If humans evolved to detect God, does that mean atheism is a mental illness?

If humans evolved to detect God, does that mean atheism is a mental illness?

Other urls found in this thread:

pirateproxy.vip/torrent/15079307/Campbell_Biology_-_10th_Edition_(2013).pdf_Gooner
youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html
ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god
youtu.be/BXlBCZ_5OYw
youtu.be/kcRFYGr1zcg
youtu.be/qPVf-exCgEo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I don't think you understand how evolution is supposed to work

Essentially yes.

Read this pirateproxy.vip/torrent/15079307/Campbell_Biology_-_10th_Edition_(2013).pdf_Gooner

Only the most uneducated atheists actually believe aliens could contact us.

I think atheism comes from people not bothering to read the Bible and understand it, with the current advancements in science and the social "progress", most atheists I've discussed with just view religion as an enemy to science. Basically it's just people being narrow-minded and never being taught religion.

Religion is an enemy of humanity

It does mean that youre fucking retarded and dont understand basic biology

Truly nothing is worse than a leaf poster

Everything came from nothing for no reason goy. Get back in line.

correct, though i dont think the bible is the reason. rather its idiot edgy skeptics that tear down the meanings of the bible, refuse to explore theology and supplant a hopeful worldview with a fatalistic one. That then transmit this failure mentality to others.

Pride and self rigetousness.

If more people had parents that could properly educate them on religion, in an authentic manner and religion focussed on the creative life (and its many processes discovered in science) of god in tandem with the imperial nature of his power and grace then we would see more hearty catholic/christians.
Also correct, though perhaps only in the evolutionary context if we assume all that is fine tuned by evolution is "good" which may not be true considering that evolution AND culture work to define our natures.

Culture is bending towards atheism slowly (though there is a bounce of right wing politics that is exciting and full of life and unpredictability)

Its wrong in the psychoanalytic context. Something is a mental illness if it prevents functioning in society which it does not.

>If humans evolved to detect God
that's a pretty big if sempai

>Its wrong in the psychoanalytic context. Something is a mental illness if it prevents functioning in society which it does not.
It does prevent functioning in society, which is why most left wing ideology is focused on radically changing society and culture. They normalize their mental illnesses by bending the rules to accommodate them.

Considering that the three biggest religions on Earth (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) share a common theology, albeit with culture-specific quirks in each respective religion; and also considering that the vast majority of the world's population is religious, and that humans have always been inclined to develop religious beliefs, specifically the belief in a deity, it's pretty safe to assume that humans have evolved to detect the Biblical God.

>tear down the meanings of the bible, refuse to explore theology and supplant a hopeful worldview with a fatalistic one.

I don't think anything is more fatalistic than not having free will and being a puppet of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, sempai. Far better to seize the day and become the Ubermensch, who can choose his own meaning and his own purpose and strive towards them his whole life.

Religion is a mental illness. Islam is the worst of all, but Christianity runs a close second when it comes to being a millstone around a civilization's neck.

>lots of people believe P
>therefore P is true
is this really your argument?

Atheism hasn't presented any tangible proof that God didn't build the world in seven days and on the seventh day he rested and it was good.

Thats isn't the argument, dimwitt

>evolution never happened

t. canadian intellectual

Epic fedora, bro.

Yes. It really, really is.

It is not for the skeptic to present tangible proofs. Rather, it is your responsibility to prove that your Bronze Age superstition of an ill-tempered thunder-god on a mountaintop creating the universe in six literal days, less than six thousand years ago, is literal truth, and that everything science has shown us about how the universe actually works--everything from the 2.7 degree microwave background radiation from the Big Bang to shift in allele frequencies over time in breeding populations--is a lie. That you will be using a device created by the aforementioned science to deny its truth is an irony we will find very amusing.

So what's the argument beyond the following? What did I miss?
>Abrahamaic montheism is the largest group of religions in the world
>humans are inclined to believe in religion
>therefore humans evolved to recognize Abrahamaic monotheism

I'm glad it's not an American making the thread this time

Scientists don't know how the world was created but they're trying. THere are lots of missing links, wrong theories, etc.

But saying "everything came from nothing" is better than "everything came from a man in the sky and the man in the sky told me to do things"

>leaf
Who said I'm atheist? I'm just evaluating the logical validity of your argument.

>still missing the point

exactly. "At this time there is insufficient data to answer your question with certainty" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "This book of myths from the Bronze Age said a bearded guy on a throne on a mountaintop did it," not so much.

Well spell it out for me Augusto.

...

According to Jewish (((scientists))), the physical laws of our universe hinge on an invisible, intangible substance called Dark Matter that constitutes some 95% of the universe's mass, with the remaining 5% comprised by the visible universe. The sole purpose of this substance, that no human has seen and that we believe in based on little more than faith, is to make mathematical equations work.

>dinosaurs went extinct just before man emerged
Do you even have a basic understanding of what evolution actually says?

Yes goyim, pay your taxes, when you die Skydaddy will surely reward you

ITT: we don't know the difference between paleontology and "evolution"

why all leftist liberals are pedophiles and physical assaulters?

hes too close to murican fags

The physical laws of our universe hinge on Maxwell's Equations. "Dark Matter" is a fudge factor for certain aspects of how galaxies form, and sooner or later--despite claims that you hear that "the science is settled," because science is NEVER settled--someone will probably improve on it.

Darwinian extinction events take place over the course of hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. You mean to tell me that dinosaurs are real, but they all just suddenly died and no human has ever seen a dinosaur? There are caveman paintings of ancient cows, bisons, dogs, elephants, but where are all the T-Rexes and the longnecks?

>the physical laws of our universe hinge on an invisible, intangible substance
kinda like gravity. Can't see it. Can't touch it. Really can't explain the why of it. Can observe and accurately predict it's effects using mathematical constant g.
If the addition of a constant causes an equation to become a reliable predictor of reality you don't omit the constant because you don't know what it is - you try to figure out the properties of the constant and where it comes from (eg: 'dark matter')

You have GOT to be trolling.

"If Rome existed, how come we've never seen a photograph of Julius Caesar and President Eisenhower never mentioned meeting him in his memoirs?"

>(((gravity)))
More Jewish science, I bet you think the earth is round too

ITT: LARPing faggots who don't understand science or religion.

Even as an agnostic that has favorable views towards religion, we both know that picture is fucking bullshit.

>Emerge spontaneously
>How these things all came together to form man is a mystery
>Dinosaurs disappear when man came about
>Some Soviet "scientist" does some failed experiments
>Aliens don't contact Earth

Come on guy.

It's true. Matthew 4:8 says the Devil took Jesus to a high mountain, where they could see all the kingdoms and nations of the world. How could he do that if the Earth weren't flat?

Are you going to deny every fossil ever found ?

Riddle me this. For something to be considered a scientific theory, it needs to be disprovable. Evolution takes place over time scales that are too great to observe. We will never see a monkey evolve into a human and hybridization experiments in the 20th century that should have worked, if humans are indeed related to apes, have failed to produce a "humanzee". The fact of the matter is that evolution is a non-disprovable conjecture, and that there are actually facts that point towards opposite conclusions.

They went extinct 160 m.y.a. dude, humans have existed for around 200,000 years. Do you even math?

You can't detect something that leaves zero evidence behind

No. It's mental illness to assume it is. Should humans ever evolve/develop technologically to find and confirm God, then atheists will be what religious people are now - those who see their world through the lens of their own belief, not fact.

>wants to know about the "humanzee"

Detroit is full of them.

Nice troll, retard. Serious low quality bait

This image reminded me how unilaterally retarded this board is

Yes

>humans have existed for around 200,000 years.
How can that be possible if the Earth has only been around for about 10,000 years?

>Evolution takes place over time scales that are too great to observe

Come on guy, really? We can observe it in bacteria, rats, flies, and insects.

>We will never see a monkey evolve into a human

Yes that's true, because the conditions are not right. And monkeys involved into many different , more ape-like forms before evolving into a human. So you're technically correct but you're actually wrong. An old beater car is similarly not going to turn into a race car just sitting there, but modify enough of it, piece by piece, and it could race.

> hybridization experiments in the 20th century that should have worked, if humans are indeed related to apes, have failed to produce a "humanzee"

Who would have guess that animals not in the same species couldn't interbreed? All our experiments have similarly failed to produce an apebird, catdog, wormfrog, and snaketurtle.

>there are actually facts that point towards opposite conclusions

And those are?

Atheism is a mental illness. One day we'll find a cure for being spiritually impaired.

What's it about?

Pitiable post.

what is P here?
I don't see how you could make that interpretation of the argument
the argument was more like

But the Jewish God turned itself into a human so it can be murdered by other humans to save humans from God.

KEK he is fully retarded.
>God have always existed, yet never proff to
>God created every life, human can manipulate them thoug. MEH DINOSAURUS
>Doest know endobiosis theory
>Never heard of chickens
>MUH FOSSILS
>MUH EVOLUTION
>not an argument
>I am atheist yet dont believe in aliens as retarded muricans do

>Riddle me this.
K, bring it.
>For something to be considered a scientific theory, it needs to be disprovable.
No, it has to be provable without bias, through objective evaluation. If something can be properly disproven then through scientific method it means it's false.
>Evolution takes place over time scales that are too great to observe. We will never see a monkey evolve into a human
Yes, though the monkey - human thing is great simplification. It's not like, how uneducated would assume, that some monkeys turned into humans into generation and something else took their place and became monkeys. There was a speci of monkeylike pre/proto-humans, possibly offshoot from something earlier that also had another offshoot that turned into monkeys. And that specie evolved.

>and hybridization experiments in the 20th century that should have worked, if humans are indeed related to apes, have failed to produce a "humanzee".
Most of them shouldn't have worked, people didn't realize it because their grasp on genetics was pretty bad. Just a few different genes may make the difference in specie compatibility. Humans have their genetic structure shared in over 99%. It's 4% less than with simians and to tell you how much difference that may make - we share 90% of genome with abyssynian domestic cat.

>The fact of the matter is that evolution is a non-disprovable conjecture, and that there are actually facts that point towards opposite conclusions.
No, usually the "facts" you speak of are unprovable conjectures, while verifiable things including aforementioned genetic makeup with correlation and basic makeup of building blocks shared between all life on Earth proves theory of evolution.

You're so retarded that I want to snap my fucking neck.

> It's 4% less than with
than that with*

What is considered mental illness is ultimately arbitrary.

Right now most people wouldn't agree it's a mental illness OP.

>If humans evolved to experience pain, does that not make Pakistan degenerate?
>if humans evolved to experience hunger, does that not imply the existence of food?
>if humans evolved to see light, does that not imply the existence of objects?
>if humans evolved to experience spiritual reality as a craving, does it not imply spiritual reality?
You are just trapped by the modern teachings.
>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
>SEE ME AND MY ART AS BEAUTIFUL, CIS SCUM!
>morality is subjective
>YOU BIGOTED ISLAMOPHOBE, HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT
Modernism will deconstruct science the moment it goes in the political and economic powers that be. It used science to replace common sense first.

>If humans evolved to detect God, does that mean atheism is a mental illness?
Or religios people will have an illness wich causes them tripp the shit out from time to time. >Religion tells there is a god with no proof.
>Atheism tells there is no god with no proof.
Whats the difference.

>Come on guy, really? We can observe it in bacteria, rats, flies, and insects.
Bacterial mutation (or "microevolution" as some like to call it) is not the same as a lizard turning into a bird. A mouse developing an immunity to some illness because you breed enough similar mice is not evolution. Any "proof" of evolution that atheists present is very minute and to conclude that because you can breed mice with a certain color coat, you can turn raptors into chickens is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

>Yes that's true, because the conditions are not right. And monkeys involved into many different , more ape-like forms before evolving into a human.
Conditions are irrelevant. If evolution is real, you can use artificial selection in the same way as has been done with dogs or other domesticated animals.

>Who would have guess that animals not in the same species couldn't interbreed?
Horses and donkeys can interbreed. So can most species of big cats. If we share some 98% of our genes with Chimpanzees as some (((scientists))) claim, human-ape hybridization is entirely within the realm of possibility. Unless the (((scientists))) are disseminating false, politically charged "theories" whose purpose is to enact radical social and cultural transformations rather than to seek the truth.

Which one gives birth to a new generation of humans?

Religion is a mental illness

Science is the key to future human development

Your fake gods aren't going to save the planet

stop being a cuck and face the facts

Compare the survival ability of an SJW who rejects everything as patriarchy and a religious person.
Religious people breed more and take care of their children. Which approach aligns with truth more?
Why?

If there is no meaningful difference, apathy follows.

Real australian aryan detected.

Religion is judaism

Religion are lies ((((they)))) use to make money

Cience is revolution against jews

Religio is the worst bluepill

>you'll find God with technology
You'll never be able to do that.

youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

What intelligent designer came up with this?!?

you cant prove thath the unexistant doesnt exist, retard

no, they are just completely retarded

so yes i guess

You can prove yourself, but not a single other observer.

Your approach is naive. It relies on Dogma just the same way as murifats do.

What is 'God', OP? When you have that philosophical quandary solved, get back to me on this thread. I'll wait, but I feel like I will be waiting for the next 1000 life times because no one seems to be able to define what 'God' is, not even supposed religious scholars who have devoted their lives to theology. This thread is bait, and you're a faggot, OP.

I am god writting in my pc. Prove me wrong

Yeah, whatever... You dont need to prove your affirmations, people need to prove them wrong (very well known fallacy)

>atheist has found out that their definition of themselves revolves around other beliefs and their foundations
If all is god, would you disbelieve everything?

>Bacterial mutation (or "microevolution" as some like to call it) is not the same as a lizard turning into a bird.

False. It is change in allele frequency over time in a breeding population. The two are exactly equivalent in every way.

>a bit of a stretch

No, trying to replace science with Bronze Age superstition, THAT is a bit of a stretch, sempai.

>human-ape hybridization is entirely within the realm of possibility

Yes, but all you get is niggers, so it's a waste of effort.

Science is at best a method of measuring the greatness of Jesus Christ.

Why you fail to understand that is due to your poverty and inability to access machines such as abacus and calculator, science tools from the developed world.

>evolved to detect God
Fucking kek
>theist logic

>I am god writting in my pc. Prove me wrong
Let's see..
>I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
What do I have to prove? That you are not a Christian?

>propensity for k-style breeding strategies
>"aligns with truth"

Then I guess rats, rabbits, and bacteria must really be in tune with the secrets of the universe.

Evolution isn't teleological. You keep bringing in "truth." We're talking about science. You want philosophy. Different topics, different arguments, different subject matter entirely.

why do retards always start their """"rebuttal"""" of evolution with the origin of life which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution?

No, you faggots need to prove YOUR affirmations that you believe a single diety controls the universe. The majority of people on Earth believe in some form of 'God', and yet can't prove anything other than some texts that have been re written and re translated so many times that the original works don't even mean what they say any more. And all this written by desert goat herders that lived in the desert thousands of years ago.

The burden of proof is definitely on anyone who believes in 'God'

Maybe, maybe not. If God exists I think it would be possible, even if it will be technology so much more adanced than what we have now that it will be more like multidimensional magical working. Not the point of my post either way.

Yeah.

Hybrid species have a really hard time breeding though. A tigon and a tigon can't make a liger.

>not understanding chemistry and biology
>not understanding statistics
>not having a perspective on what could happen in billions of years...

telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

It's called science, and it is not your world view.

no

ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god

To ask the question is to know the answer.

Some of them, of course, KNOW they're lying, but they justify it to themselves because to them the end justifies the means. There are more than a few similarities between the "intelligent design" cranks and the "global warming" cranks. Both of them start from their conclusions and try to work backwards to prove their assumptions. Science doesn't work that way, and what they're doing isn't science, it's politics. One group is somewhat more socially accepted than another because the (((newsmedia))) repeats their agitprop uncritically, but mocks the other.

keep livin in your little dream world bub

I was wondering how can someone be this retarded. Then i saw that you're a leaf.

Please elaborate on how 'all is God'. What the fuck does that even mean? How can you prove that when the empirical data shows that life and everything involved with it is essentially just chemical reactions and environment.

The worship of a higher power in the many tough times that humanity has encountered over the millenia made sense, because people need something to believe in. But don't seriously sit there on the other end of that computer and type vague, psuedo intellectual garbage like "all is God".

Ah, reducing the meaning, because something fits a model. Classic.

You do know that I can create new words and new models to reduce you and your opinions?

Each being is itself. Different kinds are separate. Women are not men. Neither are held to the same standards.
We hold people to moral standards. Those who fail will yield to r-strategy. They will be lemmings and they will carry the civilization with them.

>three biggest religions on Earth (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) share a common theology
woah it's like all three are abrahamic religions or something

>You do know that I can create new words and new models to reduce you and your opinions?

y helo thar, Big Brother. OLDTHINKERS UNBELLYFEEL INGSOC, amirite guise?

>science is NEVER settled
>implying you know this

It is time.

youtu.be/BXlBCZ_5OYw
youtu.be/kcRFYGr1zcg
youtu.be/qPVf-exCgEo

Or, more likely, that humans evolved to develop a higher consciousness which has nothing to do with God or any religion. Religion was the only alternative in a world where you were probably going to starve to death because of famine, or sent off to die in some bullshit Kings war for ((((glory))).

By definition, numbnuts.

There is always new data. People are always creating new models. Sometimes the new data contradicts an existing model, which gets discarded because it's just been disproven.

Do you even science, bro?

"Science is mathematical modeling of reality, empirically constrained. Science strives for spareness of form with maximum generality. Science discards models which make predictions not borne out by reality." Alan Schwarz

What are you trying to do here?