Opinions on god and religion in general.
How can people still believe in god, when nearly everything the Bible says is scientifically disproved? I mean this "story" originated like 2000 years ago, when human beings walked on a flat earth while wondering what this big shiny thing in the sky is.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>anything but agnosticism
And you believe in science, when science textbooks are rewritten each years?
At least European Christians don't take the Bible in a literal way, but fedoras are so blind they literally believe everything that is written down in a science book.
They get rewritten because they are researching, not because they wanna fool us.
You debase yourself by offering strawman and insult as argument. We don't take them for fact and that's partially why they are rewritten so often. Its about a method of deduction rather than facts, and religion is a grave exposition to ones lack of reasoning and deductive skills.
When was the existence of god disproved? It hasn't been
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most atheists are agnostics in a much greater magnitute than theists.
Nice fedora meme you spaghetti-nigger
There are thousands of gods who have not had their existence dis-proven, your point is moot.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Far as I'm concerned, all the evidence points to God not existing, at least no Abrahamic one, so I'll continue to disbelieve until evidence to the contrary.
Do you have a minute to hear about proving a negative?
? no it isn't
>European Christians don't take the Bible in a literal way
Only SOME burgers take the Bible literally.
It's about morals and philosophy, not about chemistry and astronomy.
> nearly everything the Bible says is scientifically disproved
The same about Aristotle or Plato, they have been scientifically disproved, but we still read them because of the non-material truth they said.
The claim is that god doesn't exist or that those things in the Bible didn't happen.
>Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.
depends on your definition of them
in my book it's:
>atheism
there is no god
>agnosticism
it's impossible to know if there is a god
that way agnosticism actually means something more than a doubt
No. The claim is that God exists and the Bible is real and thus we should base our society upon it. There's no evidence for that claim, and thus no reason to do so.
You people are divisive. You should really ally yourself with atheism because you essentially are one. This "I'm an agnostic" thing that's cropped up recently is based on misinformation. There are agnostic atheists (the VAST majority), and there are gnostic atheists.
For something that is so old and ingrained in society then the claim is actually why not to base society on it.
>You should really ally yourself with atheism because you essentially are one.
well how about no
The beneficial aspects of our Judeo-Christian society definitely should stay though not for religious reasons but for pragmatic reasons. The obsolete aspects should be replaced, as they slowly have been.
>I KNOW that I cannot know
What's so confusing about it? You cannot prove or disprove any gods. A "vision" or "dream" is not proof of anything, mind you.
pretty simple desu
They get rewritten because they can never be right
They just may always be wrong
>Germany
speaking ill of islam
enjoy your reeducation camp, inshallah
But how?
>A "vision" or "dream" is not proof of anything, mind you.
Why?
I'm an atheist, but even so, it's obvious that large parts of the Bible are a metaphor.
i know that there is no proof for the existence of god
and there is no proof denying the existence of god
How?
More people would call themselves atheists if they hadn't made it into a movement and gone around acting like such insufferable faggots.
a god is by definition something that is beyond nature
so we (as a part of nature) can't observe anything that would prove or disprove his existence
A humpback whale created the earth and everything on it. You can't prove or disprove it, so it COULD happened like that right?
It doesn't make atheism (and all of its adjacent philosophies) any less absurd
>Appeal to ridicule
Of course it could. You can't disprove things by lack of evidence. That would be an argument from ignorance
it could
because falling for Jew lies and fairy tales makes so much more sense, right?
Does that mean that anything outside nature necessarily cannot exist?
Jews killed my Lord and Saviour
no
it means we just cannot observe it, even if it does exist
That's assuming only physical things exist and permeate reality
Do you people even have any arguments aside from le funny reddit fedora meme?
Ask and find out. Argue for something
>That's assuming only physical things exist
no.
i don't assume it, they can exist
i just claim that it's irrelevant, since we cannot observe things other than physical
Why are you a theist?
Even so, the argument is invalid. The possibility of a God is acknowledged by agnostics. This is obvious and is not a point of contention. What is contentious, however, is the existence of the Abrahamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter. In which case, you cannot provide proof of the veracity of the books that attest to the claims they present.
>b-but you can't know if the books are true or not because God could have entered realtiy
Of course God could have, but there is no proof. Instead, theistic people rely on the circular logic of claim --> faith --> acceptance --> claim and repeat.
If God exists then why is there islam?
We could observe them if not *only* physical things did exist
For example, our minds exist and can perceive things beyond the physical
Where is the contradiction?
To justify the possibility of true knowledge
>our minds exist and can perceive things beyond the physical
that's assuming it's not just chemistry
If God existed he would never let islam to brainwash humen.
So are you a deist as well as an agnostic?
Why would chemistry (your mind) assume anything?
If chemistry assumes it's chemistry why would it be right?
Why?
Why not?
Forgive me, I'm not a native speaker, could you clarify what you mean by that?
Science stemmed from Religion and was started because people asked why god made things work the way they do.
To say that science has disproved anything in the bible is stupid.
For example, the Big bang theory as you know it was theorized because people asked how exactly did Genesis happen, and it was used to justify the existence of god.
en.wikipedia.org
op could you provide scientific proofs (not theories) that earth is round?
No. Deists acknowledge that a God does exist. They make this claim with 100% certainty, but then claim he does not interact with his creation. I am an agnostic, as I a god *may* exist, as in there exists the possibility of one. It cannot be truly known if this God exists, however, because as another user said, such a God would not be accessible to us through any natural means.
if it's very advanced chemistry, why not?
creating a self aware computer is a popular topic nowadays, we can be something very similar
Because a God (my God at least) allows for fee will and human responsibility
Religion is an organized system of belief. It is not real, but the alerations it makes to the behavior the people that adhere to it have very real effects.
It is necessarily in competition with secular social constructs that also seek to modify human behavior. Ultimately, the worth of any belief system, religious or secular, is dependent on how effective it is at building and maintaining a human population ready and willing to defend it with lethal force.
In this, ISIS is winning, and Western Civilization is failing, hard. People are turning to religion because socialist have gained control of Westen Civilization and have declared that the human race must be exterminated for the greater good, so the only thing it now has to offer people is mass suicide.
>atheists shame Christians for believing the Bible
>Atheists still have no idea how the universe was crated
same as islamic logic
>he still believes theism = christianity
>he sitll believes christians take bible literally
>he still thinks the domain of religion and science intersect
>he still believes the science vs religion meme even thought majority of scientific breakthroughs were made by theists
There could not be true, absolute, and/ objective knowledge without God to vouch for it
The universe doesn't have had to have been created.
Atleast we're honest about how clueless about the universe we are, unlike you, dumb frogposter
>It cannot be truly known if this God exists, however, because as another user said, such a God would not be accessible to us through any natural means.
Why should God be accessible through natural means?
>It came from nothing!
We created X to control Y
>Why should God be accessible through natural means?
he should not
and he can not
that's the whole point
>this is unironically what some atheists believe
You deserve to be cucked.
>(it always existed)
Besides, this is the claim deists make for god. Where exactly did god come from?
>How can people still believe in god, when nearly everything the Bible says is scientifically disproved? I mean this "story" originated like 2000 years ago, when human beings walked on a flat earth while wondering what this big shiny thing in the sky is.
The said thing is people actually believe this shit.
I never made the claim that a God should be accessible through human means, I simply stated that one isn't.
R A R E
A
R
E
Science in a nut shell.
Just because of your personal incredulity it doesn't mean its not correct. Read up on the theory you're criticizing.
I have no time for anyone that follows the three Abrahamic faiths. None of them should even exist.
But how would we know, if we are just chemistry, that we are just chemistry?
How could we know that we don't exist (and be correct), if we're just the brain and chemistry that makes us think
>he still hasn't conceived a strong desire for anuttara-samyak-sambodhi
>he believes there are multiple vehicles
>he either believes or disbelieves in things
On the surface
>And you believe in science, when science textbooks are rewritten each years?
That's not how any of this works.
2000years is merely the blink of an eye in galactic terms. it's barely 30 human generations, which is nothing. you infidels have my sympathy, but you will all burn anyway. especially the jews. kek wills it.
mein nigger
Scientists can't prove exactly how the universe formed, therefore what is says in my particular holy book must be correct.
>adherent logic
So why wouldn't He be accessible through super-natural means?
>taking the Bible's word verbatim
ohh, Yusuf, you are still the same
...
A series of hypotheses, tests, and examinations of what can be known. It is from this data that conclusions are drawn. These conclusions are based upon natural means, thus if there is a supernatural component to the brain that is not able to be seen, it is irrelevant as it objectively has no demonstrable effect on reality.
>How could we know that we don't exist (and be correct), if we're just the brain and chemistry that makes us think
we don't know
we can only assume that we function properly
an carry on with our lives
not much we can do about this topic
And I am now making the claim that by His very definition he should be accessible through supernatural means
do we have some?
>but I do of course have the time to say this
My apologies, I don't understand your phrasing.
Never mind I understand now. Sure, a supernatural entity can be accessed through a supernatural means. A supernatural means however cannot exist in a natural world, because if it could, then the supernatural entity too could exist in the natural world. Assuming the entity cannot exist but the means can, what is then needed is (1) proof of the means existence and (2) proof that the means is truly accessing a supernatural entity.
It's laughable that not even a citizen of the Vatican who should be among the very best in terms of theistic knowledge can argue with anything other than memes and fedoraposting.
So you don't believe the mind exists, because it's super-natural, and because you can never know anything that isn't natural
>not knowing it's the secret weapon of the Vatican
My problem with religion isn't the belief of a god. There's nothing wrong with believing maybe some entity or entities created the universe. The key word is maybe. My problem is these faggots "knowing" their specific religion and dogma is the one truth, and the thousands of other religions out there are all liars. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be to believe with such conviction your extremely specific religion you just happened to be born into is the truth is beyond me. Sometimes I feel like you have to be trolling to be so stupid, it is feminism level of intellectual dishonesty.