I don't hate religious people and I wouldn't refuse to be friends with someone just because they're religious.
But I will admit: I think religion is the biggest blue-pill of them all.
If you had to strictly rely on your senses and physical world around you and if there were no bible or people trying to convince you of it, Jesus being your savior is not an idea that would EVER come to you on your own.
That alone should be a big fucking redflag to you people
Other urls found in this thread:
>Jesus being your savior is not an idea that would EVER come to you on your own.
Unless you saw a man performing miracles yourself...
A mediocre point Reinhardt.
But in that case explain the people born in remote island tribes who spontaneously become Christian via visions of God.
>what is a straw man.
no one has ever claimed otherwise. that is the difference between natural theology and divine revelation.
[citation needed]
Doesn't happen
Ok but I didn't and I doubt you have either
>If you had to strictly rely on your senses and physical world around you
Sure if humans were like every other animal, there would be no religion at all. Nor would there be any music, architecture, philosophy of any kind if not for interactions between people.
It's not a relevant hypothetical.
>Music, architecture, and philosophy don't rely primarily on our physical senses
The fuck are you jabbering about.
>explain this shit I pulled from my ass
What did he mean by this?
>it's an OP can't even argue and just wants to tip his fedora at nice christians because of retarded sand people and cultists thread
>It's a butt-blasted christian episode
I don't believe in god, and i don't care who does.
Leave me alone, i leave you alone.
>That being said, no atheist has ever asked me if i believe in god. It's like those who do need outside reinforcement for their belief.
thanks for proving my point. why don't you go tip your fedora at something that matters you stupid teenager
>Music, architecture, and philosophy don't rely primarily on our physical senses
No, they clearly do not. These are primarily social activities -meaninless outside a social context. Philosophy, most of all. Not coincidentally, all of them in their earliest beginnings are deeply rooted in religion, in all cultures.
You must be pretty dumb.
Animals are social too, ya dingdong.
And have music, and arguably architecture too.
>And have music, and arguably architecture too.
No, they clearly do not have music or architecture. You're just being a dumbcunt.
I don't hate atheistic people and I wouldn't refuse to be friends with someone just because they're atheist.
But I will admit: I think atheism is the biggest blue-pill of them all.
If you had to strictly rely on religion and the supernatural world around you and if there were no scientific textbooks or people trying to convince you of it, the Scientific Method is not an idea that would EVER come to you on your own.
That alone should be a big fucking redflag to you people
oh look, another argument that was hashed out between greek philosophers and early theologans many times already, perhaps this will finally disprove God
>The scientific method is an incontrovertible conviction equivalent to faith
You're a moron. The scientific method is just a guide to good research, it's not some end-all-be-all belief.
And a higher appreciation of nature, morality and beauty you utter plebian cunt. Religion isn't necessary to achieve this now but it was when human beings needed commanding in order to rise above being animals. Literally everything you hold dear to you is thanks to Religion or spirituality in some form or another.
Morality>Literally everything else.
It's a method you would, in the absence of all prior knowledge of it, not come up with on your own
but they are there man
God is always going to find a way to spread his word, even if you believe or dont
I'm not arguing religion wasn't an important stepping stone in our intellectual evolution. It was.
Just that we're far beyond it now and anybody still clinging onto it is just brainwashed, usually from childhood.
>we're above believing in God
lel
It's a method, it's not a belief.
I don't believe the scientific method is "true." I believe that it's useful.
On the otherhand, a Christian believes some skydaddy came down to Earth as some cool jew dude who for some reason got himself killed to forgive us of our sins (???).
See the difference?
>address no points of the opposing arguments
>long winded apeal that nothing more than scientism
>see religion is the real blue pill
>t. Highschool intellectual
Learn and be humble before you try to teach others
So basically, you're argument is that religion is necessary, even if it's rooted in fallacy and brainwashing, because the masses are too stupid to guide themselves without it?
I can get behind this idea, but if it's what you truly believe, I sure as hope YOU don't consider yourself a Christian.
Please dont rehash clasic memes with bullshit copies thank you.
So you believe only empirical truth is valid
Empirical truth is the only truth we have.
If you can find me anything that can be proven non-empirically, I'd be eager to see it.
The masses are evil without God. The pic related in that post is an example of it
Stupidity is not exclusive to religion and intelligence to non-religious people
Read this quote. An honestly thing about what it means.
It's not brainwashing, it's setting Moral foundations in place that stand the test of time. Belief in God as an adult isn't necessary but it is as a child because the one thing children fear the most is their parents and God is touted as pretty much the ultimate parent. What happens when this is taken away is that Children (Mentality not age) worship 'false idols' like TV stars, musicians, shitty writers (fuck you john green) and most importantly the Government.
This is where leftist/Marxists come in, the vast majority of leftists are children (Not teenagers- teenagers don't exist) they see the government as an all seeing, all knowing omnipotent being, able to solve all their problems. When this pseudo-god disappointing them they act out with the rage of a petulant child because they have been raised to see the government as always being committed to their best interests, like 'God' is supposed to be.
Because the Governments puppet; the media takes on the morals that suit the Governments best interests, we end up with a whole generation of people who are completely morally fallible and flexible, they bend and buckle to the whims of the false morality presented by the Government. That way, they never truly find happiness because they are always in conflict with a 'God' figure who constantly expects contradictory things from them, resulting in cognitive dissonance which results in projection being a primary defense mechanism, which results in the left going further left and isolating themselves from rational, sane people.
tl:dr: Getting rid of Religion causes Marxism. The traditions and moral code of religion is more important than whether God exists or not.
Also, read some greek philosophers you lazy fuck, this was discussed thousands of years ago.
A→B
B→C
-----------
A→C
>But I will admit: I think religion is the biggest blue-pill of them all.
well duh, what would you rather envision on your deathbed:
1. the most comfortable melding with a single omnipotent being, welcoming you into the heavily kingdom, or
2. youtube.com
And? Everybody already takes one leap of faith by assuming reason is (relatively) reliable.
Why would anybody take a SECOND layer of leap of faith? That's like a leap of faith inside a leap of faith. Leapception.
>If you had to strictly rely on your senses and physical world around you and if there were no bible or people trying to convince you of it, Jesus being your savior is not an idea that would EVER come to you on your own.
You do realize that's how religions came to be, men trying to explain what they see.
>reason
>""""""relatively"""""" reliable
. So in essence you teaching kids that only athiest exist would be no different than than the brainwashing you accuse Christians of. Since in your view thier is no transcendal truth. And by definition Truth can not be subjective, the very debate about what's right and wrong to teach becomes irrelevant.
That's not an argument for God per say mearly a critique of your hypocrisy. Nietchze, who I may disagree with but respect for his intellect and consistency, would shit all over this new Athiest movement.
Only Athiesm is correct*
The fuck are you getting at
Nobody says reason is bulletproof, but it's all we have, and if we don't use it, we die, or at best, become insane.
Our reality necessitates the use of reason. Nothing compels you to be a religious dolt, on the otherhand.
But would you ever wonder about these things?
Origin
Morality
Meaning
Purpose
Destination
And would you ever devise any sort of system to help you understand any of them?
Or are you so conditioned to be an animal that you simply don't care?
Yes.
Your way will never get you to the truth, and our way gets us adopted by God into His family.
The Science Delusion is real.
Scientific method is useless to studying non quantitative variables. To claim otherwise is unscientific
>our way gets us adopted by God into His family.
[citation needed]
Fucking hell, just go to the library and read some Aristotle for Christs Sake.
God is the one that guarantees the authority of reason to begin with
Without Him you have only an absurd belief in reason
>Nobody would ever come up with the idea to draw conclusions from a hypothesis based on evidence and testing
Alright britbong
Other presuppositions of science include the following:
The laws of logic (especially the law of non-contradiction)
The adequacy of language to communicate reality and truth
The existence of numbers
All these have been argued by philosophers and others, and none of them can be proven by the scientific method. In short, they are metaphysical assumptions, not proven facts.
Also, related to this but somewhat a distinct issue is that science assumes certain values in order to proceed, without being able to scientifically prove the validity of these values. Chief among these values is that of honesty.
All this to say that science is a wonderful tool for granting knowledge about this universe we find ourselves in. It in no way is to be despised or denigrated. But enough of the foolish talk that it alone traffics in certainty and what is beyond doubt. It is an invaluable servant, but makes a terrible idol.
John 1
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Not dumbshits like you or I
You fucking idiot.
Numbers don't "exist". They're man-made concepts that explain the natural world.
You can't "prove" a number because it doesn't need proving.
Kinda related
Which is exactly the point he was making.
>You can't "prove" a number
Seems like if all you have is empiricism, and you have no numbers, you're shit out of luck.
You can still talk about your "feelings" though.
If numbers don't exist, you (your self) don't exist
red pill of truth
ultimate truth is god exists
Being religious is the biggest red pill of all. Letting people tell you what religion means and taking their word literally is almost as ignorant as thinking that you only think for yourself by not being religious.
They don't come from what you can see or feel, they come from what's inside you. Just as when we look inside ourselves we find God.
You might want to tone down the abstract speech. Auti- I mean Atheists can't or won't think except concretely
Christianity is a religion for Jews, by Jews, that worships a Jew as God. And even before they were worshipping a Jew as God, this same God supposedly make Jews his chosen people.
This is a blue-pilled as you fucking get, even without harping on the fact most people are born into their religion, are raised in it, and die in it without ever questioning it.
you spontaneously become a meme in my folder
I'm religious but I'm not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew.
>"Jesus being your savior is not an idea that would EVER come to you on your own."
No shit. Are you fucking stupid?? Or just sneakily trying to argue FOR the existence of Christ??
>muh jews are all bad with no exceptions
>Exceptions
Who gives a shit about exceptions? Hitler wouldn't have made exceptions, and that guy could have saved the white race.
Right, he has not gotten that far in their textbooks.
>I look inside myself and I see the Lord Kali and Vishnu
>Suddenly they're REAL
Ya naw nigger you're just dumb
1=1 is not a truth, you faggot. It's a useful concept. If you want to argue God is a useful concept, be my guest.
>Germanic nationalist
>saving the "White Race"
Yeah by conquering it all under a German flag
What's the problem with that? I'd rather the white race had been saved under the German flag than what is going on today.
could even be a banner desu
>1=1 is not a truth
It's an absolute truth, that can never be proven false
The scientific method comes naturally to all humans you dunce. Unless you're retarded, which you seem to be.
White race?? He was too busy trying to save Aryans to worry about us.
The White race means nothing in and of itself. Neither to me, nor to you
Both of us would rather be with 10 White Nationalists (in your case) or 10 faithful Christians (in mine) than half a million liberal White people
Touché
Back when 'race' had its hey-day, all the paler countries that contributed to America were considered separate races: there is no 'white race'.
It's a respect for history and culture isn't it? Just do what your ancestor did during Sundays for sake of customs and communal unity.
There are nutters that take this shit way too seriously though.
That's just blind speculation
That sounds like something ha-Satan would say...
That's a head-scratcher for sure, op.
Do you even know what the scientific method is? There's literally no other way of finding out what's true.
You honestly believe you wouldn't be able to figure anything out if no one had told you about it beforehand?
>There's literally no other way of finding out what's true.
Please use the scientific method to prove ^this statement is true
>If you had to strictly rely on your senses and physical world around you and if there were no bible or people trying to convince you of it, Jesus being your savior is not an idea that would EVER come to you on your own.
That's a valid statement for the most part, but the Gospel is not meant to be known a priori by humans. I don't know why God has done things as he has, but I do know that time and again the Bible describes him judging men fairly whether they know his laws or not. Basically, the Gospel is an opportunity to know God better and to live in a meaningful way, and ultimately obtain salvation. Essentially, if you want to know "the way", it's Christ. If you don't care then that's up to you.
Those who never recieve the instruction and teachings of Christ are not without hope, but they have a harder time living in spiritual communion with God and especially in dealing with the challenges of this life. Christianity is really not a gnostic religion; divine knowledge is nice but not really the important thing at all. What matters is what is in our heart and how we choose to live. Christ brings hope to people who otherwise have none. That's why it's called the "good news". If to you everything he says sounds like bad news, then listen harder and ask yourself tough questions or maybe it's just not for you.
But ultimately: atheist, Christian, Jew, or Muslim; what you do with your life is between you and God. Only he (through Christ) will judge you. The good news of the gospel is that Christ is the fairest judge you could ever hope for.
you have to remember that religion used to serve as a way of enforcing social rules and traditions, that's where its utility comes in
The scientific method is true based on it's continued reliability of producing effective results. It's done over and over again, not just in scientific experiments, but our daily lives. No other method can produce effective results in this way. It's observable.
We use the scientific method, it continuously produces effective results, therefore it's true. That's the scientific method proving the scientific method.
The essence of the scientific method basically boils down to "trial and error" you experiment, it doesn't work, you try something new, it works, you put the pieces together...
If you put a newborn baby in a room with nothing but a bottle of milk and a large rock, if the baby goes for the rock and receives nothing, do you think that baby will continue sucking on the rock until it dies?
No, it will eventually realize it's error, and go for the milk, realize that it works, and continue.
We're pattern-seeking animals, it's just how our brains work. If you don't think that's innate you're a fucking retard.
Thanks for quoting that as a response m8. I like the gospel, even when I read it on Sup Forums.
so gay
How does getting the same results over and over again denote truth?
Find an atheistic religion. Sucks if you are born white though and yours are all extinct.
Great job taking what I said and interpreting it literally. That is the problem with atheists.
Whats really funny is that the Catholic Church is probably the only organization that still uses the Scientific Method in its research.
...
I don't even know if you're trolling at this point. Is that a serious question?
If you can effectively produce the same results over and over again, does that not imply your means of getting that result is correct?
>Water boils at 95 degrees Celsius
You try it, it doesn't work. This statement is false.
>Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius
You try it, it work's. You repeat this process over and over to make sure that nothing is interfering with the results.
>The statement "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" is true.
>scientists no longer use the scientific method but the Church does
>proving X is valid using X
And you just should he problem of religious fanatics and atheists, taking everything literally and dismissing anything that does not fit their narrative.
lol, k.
If "X" is all we have, we have to make the assumption. You're being difficult just for the sake of being difficult.
It works, and nothing else has ever come close (yet, if you need to be an ass about it).
If you want to know if a pen works, you pick it up and use it, is it circular to pick it up and use it?
It's not a problem, AS LONG AS IT CONTINUES TO PRODUCE EFFECTIVE RESULTS.