/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15319180
They're constantly seething about daddy issues so they have to make up replication crisis publications to try and "own" people who probably don't think about them at all.

>>15319180
Why do atheists avoid all debates with theologians? You'd think they'd be giddy to BTFO the dumb christfags

>>15319180
why do theists brown-nose god even though he created suffering? i can get affirming god's existence, but then kissing his tyrannical feet? that's too far

>>15319254
After Reasonable Faith started gaining ground in the mid 2000s, a lot of the atheist and Atheism+ debaters ended up getting handled by highly educated Christian apologists. After that many of them began refusing debates altogether to avoid the shame.

>>15319180
They even compare BMIs?<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>15319271
I have never seen a single debate where the christian didn't attempt to respond to every question with a hour long sermon that still didn't answer the question. If atheists are refusing to debate them, it is for that reason.

>>15319180
Theism is one of the biggest cancers in human society along with patriotism so whatever is done to kill or degrade it is a good thing

why is /sci/ such a shit hole nowadays

>>15319357
People like >>15319353 taking over the sciences.

>>15319360
You sound very upset that I called out your mental illness

>>15319264
This is the schism that creates different religions. Trying to deal with this question. They all started with the same science proving God's existence the only thing that was left to interpretation was why did he make us and why do we suffer. One can only interpret the data and theorize based on the data but in the end you are just guessing for the most part and are just gonna have to make a choice on a leap of faith

>>15319372
they seem to all praise him and oppose the idea of questioning him. i don't know a single religion where they are encouraged to be critical of god

>>15319374
Nah, Buddhism is quite critical and of course Satanism and Gnosticism (to an extent, most people dont interpret it correctly)

>>15319366

>>15319386
>le heckin fedoraz lolol!!11
Not as funny as your belief in an imaginary skydaddy<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>15319254
christians debate like fucking jews, with lengthy, round-about statements that rarely even attempt to answer the question.

>>15319353
>this is what being 14 in 2023 is like

>>15319429
I'm sure you know all about being underage. Watched the latest episode of your favorite jesus cartoon yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5-ntjgsflI

>>15319357
You're part of the problem, zoomer.
>5th grade writing level
>All lowercase
>No question mark

>>15319225
>seething about daddy issues
>believes in a invisible skydaddy

>>15319180
government wants ppl to trust government and
government only, not church, not family

>>15319180
The desire to worship something is inherent in all people. Some direct it towards a deity, others direct it towards people, objects or ideas. Atheists direct it towards themselves. Since they're the object of their own worship, they're constantly busy sucking their own dicks and patting themselves on the back for being the absolute masters of their own little universes with the same ardor that a devout religious person would worship a deity, all while believing that they're superior because they don't worship anything (which ironically reinforces their self-worship even more). Which is why you see exactly what you see.

>>15319271
>After Reasonable Faith started gaining ground in the mid 2000s, a lot of the atheist and Atheism+ debaters ended up getting handled by highly educated Christian apologists. After that many of them began refusing debates altogether to avoid the shame.
That's a pretty standard leftist tactic: Silence your opponents so you won't lose the debates.
Their studies tend to be outright lies, too. They refuse in their studies to correct for race and sex and age, for example. When you restrict yourself to Europeans, for instance, the supposed negative-IQ-correlation with religiosity vanishes.

>>15319180
>Is it because they secretly believe in Him?
believing in a god =/= affiliating with religious cults

>>15319254
Trying to engage in logical debate with someone that is holding a faith based position is idiotic, because faith is not based on logic and thus debate won't actually lead to a correct answer. Ultimately, all religious debates of all kinds, just boil down to two people using increasingly elaborate variations of "nuh uh" "yeah huh" "nuh uh" "yeah huh" "nuh uh" until the one that was more eloquent or clever is declared victory. The actual truth of the subject is completely and utterly irrelevant to who "wins" the debate. The only value to be found is if unique ideas are brought up or someone can make an interesting point, but that never really happens because the only arguments in favor of faith that aren't transparently retarded are all just variations on the same small handful of arguments. If you've seen even one single good quality religious debate, you've pretty much seen them all.

>>15319264
>>15319374
It's natural selection of a concept. Look up the original origin of the word "meme", a concept that undergoes "natural selection" in the realm of society.
A religion that forces people not to question it is more fit than a religion that allows you to question its merits. If a religion encourages people to question its truth, then people will do that and some will decide it's not true.
That's also why every popular religion sets up the main most powerful force as being something desirable. Most people would generally prefer of the most powerful being in the universe was vaguely good, be it Yhwh, or Allah, or Buddha, or what have you.

>>15321695
This is exactly why atheism is a religion.
The denial on the part of its adherents is part of its mystique ("the one true path better than all the others!").
But when you look at its actual beliefs—and they are beliefs—they are more stupid than almost any religion.
The main tenets are that total nothingness exploded one day, turning it into rocks that became shape-shifting dinosaurs, and that (this is the lure) you can just do whatever you want without any fear of facing justice for it.
Incidentally, "meme" already existed in the form of an enthymeme in logic, from which Dawkins likely pilfered it for his own purposes of trying to prove evolution was real by using the analogy of something that can't possibly replicate by evolution, but that never gave him pause to think because his RELIGION doesn't allow that.

Atheism means that Israel is built on a lie, and jews are not gods chosen.

Seems reasonable. I approve

>>15321739
>and jews are not gods chosen
Which would mean something if modern "Jews" weren't actually Edomites.
You should go read a book some time, anon. You would get humiliated less often.

>>15319180
Atheists are more likely to be leftists, and leftists are terrible in a whole bunch of ways. Also, despite being better at analytical thinking, atheists are big on the whole "women can have a penis" thing, which is vastly more stupid than a lot of what religion espouses.

>>15321754
I doubt that atheists are better at analytical thinking when compared with theists of a similar IQ band. Just look at what happened to LessWrong and "Rationalism," or Atheism+.

>>15321754
>despite being better at analytical thinking
There is no valid evidence that atheists are better at analytical thinking.
Again, their studies consistently refuse to correct for race, sex, and age.
It's an intentional and repeated lie that can be easily explained by the fact that their RELIGION tells them they won't face horrible consequences for cheating and deceiving people.

I mean, did you ever wonder why ZERO of these studies on athiots never just takes a group of white men of similar age and sits them down for a proper IQ test?
Wouldn't that put this to bed once and for all?
Are we pretending this would be in any way hard to arrange?
So why don't the atheists in charge of academia ever do that?
Because they already know what the results will be, and they don't like it one bit.

>>15319180
>Why are atheists so obsessed?

>>15321752
The jew cries out, as he strikes at atheism.

>>15321760
>Just look at what happened to LessWrong and "Rationalism,"
So you're comparing an extreme minority of fringe "atheists" with the average religious retard? Do you not see how stupid your comparison is?

>A meta-analysis and an updated analysis by the same research group have found a measurable negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity.[4][5] The correlation was suggested to be a result of nonconformity, more cognitive and less intuitive thinking styles among the less religious, and less of a need for religion as a coping mechanism.[6] Another study showed a correlation between national average IQ and levels of atheism in society.[7]
This is pretty damning for theists IMO.

>>15321674
>Trying to engage in logical debate with someone that is holding a faith based position is idiotic, because faith is not based on logic and thus debate won't actually lead to a correct answer.

And logic is based on what? Faith. You cannot prove the axioms that hold logic together are truthful using logic alone. You need a leap of faith that the axioms are correct.

>>15321674
trust the soience

>>15321804
They were supposed to be the best that atheism had to offer. Why did they turn out so wrong?

>>15321674
>>15321845
You are both correct.
Pretty much all debate concerning religion can be boiled down to
>I choose to believe
>I choose not to believe
Neither side has enough information to prove the other side wrong logically and definitively. You can't prove that a god exists, nor can you prove that a god doesn't exist. Until there is definitive proof of exactly what happened before the inception of the universe, all religious debate can be summed up by "my theory about the genesis of the world is cooler than yours and therefore I am better".

>>15321891
Notice how you're confirming your stupidity with each post you make

>>15321915
>nor can you prove that a god doesn't exist
Wrong. You can prove that any god which religious people actually believe in cannot exist using the modern understanding of how the universe works i.e. science.

>>15321928
Prove that god doesn't exist then.
Also, prove that the reason why that conclusion was reached isn't because the equipment and methods used are not technologically advanced enough.

>>15321695
Buddha is not a God, he was an ascetic monk

>>15321932
Which god?

>>15321936
All.

>>15321939
Ok, they contradict each other so they cannot all exist

>>15321942
Name 2 gods which contradict each other.
Also, the world isn't a perfect system where only perfect truths can exist. If we both say "I'm the best living human on planet earth", the universe doesn't implode.

>>15321942
You are making a fool of yourself, you should stop

>>15321943
Take the biblical god and the hindu gods for example

>>15321945
You're schizophrenic

>>15321947
>Take the biblical god and the hindu gods for example
Ok, name the contradiction then. You say you have definitive proof, then show it. Unless you're trying to build a religion centered around shunning religions, vague shit like "there might be a contradiction somewhere" doesn't fly.

>>15321954
Reincarnation is present in hinduism but not in christianity.

>>15319180
Theists are so accustomed to believing, that it has become your only method of preponderance.
>Does free will really exist?
>muh Adam and Eve
>Why does God allow evil to exist?
>muh Satan
> Why does God have such a change of character in the New Testament, even though it is said in Malachi and Hebrews that he never changes?
>Muh change of heart, and love and sheit
God is just a tool in this day and age to never allow free thinking. It's the same sheep like and disordered thinking that theists share with niggers. How can you believe in something which has no bearing in reality?
You were socially pressured to follow it. Arguing with a cultist who has been programmed to love something that isn't there is fruitless. You are too stupid to even recognize on your own fruition that you are stupid.

Imagine arguing with someone who really loves something and telling them that it doesn't even exist. I was raised a theist and I have the experience to know that the emotional attachment you feel is self-love and not love from something else. You can test this.
Who is someone that you know and love?
If you you were to go up to them and tell them something going on they would listen and attempt to help you.
Enter God.
Ask God anything. Do not ask him something emotional, like fix my feelings. Ask him for help on the same thing you could ask a loved one for.
God does not answer. Why? Because he is not real. You cannot love something that doe not provide you anything and has no evidence being able to provide you with anything.
God is a facade developed in the minds of helpless people, aka niggers.

>>15321964
>I was raised a theist and
>>15319225

>>15321966
You sure to seem think a lot about atheists. Why is that?

>>15321968
I'm not the one who made a seethepost apropos of nothing about not being loved by his dad or whatever.

>>15321580
These atheists are one and the same with religious people. They blindly worship an idol, and hope it solves all of its certain grievances. They are not truly an atheist in this scenario.

>>15321970
Yet you seem to be constantly monitoring this thread. Why?

>>15321587
You cannot worship yourself. To worship is to express admiration for a deity. Atheists recognize they are human, and do not worship anything.

>>15321754
Leftist worship degeneracy and get off to destroying societal norms and structures.

>>15321954
Do you admit that this is a contradiction >>15321962 and thus concede defeat?

>>15321983
What societal norms and structures? The ones which harass people for not believing your fairy tales? I'm glad they're being destroyed

>>15321768
You believe in something that has never been proven to exist. Me saying that a giant turtle in the sky will save us all from the magic sugar demon has as much credibility as your argument. You have no logical thinking faculties.

>>15321986
Not a theist bud, you can be atheist and hate leftists.

>>15321966
I have a dad who was present my whole life, try again and engage in honest discussion instead of fishing for easy explanations. Religion is for the lazy.

>>15321993
Leftists aren't the ones who are promoting sharia law in islamic countries, leftists aren't the ones trying to control women's bodily rights using religion.

>>15321962
Well, how can you prove that it wasn't a misunderstanding resulted from improper translations? Or that our understanding of what reincarnation means isn't different from what they understood? If you think about it, there are similarities. You die, you leave your body, you get to live a new life in a different form. Same basic principle. How do you know that the stark difference in between those two religions hasn't resulted from information that was lost, misunderstood or destroyed over the ages? Both explanations could be referring to the same phenomenon for all we know.
You're essentially saying that the cores of some very old religions are incorrect because of the modern interpretation of said religions, and because the historical records of said religions are incomplete and contradictory (which frankly applies to most historical records prior to the discovery of electricity and photographs). You're fighting the paper, not the theory.
Unless you have physical, observable proof that a god couldn't possibly exist, in the same way one would prove that radiation does exist, then it doesn't really count.

>>15322003
Leftist also want gun control, medical transition for children, open borders, money to go to Ukraine, forever wars, general sexual deviancy, aiding homelessness, degradation of political structures, and the subsidization of lazy people.

>>15322003
Are you arguing against religion here?

>>15322019
>gun control
So? That's something worth debating
>medical transition for children
Fringe issue which is made up by alt righters
>open borders
That's not a leftist position
>Ukraine
So they're opposing a tyrannical and dictatorial government (Russia). Nothing wrong with that
>wars
Who started the iraq war?
>sexual deviancy
Just because the bible says homosexuality is bad doesn't mean it is
>degradation of political structures
So why is right wing authoritarianism and disregard of laws on the rise?
>lazy people
Oversimplification

>>15319180
Be happy that atheists are willing to try to understand just why unevolved religious people are the way that they are. Its the only way to help them eventually overcome their delusions and becomes productive members of society.

>>15321888
>trust the pedo priests
lol

>>15322035
You are just plain lying about leftist political beliefs. That is fine for the average person, but not for someone who actually has been in the online political sphere for years.
I will admit, Bush lied. Everything else you said is dismissive and meant to placate complete dunces, and point blame. You are just another psyop monkey that just wants people to blindly follow you. If you want people to take your positions seriously, don't be a fucking coward. Act like you have some balls.
Open borders is a leftist position in almost every European country. Ukraine broke a treaty with Russia by lying to them and shitting all over their past agreements. Leftists push for everything that is bad for health and human relationships. Every new sexual identity that is made up, the obsession with proselytizing your ideology to minors, child drag shows, all go under the umbrella of sexual deviancy. BLM and Antifa buttfucked many cities and especially Oregon, a state in which more than half the counties want to become part of Idaho. The destruction of monuments, the desecration of political structures, and the grotesque and utter confusion in which leftists are constantly in make it a very disgusting proposition for the future of this country and the world. You guys went apeshit over an addict and did more harm then good because of "police brutality". Your DA's don't practice the laws and often let criminals go free or serve nominal punishment. Homelessness is rampant in deep blue areas. Most people who vote Democrat just want gimme dats. Your ideology is the opposite of what any sane person wants.

>>>/pol/

>>15321962
Christians believe in a single case reincarnation of body on Judgement day.
>>15321947
Hindus believe in one God-emanator, the Brahman

There is only one God!

>>15319254
Hitchens already won them all and "theologians" still break out dead arguments like the eye is too complex to evolve piecewise or its too much of a coincidence that a banana has the same number of points as a hand has joints.

>>15322160
kek the commie moron couldn't even define when life begins, the only thing hitchens won is death by cancer

>>15321730
Atheism is one thing and one thing only: disbelief in the divine. Stop being a fuckwit.

>>15322167
That is largely a case of semantics and likely unknowable since life began many generations before anyone of us was born and nobody was taking very good notes at the time.

>>15322171
>nobody was taking very good notes at the time.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

>>15322179
cont.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

>>15322179
>>15322181
Spoken like a true brainless drone

>>15322183
I'm sorry your parents made you go to church, they just wanted you to hang out with the other kids there

>>15322179
>>15322181
Exactly, not only are those notes not very good because they are from some third party talking about god in a way that is largely open to interpretation and doesn't even explain how god began, they didn't come about until thousands of years after the events they are about supposedly occurred.

>>15322191
>they are from some third party talking about god
God inspired Moses directly ensuring his validity as a prophet, therefore there is no third party, put only first party to the Logos.
>talking about god in a way that is largely open to interpretation
The Holy Apostolic Tradition in the Church of Jesus (both Catholic and Orthodox are valid) ensure ambiguities are resolved, most if not all, and all important ones at least.
>how god began
God is eternal.

>>15322201
>God inspired Moses
Not good enough to thoroughly document it in a way that nobody can really question it and it still doesn't even explain how god (ie life) began since god already seemed to exist when it began making more life.

>ambiguities are resolved
Nope, they were ambiguous when they were written and they always will be because language isn't great and it degrades over time as people adopt different semantics.

>eternal
See you can't explain how it began either, so you are just taking it out on someone else rather than faulting your "divine" notes that don't properly explain everything.

>>15322220
>See you can't explain how it began either, so you are just taking it out on someone else rather than faulting your "divine" notes that don't properly explain everything.
Something outside of time can't "begin" in the first place. Beginning is a time-wise state.

>>15322223
So your omnipotent being doesn't even have to power to begin? Sounds more like a cute wannabe to me.

>>15322227
Why do atheists resort to seethe when their midwittery is exposed? Scientifically speaking of course.

>>15322228
Why do people who worship an omnipotent being keep coming up with things their omnipotent being can't do when coping with other things their omnipotent being didn't do?

>>15322233
Ah I see, you're too low IQ to understand what I said. That's alright. It's not something to be ashamed of as long as you admit it.

>>15322237
I accept your concession, you can't provide simple answers because your worldview is too convoluted and your omnipotent being is too under-powered to have provided you all the answers you need to these kinds of questions in the first place.

>>15322241
I concede that you're too low IQ and disingenuous to understand my simple point that a being outside and beyond time does not need to possess the time-wise attribute of "a beginning."

>>15322220
>Not good enough to thoroughly document it in a way that nobody can really question it
There will always be questions, but to every question there is only one answer.
>Nope, they were ambiguous when they were written
It is rare even for the average non-divinely inspired author of today to make his books intentionally harder to read for his intended audience, except if the author has any ulterior motives, maybe he wants to start a cult, then the secrecy makes sense but the religious meaning of the Bible is largely apparent and simple since it stems from God, the definition of simplicity, Moses would not obfuscate since going against the divine inspiration would mean going into eternal damnation, but lesser men have indeed then misinterpreted the Bible, this is why Jesus came as God incarnate to fulfill the law.
>See you can't explain how it began either
God did not "begin", he is above our conception of time. The best estimate our human senses can make of his collective "being" and the only correct one according to Occam and others is just that he IS and he himself says this in the Bible.

>>15322243
>hurr durr my omnipotent being doesn't need to be all powerful to be real to me dammit

>>15322227
>So your omnipotent being doesn't even have to power to begin?
The "power to begin" is a thing you made up, God willing himself to begin does not follow (according to what did he begin? the Universe? How, if God created it?), since him being all powerful does not by his nature and even the definition of all powerful pertain being illogical (can God will into existence a stone he cannot lift, yes but he would necessarily will himself to lift it by nature of being God, thus creating an infinite loop, or also no since it's illogical, both answers have their meritum). A so called "beginning" does not physically exist in the void where objects are either placed or not, therefore it is a verbal construct, while God definitely exist without humans, a "beginning" does not, you think animals have a sense of "beginning" especially that of time itself, kek. There is only one definite "beginning", that of life and matter coming from the Logos. Our conception of time would have no meaning without this.

>>15322255
See >>15322237

>>15322018
What improper translations? Reincarnation is central to hinduism, it's not something which can be talked out of using shitty arguments like "it was mistranslated". You clearly don't know what you're talking about

>>15322259
Ok, so not only can your god not begin, it can't physically exist either, it can't lift rocks without infinity to help, and it can't give a sense of beginning to animals, and it can't give people a conception of time without a definite beginning, any other potential powers you want to take away from this omnipotent being you idolize?

>>15322185
I've never set foot in a church in my entire life and my parents aren't as retarded as yours to make me do that

>>15322271
>Ok, so not only can your god not begin
Hypothetically, God can will himself to "begin" whatever that means, you yourself couldn't define it, and I thought atheists didnt like arguing in hypotheticals...
>it can't physically exist either
You misconstrued, yes the concept of "beginning" can't physically exist, only in the world of ideas, meanwhile God can physically exist and has, especially the Logos incarnated in our Lord Jesus Christ, fully man and God.
>it can't lift rocks without infinity to help
He can or can't do it without infinity, yours was only a half-truth, but you forget he is master of what infinity is. Hypothetically again, God can change the laws of logic, but because he is all good (as revealed by himself, and a perfect being cannot lie, perfect meaning truthful, the opposite of untruthful) he will not do that, at least on a level which affects humans or at least not carelessly, meaning he would change the laws of nature and then wipe our memories of the previous ones, since he loves us so (because it would be disastrous mentally for humans and God gives us only as heavy the cross as humans can bear to teach them).
>and it can't give people a conception of time without a definite beginning
Yet he gave us it, you can call Genesis the Big Bang or whatever, the beginning is verifiably there, the only one and which is the "primordial egg" (to use Hindu terminology which I find fun for these arguments) of existence and the one that unquestionably proves God exists.

>>15322185
that explains your expertise on the topic of religion
dunning kruger effect

>>15322289
>you yourself couldn't define it
No, your problem is that the bible can't define it, it doesn't say how god begins, god is already there when everything begins somehow because it is not complete.

> the concept of "beginning" can't physically exist
Except that a human being can definitely said to physically exist after the point that it is born, even the bible says so.

>meanwhile God can physically exist
Except that you just said that it is impossible for god to begin to physically exist.

>or can't
It seems like you have an ever growing list of things that your cut little omnipotent being can't do.

>Yet he gave us it
No he didn't everything already existed before he he came along, he just reordered it all to suit himself in the bible so that everything became something else once he was finished meddling with it all, it just marks the beginning of your enslavement to it.

>>15319386
My ancestors

>>15321979
What is narcissism
>>15322268
Are you seriously suggesting that
-the language describing a religion which is thousands of years old has not changed at all?
-the meaning isn't at least partially lost from translating their writings not only from the old hindi to the new one, but also from the language of one area to the language of another (because you know, 2 different countries might share a religion but not a language, just like in the case of christianity)?
-the understanding of the meaning behind a religion that is thousands of years old has not changed in the least?
>it's not something which can be talked out of using shitty arguments like "it was mistranslated".
It's a pain in the ass to translate a fuckin bible from the version of latin it was written in during the spanish inquisition times and into modern day english without losing meaning, and that's not even 1000 years old. Hell, even if I were to translate your low effort, 3 sentence comment into my language, meaning would be lost because of different expressions, different phrasing and grammatical differences. Are you genuinely implying that absolutely nothing was lost during the translation and preservation of information that is thousands of years old, most likely passed down by word of mouth in the first half since most people at that time didn't even know how to read or write, and which was consolidated in a time when people weren't even aware of the size of the world, let alone have a common language recognized worldwide, such as the modern english language (and that's assuming that all was preserved, and no fragment has gone missing/was destroyed, which is unlikely)?
>You clearly
No. You don't know what I'm talking about.
Unless you can provide actual physical proof that a god can't exist, stfu. Your argument that "this interpretation of this version of a religion is contradictory to this other interpretation of this other version of a religion, therefor it all wrong" is bullshit.

>>15322688
I'm not reading all that cope. You've demonstrated that you're not a rational person by refusing to accept basic facts. Whatever argument is presented to you will be ignored using the excuse "b-but thats just one interpretation of le mysterious ancient texts". It's simply not worth responding to reality-denying morons like you

>>15322369
> it doesn't say how god begins
Again, God doesn't begin, he is. Concentrate on the focal point, meaning relative to what does he begin, i.e. relative to the creation of time for which God is responsible, the unmoved mover if you will.
>Except that a human being can definitely said to physically exist after the point that it is born,
The human body is but clay made from previous minor elements, even your science says so. The soul is eternal since it is made by God from God's divine essence (Ecc. 12:7 "And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it").
>Except that you just said that it is impossible for god to begin to physically exist.
Yes, I said precisely that, because God exist physically and etherially everywhere all at once WITHOUT BEGINNING, Christ was born a man of clay, mortal and weak, with a superficial "beginning", what you call, although without sin, but with his birth he was also the eternal Logos incarnate. Again, hypothetically, could God will himself to "begin", and the answer is yes, it's very simple, he would simply implant that sort of notion in every human's mind and we would see him as beginning, but he did the opposite and gave humans knowledge of his eternal nature and since he is truthful that is the truth within the limits of our cognition.
>It seems like you have an ever growing list of things that your cut little omnipotent being can't do.
The list is here: 0 things he cannot do and everything he can.
>he just reordered it all to suit himself in the bible
>it just marks the beginning of your enslavement to it.
I am a proud slave to God, meaning I am a free man in this our world. Who needs masters like hunger and thirst when the Lord is enough to sustain both? Meanwhile you are ashamed to call yourself a slave to the material, a slave to your desires or whatever may drive you to live but is certainly impermanent compared to God.

>>15322696
>I'm not reading all that cope
Because you're disingenuous and upset that your bullshit nitpick didn't work.
>refusing to accept basic facts
You have presented no facts against the existence of a god. You have presented 1 (one) argument against the idea that all the versions of the religions could be correct at the same time.
>using the excuse
Counterargument.
>thats just one interpretation of le mysterious ancient texts
Which it is. As far as we're concerned, everyone could've gotten it wrong. And as long as you keep using differences in interpretations as an argument, I can keep using the argument that those interpretations could be wrong from the get-go for one reason or another.
Why do you think I'm saying "a god" and not "this specific god in this specific religion"?
>reality denying
What reality is being denied? This right here is the third time I'm asking you to bring actual, physical proof into the discussion, but no, you instead stick to the "oooh these particular versions of interpretations of these particular versions of religions are contradictory, therefor its all fake".
Your problem is that you can't mentally separate the concept of a deity from the concept of a cult even as a thought experiment.

>>15322726
>Why do you think I'm saying "a god" and not "this specific god in this specific religion"?
There is only one God.

>>15319180
Void!

>>15319180
>evidence shows that belief in something without evidence makes you dumb
No shit sherlock.
Its only still around because we let them push their beliefs on children to make them as delusional and fucked up as they are. Anyone with a brain cell knows religion is for retards just by looking around.

>>15319254
Theists just want a platform to put on their little pageantry of DESTROYING THE ATHEISTS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC and no matter how poorly they fare in the actual debate, their side will walk away thinking they absolutely crushed the opposition.

Incidentally you see the same here on 4chan because no one is ever forced to admit that they're wrong

>>15322019
>>15322035
As a leftist, I want armed trans people and minorities, free SRS for any adult who wants one, no need for borders, no money for inter-imperialist wars, no war in general, all the sexual deviancy you can want, no homelessness, the degradation of the capitalist political structure, and the subsidisation of leisure.

>>15322019
>>15323035
I'm curious, could the reason that rightoids usually have no idea what leftists actually believe be that they're already more accustomed to relying on authority as a heuristic rather than empiricism and critical thought?

>>15323056
ahhh yes, the famous empirical constatation (totally not dogma) that labor determines value

>>15323072
Bruh just because your book contains zero arguments doesn't mean no book does

>>15323075
just because you call it scientific socialism does not make it so, go be oppressed somewhere else

>>15323079
>go be oppressed somewhere else
lmao you cucks made a whiny thread on the science board to bitch that reality is biased towards atheism, sorry to interrupt the pity party

>>15323088
>lmao you cucks made a whiny thread
>reality is biased towards atheism
care to entertain the thought that people have different opinions and yours isn't the end all be all, why come to a place where people disagree and marvel at that, maybe re44it would be more up your alley if you want a circlejerk

>>15323101
>Welcome to the place where people are free to have different opinions, now fuck off with your different opinion
Stop projecting any time, christcuck

>>15323119
>now fuck off with your different opinion
it happens, why are you surprised, who are you to forbid having such an opinion and don't think you're any better, at least you're not any worse

>>15323124
What the fuck are you even talking about lmao
Get help m8

>>15323135
>he didnt start with the greeks
ehhh, happens, you still have time for a do-over

>>15323137
I thought the chatbot prank was over

So, to recap, we were having some bants and gentle ribbing about books you pretend to have read when out of the blue, barely two posts into the argument, you bust out with
>>15323079
>go be oppressed somewhere else
Which is extremely interesting because at no point in the conversation did I even imply anything about oppression, but of course the thread we're in is all about Christians complaining about atheists being better than them. You proceed with
>>15323101
>care to entertain the thought that people have different opinions
in the midst of us having a difference of opinion
>and yours isn't the end all be all
you're literally required to have faith that yours is
>why come to a place where people disagree and marvel at that
maybe because I don't mind a difference of opinion? I never marvelled at anything as much as you're marvelling at my presence here.
>maybe re44it would be more up your alley if you want a circlejerk
That makes twice that you told me to go away even as you berate *me* for supposedly wanting a circlejerk, supposedly being the one who's surprised at different opinions and unwilling to consider that I'm wrong.
And then
>>15323124
>who are you to forbid having such an opinion
Here the hypocritical victim complex reaches a crescendo. Being told that you're wrong is just like having your opinion forbidden. Why am I here, exposing myself to different opinions, when doing so exposes you to different opinions too? Truly I should just go and circlejerk somewhere and leave you to yours. The amount of projection is honestly fascinating.

>>15319254
I hope this constitutes a practical example of why "debating" christcucks is a one-sided and tedious affair.

>>15319254
I personally would never debate with a religious person because they will never admit to being wrong. They will die on their hill regardless, and then claim victory. e.g.
theist: prove god does not exist!
athiest: the burden of proof is on you because you made the claim
theist: aha, see you can't prove he doesn't exist so i'm right!

>>15323189
>>15323146
>>15323217
I hope Neil de Grease sees this bro

>>15323217
it is as if both atheism and theism are retarded position based on faith, and neither can be disproved nor proved by using scientific methods.
the true enlightened are agnostics.

>>15323417
You mean the true fencesitting cucks. Are you an agnostic with regard to Russell's teapot, too? You are functionally an atheist in day to day life. The observation that a fundamentally unscientific claim cannot be disproved using scientific methods is not as profound as it may seem at first glance, either, especially as the claim has been continuously adjusted to always steer clear of what is actually scientifically provable, as the scientifically provable encompasses more and more. There is nothing enlightened about going "well MAYBE there are gods on Olympus, we just can't KNOW man" when people can climb the mountain and see for themselves. This has nothing to do with philosophical rigour and everything with feeling smugly superior to both sides of an argument.

>>15321988
>You believe in something that has never been proven to exist.
But that is demonstrably false since NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And NDErs talk about God running the afterlife. Therefore God exists. Atheist pseudoskeptics just refuse to read the literature on NDEs because they are dogmatically certain that it can not be true.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

>>15323671
NDEs exist and people are probably truthfully recounting their experiences. However, none of it constitutes empirical knowledge.

>>15323671
From that psychology article, this argument is not very good
>Most of us would agree that, if enough people went into this room and enough of them came out of it agreeing about what was inside, their joint testimony would justify the rest of us in believing that the room contained what they said it did, even in the absence of physical evidence
An example of how this is a poor argument is UFO sightings. Sometimes thousands of people will agree that they all saw a UFO at the same time, but then it turns out later that it was actually a plane or a weather balloon and is proven by flight data to be the case. And there will often be other people that agree what they saw was a plane and not a UFO. So no, you can't just take people's word for it in these kinds of situations where the information people have is vague. It's also not unreasonable to assume that people who say they had a near death experience have read or heard about near death experiences which influences their perception during the experience and that's why they share similar stories. During death the body is also in shock and the brain is releasing all kinds of chemicals one of which is DMT and this could easily affect their mental state and experience. These kinds of paranormal claims when there is alternative reasonable explanations require hard evidence and there simply is none. A scientist would demand evidence as this is how you prove something is real

>>15323989
...to add to that, I don't think they shouldn't be researched, but I don't think anyone should assume they're real either

>>15321754
> Also, despite being better at analytical thinking
If they do they would think critically to why the universe was created and not mere random events.
How random is random? Who or what determines the randomness? Is there a start?

>>15323989
I mean, it's also a poor argument because it assumes the existence of the "room" in the first place. It's simply begging the question of the afterlife.

Fun fact: people on DMT frequently report encounters with beings described as "machine elves" which hail from a space beyond dimensions. If we assume that this is a real space and that DMT gives us access to it, then it logically follows that the machine elves are real.

Another fun fact: DMT trips are supposed to be close to NDEs.

>>15324011
>If people would think critically they would arrive at the same conclusions I have because... WELL THEY JUST WOULD OKAY

>>15322223
the ex nihilo argument is dumb. I think the omnipotent creator argument makes more sense. In the end there's no evidence for either theory

>>15324034
But conclusions aren't random so, you're proving that I'm right.

>>15324048
>If more than one person comes to the same conclusion they can't be wrong
That poses a bit of a problem

>>15324063
>If more than one person comes to the same conclusion they can't be wrong
I never said that. Stop gaslighting!

>>15324124
Well, that was the conclusion I came to, and conclusions aren't random, so...

>>15323671
>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."
>if you aren't convinced, your NDE wasn't deep enough
lmao, this is so dishonest.

>>15319254
It’s boring if god exists or not. Theists use the same handful of arguments slightly reworded over and over again and atheists explain to them how that’s not actually evidence.