bible is a blended text, anon. It's a basic fact.
            >the problem of which fantasy elements are meant to be fantasy and which are meant to be literal
            That's just not how The Bible works, anon. Again, it contains items ranging the direct transcription of legal codes and historic events to poetry and myth. These things are frequently blended together in order to get across something more than the sum of those parts.
            >two creations mean that part of genesis is not literal, but the miraculous conduct of Jesus is?
            The creation myths in Genesis make it apparent that what you're reading isn't a straightforward textbook that delineates history grounded in literalism. It's obvious that the editors didn't care about putting together a narrative that dictates a straightforward plot and the fact this constitutes the opening of The Bible is a giant signal fedoras seem to completely miss (i.e. being filtered from the very beginning betrays an almost poetic ignorance in itself). As far as the Jesus narratives go there are types and antitypes that reflect back on stories contained in the OT, note that the OT does this within itself as well, and plenty of prominent historical figures have edited their own versions of such which attempt to convey the same messages by removing what they perceived as mysticism (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy, etc).
            >How does that solve the problem your atheist opponents are raising if you deny some of these stories and not others?
            First, I think the whole "debate me" culture of Nu Atheism is childish and given the fact they're largely ignorant outside of repeating the same arguments over and over there is nothing to be won from them. Second, it's foolhardy from the outset to treat the Bible as if it were a modern textbook and by the standards of how modern academic writing exists today. It's a poor path by which to approach The Bible and discussions that revolve around such are likely to be low level assertions based mostly on the shallow readings of others.
            >It comes across as totally arbitrary to someone with no belief
            Fedora tippers are possessed by beliefs, anon. The problem is partially that they believe them to be their own and partially that they don't want to admit them as such. There's a great lack of personal humility on the part of internet atheists and until they can manifest that everything will seem arbitrary according to the frame they force upon the subject matter.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the old testament is made of myths, history, wisdom and poetry. i wish the ones objecting to it would actually give it a chance or at least read more about it. the new testament are eye witness accounts to the word of god, jesus christ, as well as epistolary work of paul and others. these letters and accounts are rooted in history by other secular and non secular sources.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Ancient people were actually atheists the whole time

            At last I truly see.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i feel like usually these posts are in bad faith but i'll humor you. when reading the old testament you have to contextualize things and what is written in that time period. ancient story telling used metaphors and mythology to tell history. myths are not stories that are not true, but rather a truth communicated through story.

            now to the point of the books of gen 1 and 2 contradicting each other; this only happens if you do not understand my first point. the theological messages of book 1 is a telling of the sequence of events from primitive to sophisticated, as per the theory of evolution(ie vegetation and animals coming before man). book 2's message serves the purpose of placing mankind before all those other things to illustrate that world was created for humans to preserve. mankind is the center of it all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >cope and seethe christkanger
            it's not a cope to call a spade a spade, Black person. Notice how you didn't even address my point. This is a serious question: within your leddit materialist worldview, just how the hell would one prove a God beyond reasonable doubt?
            >inb4 ackthually you're making the claim so the burden of proof is on you
            Is the burden of proof on the guy that believes morals exist? Or on the guy that believes morals are social constructs? You see how fricking moronic that sounds?

            >God is real and you should worship him
            >Prove it
            >THAT'S DISHONEST AND ARROGANT
            ???

            Because when one tries to come to the conclusion of God through logic and philosophy, it's not enough for material-homosexuals to have that metaphysical discussion (which by its nature, it is) and only want
            >SAUCE? SAUCE?? Sorry gonna need the stats and sauce on that. You don't have sauce for metaphysical and philosophical assertions? Heh. Checkmate

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >within your leddit materialist worldview, just how the hell would one prove a God beyond reasonable doubt?
            Tactically retreating into relativism to defend dogmatism, and pretending you are the real sceptic of or whatever, is a tremendous concession that you have no argument. You should be able to defend the worldview that makes theism possible, not complain that atheists being atheists is what prevents them from accepting theism—but that level of tautology is typical for armchair apologists anyway

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You should be able to defend the worldview that makes theism possible
            We do. And thinkers much more intelligent than I have done as well, centuries ago. It's funny how you say I'm conceding when you never even acknowledge this or if you do, you don't even deny that what I'm saying is right. You don't believe in the spiritual, so why even have that discussion in the first place? Why would I even give an argument if the argument isn't even relevant to your material worldview? Again: how do you prove materially a spiritual question? I'm sure you're gonna evade this, all the same

            Funny you should say that... since the Bible says there is one God apologists have to tie themselves into knots to explain how a Father, Son, and some sort of helpmeet or intermediary daemon must be identical to one another, that 3=1.

            Not that hard to understand

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You cant even prove you weren’t created yesterday let alone worrying about the rings in layers of ice in Antarctica to prove the images in front of your eyeballs existed billions of years

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        solipsism is not the answer

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Prove materialism to me.

    /thread

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Richard Dawkins isn't real

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't this dude have a sóy meltdown about blm during some presentation or am I thinking of one of those other pseuds middle schoolers like

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists
    >prove to me how a spiritual being beyond the material world is real

    This line of thought is so fricking stupid I don't even know where to begin. It's always been a philosophical debate but leddit atheists want you to not only prove God is real with evidence but also get them to believe in said God. How arrogant and dishonest do you have to be?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >prove to me how a spiritual being beyond the material world is real using vague ideas of science I've never studied but internalized by watching YouTube videos
      >...
      >OWNED BY FACTS AND LOGIC!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >God is real and you should worship him
      >Prove it
      >THAT'S DISHONEST AND ARROGANT
      ???

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >my priest of atheism has yet to be refuted by priests from other faiths
    Kek, there's practically no difference between religion and atheism

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why is this an argument. if you want to find out so bad fricking have a nice day. frick these narcissistic nepotistic atheist and christcucks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >BOTH SIDES THO!
      Lol.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        dumbass there is no point in arguing over something we can't verify. so have a nice day and find out

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >NO DISCUSSION NECESSARY! BOTH SIDES THOUGH!
          Spoken like a moron who has no friends.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nice projection.
            prove if god exist or if he doesn't.
            if you can't frick off.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >projection
            No you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >prove if god exists or if he doesn't
            easy

            whence cometh evil?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A ruling far and just.
            I will kill myself to find the truth.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            to be fair that clearly does not apply to christianity which makes sense since the guy who made this question never heard of Abraham

            for starters the Abrahamic God clearly ins't able to do anything he wants, he's bound by his nature, he can't stop himself from reacting to sin just like we can't help but feel pain if hurt, that's why humas must ask him for forgiveness so he can stop himself from unleashing his wrath upon us

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >prove if god exist or if he doesn't.
            holy shit, thanks for the laugh anon. It is truly unbelievable how fricking stupid a leddit atheist is when he breaks the existence of a God to "is it le true or le fake?"
            >prove a metaphysical concept and if you can't provide physical evidence, it's LE FAKE
            >i-it just is OKAY??

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dawkins' belief system involves much theoretical and factual misinformation, both subject to change and evolve infinitely over the course of time. It cannot ever evolve into truth, meaning it is anything but truth as truth cannot ever change or evolve.

    A bloated ego might fool some, however truth fools no one. It's a lot easier to believe that Dawkins just likes looking down and poking fun and what he doesn't believe in. Silly though thinking at any point in history that you know it all like Mr Puffed Ego.

    He could have called it his personal book of lies to hurt Chistianity, and the book would have been the identical.

    Science will never have truth partially due to not being able to rule out invisible/unseen variables, along with the exploitative nature of profit. Cured people don't need to keep coming back to the dr.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      kek, this is the kind of person atheists love to dunk on. "Science can't know the truth, so why bother. I know everything there is to know in this here Bible, which is why I can cure leprosy with a dead bird and a live bird and sprinkling some blood over the patient". Believers really do make caricatures of themselves.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >kek, this is the kind of person atheists love to dunk on.
        Feeling euphoric, anon? Lol

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm feeling amused, that's for sure

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *refutes u*

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dawkins is gay

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Make sure to use that as an excuse at The Judgement.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What’s the evidence for god not being real? I’m not even Christian. Just able to accept that maybe I’m/we’re/scientists are wrong. As Socrates said; I know that I know nothing. I kinda think being an atheist is illogical tbh.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Those who won't have faith in Jesus Christ are the most gullible people on the planet. If you won't believe God, you'll believe literally anything else that tickles your ears. Doesn't matter what it is.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dawkins recently outed himself as a cultural christian. he was never atheist, just islamophobic.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *