Atheist

>Atheist get pleasure living off collectivist ideologies
Like?

Christcucks literally kiss the feet of negroids and raise their children

Fuck christcucks

>mocking specifically christianity

and Islam. Or atleast I do.

I'm a die hard atheist and I hate other "atheists" who seems to have no problem ragging on Christian ity, but are too afraid to criticize islam.

>Substantiated by happenings in the modern day and historical evidence.

>modern day

Doesn't matter

>historical evidence.

Scientific understanding is not linear

>Christians wouldn't cherry pick if they actually accepted the bible as the authoritative, immutable word of God.

I completely agree with you

>Is it or is it not true that the Bible is the objective, accurate and immutable word of God, or has it been translated for political purposes, edited, and been outright ignored for convenience?

No matter how many times it has been translated, the Word of God has remained clear in my faith. (Orthodox Christian)

>Which is why it's not the objective truth,
>only a methodology for testing what is the truth.

How do you know the scientific method discovers objective truth?

>Our tools get better
>we find out more.

Scientific understanding is not cumulative or linear

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Natural_sciences

>More importantly I can test a lot of those things if I really wanted to, I can see how long it takes a ball to drop out my window if I wanted to know whether the scientific consensus of 9.8 m/s/s is actually the correct acceleration of gravity on Earth.

Would you testing something make that something objectively true?

Or does it only make it believably/ convincingly true?

>You are then operating on faith that nobody in the history of those texts has made any alteration or change.

I am operating on the faith that those changes would have been Apostolic

>1 Post by this ID

*yawn*

What's wrong with honoring pagan gods and killing YHWH?

>Doesn't matter
So does actually. If it's changing now it's likely to have been changing in the past, and the records we have show that Christiainity hasn't exactly been consistent.

Unless that whole "Indulgences" thing was just a phase God totally went through and had nothing to do with corrupt church officials making money.

>How do you know the scientific method discovers objective truth?
Half the time it sounds like you're arguing against some fictional Dogma of science that claims to be immutable rather than a methodology for testing things. I don't know if it discovers objective truth, but it's the best methodology a human has for doing so.


>Would you testing something make that something objectively true?
>Or does it only make it believably/ convincingly true?

It's true enough to my senses, which while admittedly flawed are the only thing I have to interpret the world anyway. There's not much point in discussing anything ever if we aren't able to accept that there are some things about the world that are probably actually happening.
But no, you're right, it's not "objectively" true since I had to see it with eyeballs that interpret light slightly slower than it actually happened, so I shall now discard all logical observation of gravity and instead believe in Steve, the invisible partially intangible giant octopus who pulls objects down to Earth while he tries to escape the Earth's core.


If you're Orthadox Christian then at some point over several hundred years (Well after the death of Jesus by the way) a bunch of people got together and decided what that actually meant. They, not God, decided what was worth sticking into their religion.

>I didn't say they would claim anything. I said the ball would drop at the same rate no matter what they believed.

That is a claim. Any statement affirmed to be true - or false - is a claim

A claim can also been seen as fact. But it remains a claim whether or not it is seen as substantiated

>A person can believe in YHWH and drop the ball. He might think God pulled the ball to the ground, he might even lie and say the ball floated for a while before dropping, doesn't change that the ball dropped and accelerated at 9.8/m/s/s. You can swap out any belief, race, whatever. As long as they drop the ball, it goes down at that rate.

It doesn't matter who believes in what, nor which people, nor how many people do.

That cannot substantiate a claim

>Piraha.

I'll look into it. It says on the wikipage: Animism (a spiritual belief)

>Someone might by coincidence observe an event and make a correct conclusion about its happening out of hand without the scientific method, but it's hard to imagine a consistent methodology someone would apply that doesn't involve testing, observing, and hypothesizing about the results.

Bearing in mind all the evidence that you think you have now, would you say Science is the only way to arrive at objective truth?

>But you are a hypocrite not to realize that by simply labeling someone as stupid you fall into a belief of some made up by someone qualities that determine what is stupid and what is smart.

Well, smart people don't kill others to please their gods. Atheists don't believe in any gods, therefore, in order to justify killing anyone, they would need a good reason. A good reason.

I understand the difference between faith/belief/fantasy and logic/reason/knowledge.

Religious people are always trying to blur the lines between fact and fiction as a means of conflating their beliefs as equal to rational thought. It doesn't work like that.

Smart people know this. Idiots don't. That's why we laugh at you.

or maybe atheists just dont believe in god.