Pascal's Wager.

>>563562
Because the choice is a 50-50 toss up between Christianity and Atheism, amirite?

checkmate fedoras

>>563617
Ignoring the mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism, Christianity is a better choice by logic and reason alone.

Are you willing to risk eternity?
Are you willing to gamble it away?

>implying "hell" is an actual lake of fire and not just the absence of God
>implying God would consider a purely selfish and non-faith-based argument legitimate grounds for belief
>implying Pascale wasn't just memeing

>>563624
Evidence?

>>563624

>Ignoring the mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism, Christianity is a better choice by logic and reason alone.


What "mountain of evidence?" Christianity is a religion that has to pretzel twist the OT scripture it suppsoedly fulfills to make Jesus out as someone you're not supposed to execute, let alone listen to. The Gospels can't agree on important details like when Jesus was crucified or what his last words on the cross were, and both they and Paul, the "expert" make basic mistakes regarding contemporary Jewish, especially Pharisee theology, which puts several dings into their claims of eyewitness status or expertise.

Christianity is a farce.

>Christianity is a better choice by logic and reason alone

Ha!

>Are you willing to risk eternity?
>Are you willing to gamble it away?

Yes. Are you willing to risk eternity that one of the other religions that you don't believe in, despite being considerably more internally consistent, is actually right?

>>563650
>>563631
>>563630

Enjoy the flames.

>>563624
>mountain of evidence
>conviently doesn't post any of it

>>563676

Such a wonderful and logical rebuttal, referring to that mountain of evidence you alluded to.

Truly, Christianity is a thinking man's religion.

>>563562
What if Christianity is the wrong religion?

>>563679
Where do I start?

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

evolution debunked

>>563691
give me your strongest argument for God

>Implying virtuous atheists won't get in
>Implying God will forsake those who've never heard his word

ENOUGH

>implying that God wouldn't know you'd be trying to trick him

I love how Christians themselves turned something that is according to them the most profound to ever exist into a shitty casino bet

There's something really poetic about it

>implying your prick of a God wouldn't just send you to hell for believing in him to get a reward

>>563708

*most profound belief

>>563624
What about other religions? Pascal's Wager doesn't take into account the numerous other religions on this planet. What if Islam is the true religion? What about buddhism?

>>563722

Do you really think people who care about this shit think about stuff like that?

I guarantee 95% of the pro-religion threads on this board are started by underage bible belt kids who recently have had their worldview threatened by some joke someone made

File: 21412542.png (289KB, 650x364px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 650x364px

>>563700

Not him, but what do you think of this?

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by-i.e., strictly implied by-a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

>>563732
>I guarantee 95% of the pro-religion threads on this board are started by underage bible belt kids who recently have had their worldview threatened by some joke someone made

Not they're not. They're started by memeing NEETs who are mostly atheists, but don't want to be associated with the Reddit-tier fedoratheist.

Literally the only thing left for people like this is to be contrarian the other way around again.

>>563722
It can just be applied to believing in a god/God/gods v. being an atheist. If you isolate the wager itself, it makes perfect sense with any religion, as long as you put god into the correct form (Capitalized or not, singular or not).

It makes perfect sense anyway, why would you make it so you had virtually no chance v. having a possiblity of being correct.

>>563734

Define 'God-like'

>>563734
So basically God has to exist because God is everything good and an existence of a benevolent deity is good? Sounds tautological

>>563562

But you are wrong.

>>563722
The other religions have been debunked and proven to be false.

Islam is a crypto-pagan moon worship death cult. Mohammed had contact with a demon spirit.

Buddhism is a New Age Luciferian cult.

Most religions in the world are Satanic because the Bible tells us that Satan is the prince/god of this world ever since the Fall in Genesis.

>>563752
>It can just be applied to believing in a god/God/gods v. being an atheist.

No, because Abrahamic religions don't accept that they might be wrong and that other religions might be right. They accept only their own truth.

If you are a Christian, and it turns out the Muslims were right, you'd be just as screwed as me, with the only difference being that you've wasted a significant portion of your life on something that would doom you to eternal torture anyway

File: üstad.png (347KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 720x405px

>>563772
This post can not be serious. If this is serious and there are people like that arround in christian countries i'll stop pitying myself for borning in a muslim country.

why are people debating the validity of religions in relation to Pascal's Wager, its simple would you rather have a 0/0 chance of getting to a heaven, with a 1/# chance of going to a hell or have a 1/# chance of getting to a heaven and a 1/#-1 chance of going to a hell.

>>563722
Islam subscribes to redetermination not so different to Calvinism. You are either already destined to either become a Muslim or burn in hell. You don't have any free will.

For Buddhism you just reincarnate and come back for another go.

>>563772
Pls be b8

>>563772

Christianity has been debunked and proven to be false. All that bible twisting. Take Isahiah 7:14, often heralded as the verse prophesying Jesus's birth. You don't even have to go into whether or not הָעַלְמָה means virgin or just a young woman, look at the next word, הָרָה. Third person masculine past tense.

It's not "She will conceive and give birth", the way the Christians have to read it: it's "She has been impregnated and will give birth". It's talking about something happening right now, in Isaiah's own time.

To be a Christian involves purposely and deliberately misreading the passage to fit your preconceived conclusion that it's all about muh jebus.

>>563700

Argument from Cause: This argument considers God the "First Cause." In other words, everything that exists must come from something else and that something else is what we call God. Philosophically, this argument is presented as:

- Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
- The universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first aspect, that everything that had a beginning had a cause, is based on the principle of causality. Nothing cannot produce something. The second part, that the universe had a beginning, is supported by many lines of modern scientific evidence. These include the second law of thermodynamics (that the universe is running out of usable energy toward disorder), the expansion of the universe, the radiation echo of the initial explosion of the universe (often called the Big Bang), among others. The conclusion is that the universe had a cause.

Argument from Design: This argument proposes the following: Every design has a designer; the universe reveals complex design; therefore, the universe has a Designer. This design includes both natural and supernatural causes. Both the macro level (design found in the universe based on astronomy) and the micro level (design found at the cellular level) support the argument of highly designed and complicated forms of life that find no adequate explanation apart from an outside, powerful force capable of intelligent design. This Intelligent Designer opens the door for the existence of God.

>>563807

Argument for Morality: This argument follows a more internal logic that suggests that:

- Every law has a lawgiver.
- There is an absolute moral law.
- Therefore, there must be an absolute Lawgiver.

Some question whether there is an absolute moral law. Yet as C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about."

While postmodern philosophy attempts to deconstruct this argument by suggesting all absolutes of right and wrong regarding morality are relative, the existence of absolutes in the universe is undeniable. For example, two plus two cannot equal four and two plus two equal five at the same time under the same conditions. Likewise, many areas of morality suggest a universal sense of injustice regarding the wrongs of the world. Individuals may differ regarding exactly what is labeled justice and injustice, but every person has an innate sense of there being right and wrong. This morality has an origin and it is argued this original Lawgiver is God.

>>563757
God-like is the essence of God, that is to say it entails all positive properties, in which negative properties would be negation.

>>563758
That isn't the argument, try reading it again; The vagueness is a logical necessity, though unhelpful

>>563812

In examining the existence of God, the first question that should be asked is: "Why does anything exist?" Subsequent questions are: Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? In considering the question of God's existence, there are three popularly proposed answers as to why there is something rather than nothing: (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. Which is the most plausible solution?

The idea that reality is an illusion is primarily a tenet among Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The "reality is an illusion" option was disproved by the philosopher Rene Descartes who argued that if he is thinking, then he must "be," "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "I think, therefore I cannot be an illusion." Illusions require something that is experiencing the illusion. If nothing exists, neither does the illusion. Philosophically, doubting your existence actually proves your existence. "Reality is an illusion" is a self-defeating argument.

There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option. To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity.

File: hume.png (94KB, 200x280px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 200x280px

>>563807
>- Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
>mfw people still consider this a good argument

>>563818


Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven.

Another crucial issue to consider is the fact that the acceptance or rejection of the existence of God has more implications for life, action, and morality than any other issue. If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. With this in view, atheists should produce conclusive and undeniable evidence for the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot accomplish this, and therefore, all atheists can do is hope that they are correct. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.

>>563791
it is irrelevant that other religions don't believe in other religions, its just the plain in simple fact that if you believe Pascal's Wager (which is simple logic) then believing in ANY religion at all is better than being an atheist because if you believe in any religion then you at least have a chance at getting to a heaven, instead of literally having no chance as an atheist

>>563818

So, does belief in the existence of God have intellectual warrant? Absolutely. While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.

In looking for "conclusive proof" of God, one must first consider what type of evidence counts. For example, we cannot see the wind, yet we know it exists because we feel it, hear it, and see its effect. Likewise, no one has touched the sun, yet we know it exists because we can see its impact in our world and beyond. In the same way, we can speak of evidence for God from the basis of the things God has made and the ways God has worked in the universe as well as in our individual lives.

One logical way in which we can provide "proof" for God's existence is through the natural universe. The universe is either an illusion, is eternal, or had a beginning. Since we would normally reject that all existence is an illusion, and scientific evidence points toward a beginning of all space, matter, time, and energy, it is most likely that all created things had a beginning. Something that has a beginning requires a cause. This First Cause can be defined as God. The best evidence or proof points toward His existence.

>>563826

A second way to speak of proof for God's existence is found in the complexity of design throughout creation. From the complexity of the stars in the sky to the vast number of advanced parts within even the tiniest cell, the evidence points toward intentional design rather than random events evolving toward today's observable universe. In philosophy, this is described as the argument from design or the teleological argument for God's existence.

A third way to discuss proof of God is found in the universal sense of morality. In other words, every person adheres to some system of right and wrong, even though people vary greatly in what is accepted as right or wrong. This universal sense of right and wrong points toward an outside, objective source of morality. This is often called the moral argument for God's existence.

Yet another way to speak of evidence for God is to appeal to the vast number of unexplained occurrences of miracles and the supernatural. Are all of these events explainable by natural causes? If not, then the existence of a supernatural being is at least possible.

>>563827

More specific to the God of the Bible are the many predictions made regarding the Jewish Messiah in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ (see this article for more). Though predicted hundreds of years before His coming, they describe His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), His town of birth (Bethlehem; Micah 5:2), His Jewish tribe (Judah), and many other areas, including His suffering (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22). Though one could argue for a few seemingly "random" connections, the number of accurate predictions and level of detail make it so improbable as to be considered statistically impossible for one man to coincidentally meet them all. Fulfilled biblical prophecy points toward a God who is sovereign and omnipotent.

While some would reject these arguments as conclusive proof of God, the evidence for an eternal, all-powerful Creator God is strong. Further, the evidence for the God of the Bible and Jesus the Messiah include great detail worthy of further study for those investigating the claims of Christianity.

>>563816
>X-like is the essence of X, that is to say it entails all positive properties, in which negative properties would be negation.

This tells me absolutely nothing. It's completely tautological and explains nothing about the concept you defined into existence

>>563829

Some skeptics resort to the accusation that God is imaginary. In other words, they would argue God is simply a creation of our own imagination rather than a real Being. Entire websites like godisimaginary.com exist solely to advance the idea that God is a human creation rather than humans as a creation of God.

However, the logic of those who claim God is imaginary is limited and flawed. First, the only completely accurate way to claim God is imaginary would be to know for certain that God does not exist. Logically, humans are limited beings and do not and cannot know all things. Therefore, humans cannot know for certain whether God is imaginary. At best, a person can claim God might be imaginary and argue reasons why such a claim is possible.

Second, to claim God is imaginary requires an alternative sufficient claim to explain the known universe and all created things. In other words, if God did not create the universe and everything in it, who or what did? The universe is eternal, it is created, or it is an illusion. If the universe is not an illusion and it is not eternal, then the only other option is that it has been created. This Creator or First Cause is what Christians call God.

>>563832

Third, to claim God is imaginary is to dismiss the many claims regarding God and the supernatural in this world. While there are certainly many inaccurate claims regarding God and the supernatural, the evidence leans toward a universe in which miracles can and do happen. If miracles have happened, then the existence of God is possible. Why? The supernatural cannot take place without some kind of supernatural power or supernatural Being.

Fourth, to claim God is imaginary overlooks the vast evidence regarding the complexity of design in the universe. From the information "coded" within the human cell to the vast complexity of the known universe, there is an amazing level of intelligence within the design of the universe that at least points to the existence of some type of Designer.

Fifth, the universal sense of morality points toward the likely existence of a moral God. While humans differ regarding certain rights and wrongs, all humans live by certain moral standards. This internal sense of right and wrong points toward an ultimate maker of right and wrong that again suggests an ultimate being or ultimate moral lawmaker we know as God.

To argue God is imaginary assumes far too much wisdom and dismisses many lines of evidence that support the existence of an ultimate Creator, Designer, Moral Lawgiver, and Supernatural Being in the universe. Those who genuinely consider the facts will at least be open to a Creator God and consider who this Creator is, opening discussion regarding the view of the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ.

>>563798
Believing in a religion because you want to have a chance of getting to heaven is stupid. Shouldn't you believe in it because you truly believe?

File: current year meme.png (60KB, 393x255px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 393x255px

>2016
>still arguing about fairy tales

>>563835

And it goes on and on..

There is still the cosmological and teleological arguments for God.

You have to be retarded to not believe in a creator.

>>563838
I agree, we should stop believing in that ridiculous Darwinian theory that says we evolved from monkeys.

>>563824
>it is irrelevant that other religions don't believe in other religions

No, that's in fact highly relevant, since Pascal's Wager is a wager about something being true.

What guarantee do you have that your soul won't be tormented forever by Ju-Ju the Magic Sandal for not performing the Ceremonial Walking Ritual every first Tuesday of the month? Pascal's Wager provides no insurance against this

>>563843
Is this a bait thread?

>>563824

>it is irrelevant that other religions don't believe in other religions, its just the plain in simple fact that if you believe Pascal's Wager (which is simple logic) then believing in ANY religion at all is better than being an atheist because if you believe in any religion then you at least have a chance at getting to a heaven, instead of literally having no chance as an atheist

But this is false. There are numerous religions which view that Atheists can have positive afterlives. Judaism right there in the same Abrahamic tree.

>>563835
Saying the universe is complex is a silly statement. Complex compared to what? Other universes?

>>563694
>microevolution and macroevolution being actual distinctions that exist

>>563722
>What about other religions?
You'd either win, or get even.
Pascal's Wager doesn't take into account the numerous other religions on this planet.
Ok, then, let's see.
>What if Islam is the true religion?
According to the Quran, the people of the book(abrahamic religions) go to heaven as long as you aren't a dick and don't use your religion for personal gain.
>What about buddhism?
Gee, you wind up semi-stressed for only applying some of their illumination principles.
And if you add reincarnation, you get to try again, with more good karma this time.
Want to add more faiths?
Zoroastrianism-you get cleansed of evil and go to heaven;
Hinduism-you try again;
Judaism-complicated. Depends on what school of thought you follow;
Don't know enough about the others, but it's usually more of the same.

Pascal's Wager still sucks.

File: lulz.jpg (22KB, 333x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 333x293px

>>563847
>There are numerous religions which view that Atheists can have positive afterlives. Judaism right there in the same Abrahamic tree

>>563836
Yes, the purpose of the logic behind Pascal's Wager isn't to get people to believe its just to show that being an atheist is fucking retarded, as believing in a religion and following it has a chance to give you infinite gains (Heaven) while just being an atheist garuntees you no or even infinite negative gains if religion is correct.

File: updatedpascalwager.png (276KB, 1685x2008px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1685x2008px

This is all.

>>563846
Why are you so mad?

Cognitive dissonance triggering you too hard?

>>563857
This desu

>>563791
>If you are a Christian, and it turns out the Muslims were right, you'd be just as screwed as me
Umm... nope.

>>563862
Denying basic scientific facts is triggering me.

>>563562
If you become a Christian because of Pascal's Wager, you're not really going to be a Christian. You'll probably just go through the motions and end up being damned anyways.

>>563867
Science debunked evolution.

Science debunked Darwin's fantasy.

>>563867
Science basically proves Ahura Mazda exists mate

>>563562
What if there is a god who sends atheists to heaven and belivers to hell?

>>563854

Sanhedrin 105a, not to mention other passages in the Talmud I can't be boethered to go look up right now.


>Now only Balaam will not enter [the future world], but other [heathens] will enter.27 On whose authority is the Mishnah [taught]? — On R. Joshua's.

>>563895
No only I decide what God does.

>>563895
then there is an infinite amount of gods that would do the opposite to match your infinite gods that do.

>>563895
What if the true test is not being dumb enough to believe in god?

>>563905
Enjoy being reincarnated as a frog.

>>563772
im trying to convince myself this is b8 but it smells like you actually mean it.
according to your post, you say every other religion (except for judaism i expect) is work of satan. so stuff like buddism or hinduism are work of satan. so god let people workship satan for a really long time (hindusim is older than judaism and even when god created judaism he didn't bother in creating the same thing in a couple of more places to spread the "true religion" faster and combat satan's work)
I guess god is just an asshole

>>563895
congradulations you believe in a god that literally guaruntees you will always end up on the bad side of Pascal's Wager.

>>563562
Doesn't Pascal's Wager suggest that God is either a very needy person or a very stupid person?

>>563918
God is perfect he doesn't need anything from us. That's why we must worship him, if not, we shall rightly suffer.

>>563915
Because we are sinners, we choose to follow Satanic ideologies and doctrines.

Most civilizations and cultures were largely polytheistic and pagan.

God chose a special people (Israelites) and gave them the truth and divine revelation. But even they fucked up numerous times.

>>563927
So he is an asshole.

>>563903
Then they cancel each other out and they have no power at all

>>563734

Dogmatism. Arbitrary definitions, and axioms are, by definition, unproven.

And you haven't even formulated an argument yet.

>>563865

Umm, yes, because you didn't recognize God's final prophet, which gives you a one way ticket to hell

>>563931
No he is perfect.

>>563816
I reread it and it's a bunch of tautologies
See >if a property is positive it necessarily is positive

>>563931
Yeah, he's so much of an asshole that he died for us on the cross..

He suffered beatings and torture in order to save mankind, what an asshole!

How dare he try to make people go to heaven!

>>563917
I am just saying, the Pascal Wage has the implicit assumption that just because humans believe in one sort of god, it makes his existance more likely than a sort of god humans dont believe into.

As far as I can tell, a god who punishes believers and rewards atheists is just as likely as the other way around, so there is no real reason to accpet this wage

>>563930
and why did he do that? he didn't like the rest of the world? they didn't deserve salvation? so if an israelite converts a not isrealite he is doing something god didn't want?

>>563807
>>563812

More dogmatism.

>>563939
Since good and bad is relative, nothing can be perfect.

>>563944
I'm not familiar with christian theology. What do you mean by he died for us?

>>563932
Yes but believing in any one of those infinite gods still gives you a chance of going to heaven because your chance of going to hell or just nothing happening doesn't subtract your chance of going to heaven.

>>563949
The cult of evolution and science is the most dogmatic religion in the world.

"Unscientific" is the new "Heretic"

>>563946
So you would rather have a 0/0 chance than a 1/# chance?

>>563835
>>563832
>>563829
>>563827
>>563826
>>563822
>>563818

All. This. Dogmatism.

>>563944
he didn't die. he made his son/human form die and if he is so powerful he simply can't die and can do that us much as he wants

>>563951
Jesus died on the cross for the collective crimes of mankind.

He took the punishment for us.

This is basic Christian knowledge, do you live under a rock or something?

>>563960
>its dogmatic because i say so

t. fedora

>>563957

I don't disagree. Doesn't mean your argument for the existence of God holds water, or is any less dogmatic.

>>563959
going to correct myself, any number greater than 0/any number greater than 0 chance

>>563959
1/an infinite number

>>563960
>S-shit, he's destroying me!
>I can't refute his arguments..
>I know! I'll just dismiss it all as [insert meme word]

Christianity wins again.

Christians: 1
Atheists: 0

/thread

>>563935
>Umm, yes, because you didn't recognize God's final prophet, which gives you a one way ticket to hell
Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians -
whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -
shall have nothing to fear or regret.
-- Sura 5:69

People of the Book, bitch.

>>563967
Many people died for many things, what makes jesus's sacrifise so special?

And didn't they crucified him because he pissed off some jews and romans?

>>563959
I don't have a 0/0 chance, because even if I am atheist, it is still possible that a god exists who sends atheists to heaven

>>563972

No, it's dogmatic because it proceeds from is own definitions and axioms to conclusions it has set beforehand, and does not countenance challenges to it's premises out conclusion.

>>563981
>>563988

I don't get this. So pretending to be Christian is good enough for God?

>>563985
Because Jesus was literally God as a human you retard.

Jesus lived a perfect sinless life.

Name me 1 person besides Christ that
>never told a lie
>never stolen something
>never broken God's laws

>>563996
>Jesus lived a perfect sinless life.

And how do you know this? Because he said so?

>>563996
How is that related to my question?

>>563988
>I can't read
So you're illiterate, that's basically it.
You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

You asked for evidence of God, I gave you a mountain of evidence, and now you backpeddle because you can't handle it.

You have no counter-arguments?
Just admit that God exists and get over it.

Or stay in denial and keep tipping that hat.

>>563996
my brother that died two days after birth

>>563987
Most christians acknowledge that atheists can go to heaven if they lived a good life.

>>564008

Circular arguments are not evidence.

>>563995
You can't "pretend" to be a Christian.

Christian is a spiritual lifestyle, you become a pilgrim in enemy territory. You become a child of God with the Holy Spirit dwelling within you.

>>564010
He died before you baptise him. He died with sin.

>>564010
His parents had sex. He is fruit of a sin.

>>564011
What does it have to do with pascal wager?

File: Holy Bible.jpg (3MB, 2580x1932px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2580x1932px

>>564005
>ignoring 2000 years of theology, philosophy, study and scholastic research

Atheists are ignorant and dense.

>>564018
he could have been fruit of artificial insemination (he is not). but then its imposible to go to heaven without being son of a virgin?

>>564013

But the whole point of Pascal's Wager is the heavenly reward, not worshiping God onto itself.

If you play Pascal's Wager, you basically admit that you're only a Christian to get stuff out of it. Otherwise, the whole wager aspect makes no sense

>>564014
it's god's fault for killing him before being baptised, my family baptised us all except for him for obvious reasons

>>563562
Faith isnt supposed to be the result of a rational thinking
You're a pretty bad christian

File: spurdo.png (9KB, 528x404px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 528x404px

>>564022
>implying artificial insemination is not a sin

>>563987
Yes and their is also an infinite amount of gods that condem all atheists to have demons stick large dragon dildos up their ass while they have to listen to 10 year olds talk about their favorite memes while these same gods also send anyone who believed in any god at all to heaven.

>>564021
Scholasticism isn't 2000 years old dip.

>>564019
It's totally irellevant if you believe in god or not, because you go to heaven anyway.

>>564021

There has been an equivalent commitment of intellectual resources over an even greater span of time to the study and practise of astrology. This does not mean the position of the planets and star systems relative to your birthplace have any impact on your life.

File: Crom666.jpg (62KB, 450x350px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x350px

>>563562
this is why i pray to crom

>>564021

As I should, as Scholasticism has been proven to be complete bullshit semantics that doesn't describe reality at all

>>564033
>dip

Is this a new meme?

>>563996

Benjamin and Amram.

File: 330px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png (63KB, 330x461px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 330x461px

>>563807
Argument from Cause:
It has not been observed that a cause is needed nor is there any reason to ascribe to this cause attributes of god.

Argument from design:
Observed complex design can be derived from relatively simple component pieces undergoing interaction with one another (for instance following laws of physics which are just observations of such interactions rather than real laws).
As an example of such complex design one can observe the invertebrate eye which progresses from simple to complex.

>>563812
Argument from morality:
There is no absolute morality. There is only relative morality.
The fact that both religion and society have undergone repeated changes in morality is easily the best evidence for this.
The standard you are using to compare two moral opinions is your own understanding as imparted by society.

>>563822
>Only mind can create mind.
This is retarded. Mind is arbitrary. There were many transitions between early beings without nervous systems to us. At some point a being without a mind would have spawned one that had a mind.
>Non-life can not produce life
Also retarded. Life is arbitrary. At some point non-life would have formed life (primitive RNA machines for instance).
>Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness
This is retarded as well since both are vaguely defined.

>>563824
If you assume there are infinite gods then for each god proposing a positive tenet there is a god who regards said tenet as blasphemous and deserving of punishment.

>>563996

But the Gospels record him breaking God's laws. Are you saying the Gospels are innacurate?

>>563676
What flames?

>>564061
yes then there is infinite gods that would reward us to stop being massive faggots talking about infinite gods, so lets stop this autism and not mention infinite gods again.

>>564061
>inorganic materials can create conscious and emotional humans full of passion & purpose

This is what atheists literally believe.

>>564073

Kill yourself and you'll see.

>>564080
that's not what he said. inorganic materials created early organic materials that evolved into life and eventually into human minds

>>564080
>mind is something magical

This is what christchildren literally believe

>>564091
Evolution has been debunked years ago.

It's scientifically and mathematically impossible.

>>564106

Shit. Someone should tell the entire community if scientists, then; they didn't get the memo.

>>564106
This has to be bait. Seriously this is middle aged religious muslim woman tier.

If Christianity is wrong, and the deity actually happens to be of another religion, and one that penalizes heresy in the form of worshipping a wrong being or creed, and is more lenient towards those who took a neutral agnostic approach to life, then Christians will be penalized and agnostics/atheists will get off more easy

There are multiple scenarios here

>>564106
that's probably b8 but c'mon. redpill me

>>564116
>Ad populum logical fallacy
>Appeal to authority

The majority of Germans were Nazis, that must mean that National Socialism is the truth!

The majority of Russians were Commies, that must mean that Communism is the truth!

>>564119
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Get destroyed.

>>563772
>The other religions have been debunked and proven to be false.
in b4 "I was merely pretending to be retarded"

>>564123
>Evolution Debunked
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>Evolutionism is the Greatest Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA

>Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar (18 hours long)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

>Hovind destroys an atheist critic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wAxPG4WpN8

>Evolution is a modern myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

And this is just scraping the surface.

>>564128
you srly compare filosofical ways to organize a country against scientfic theories filled with evidence?

>>564128
For every single anti evolution article you bring up i can bring one thousand. What is this supposed to prove?

>>564139
What evidence?

The theory of evolution is founded on hoaxes and frauds.

>Lucy
Was just a bunch of monkey bones.
>Piltdown
Was proven to be a hoax, author himself admitted it
>Vestigial organs
Proven to be wrong.

Whales and snakes use those things for mating, they are not legs.

>Embryo gill slits
Proven to be fraudulent drawings a hundred years ago, yet still taught in public schools

>Geologic column
Made up by 1 person.

A global flood explains all of the world's geological formations and phenomena, aswell as the various layers.

Clams are found at the bottom because they don't run so fast. Birds are at the top because they are the last ones to drown. Layers do not represent millions of years.

Evolution is a fairy tale. It's fantasy.

>>564138
look, a couple of author that say that the rest of the scienific world is wrong (im not saying that's impossible but when that happens, the scientific world tends to accept it's wrong or prove wrong the new thing). its like saying just becose a couple of authors say god isn't real then all the ones that say it is are wrong automatically

>>564128

All popular knowledge is ultimately an appeal to authority. Case in point, you appeal to an 'authority' in the very same post you castigate me for doing the same.

The difference is in the authority of the authorities appealed to.

>>564128
>http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html


>There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones17). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

But they do turn into different species of bacteria, so speciation is proven, and your article writer doesn't understand biological classification.

You're a moron.

DNA is genetic code, and it proves evolution wrong.

Dogs will always be dogs. They will never turn into whales or bananas.

Variations within kinds =/= Macro-evolution

File: yfw God exists.gif (1MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 235x240px

>>564138
atheists BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

the earth is 6000 years old and we are not animals

>>564151
>calling new kinds of hominids hoax but people walking on water or transforming water into wine fact

>early RNA machines
>examples of evolution through archeological findings
>examples of natural selection acording to species surrondings

There are so many Christians who aren't pants on head retarded. It makes me wonder why they seem to avoid this board.

>>564138
>kent hovind

>>564178
I think most of them here are false flagging fedoras.

>>564186

Unfortunately probably true.

>>564174
A single cell is more sophisticated than all of the world's computers and space stations combined.

Cells are like factories - they need all parts simultaniously in order to function. You can't "evolve" slowly, they need all those parts at once, i.e. direct creation.

How many things does a car need to be able to drive? Thousands of things.

How many things need to go wrong in order for a car to breakdown? Any of those things.

Evolution is retarded because it ruins symbiotic relationships, it violates the laws of entropy and biogenesis.

You never "grow" new DNA, you only scramble or loss information. That's what creates variations of dogs or human races, but you will never be able to breed horses with wings or turn dogs into apples. They do not have the genetic code to do that.

Evolution implies you change through mutations. Well guess what? Your body has self-repair mechanism that fix mutations.

Another problem is this. Suppose an animal has a mutation, he will not survive in the wild because mutations are harmful, not benevolent. And who is it going to breed with?

The theory of evolution has so many flaws, holes and errors it's not even funny.

If stands on nothing but frauds aswell, and pop-sci garbage like Bill Nye that push this agenda in an attempt to discredit the Bible.

>>564206
>A single cell is more sophisticated than all of the world's computers and space stations combined.
Except it is not.

>>564178
in my expirence, they accept they cannot stand a battle with evidences and something more than faith so they simply don't discuss it. i respect ir but it doesn't convices me anyway

>>564178
trust me barely any of the """"""""""""""""""""""""christians"""""""""""" here are actually anything but atheists. The only guys in this thread who are actually serious christians were probably the ones who didn't do shit like this>>563807
>>563812

>>564212
Except it is.

>>564164
But a dog could theoretically have aquatic progeny.

>>564206

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-JfwPqVs7wTdMaOp2/Survival%20Of%20The%20Sickest%20%5BA%20Medical%20Maverick%20Discovers%20Why%20We%20Need%20Disease%5D_djvu.txt

You might find this educational, if you can read, which I'm iffy about.

>Christians provide sources, links, evidence and proof
>Atheists just shitpost

Christianity wins again, as usual.

Christians: 2
Atheists: 0

I wonder what thread the fedoras will get rekt in next.

/thread

Here's my proof against God:

1) Neitzsche says he's dead.
2) Christianity is evil.
3)I fucking hate him.

It isn't a 50/50 chance and you also have to factor in how quality of life is effected due to practice or lack of religion

Why do atheists rely so much on blind faith?

They blindly believe in the theory of evolution despite it having been debunked to death.

I'm a Christian but I could never have that much faith.

>>564236
the gains in life are irrelevant as the gains in the afterlife are always infinitely postive, infinitely negative or 0, and the fact that you can get these infinite gains really outweighs any gains you make in life.

also most religions don't honestly require that much, maybe just an hour here or there.

Christians would be liked a lot more in America if they didn't subscribe to the evangelical notions that God is your best buddy who you can comminicate with at any time, who will delay his cosmic duties so he can express his opinion on sports games as well as beltway politics and that anything that violates the omnibenevolence clause is the work of the devil (because one rogue angel apparently can overpower him)

That simply sounds less like mysterious ways and more like something a man came up with.

>>564229
Here's my proof for God:

1) The bible
2) "miracles"
3) mommy and daddy said so

>>564206
>A single cell is more sophisticated than all of the world's computers and space stations combined.
they are not, earliest cells were nothing more than lipid balls with the simplest RNA inside
>Cells are like factories - they need all parts simultaniously in order to function. You can't "evolve" slowly, they need all those parts at once, i.e. direct creation.
yes, they are like factories. but, like factories, they can chance a small part of them to work better or in another way
>How many things does a car need to be able to drive? Thousands of things.
or one weel and something to push it foward
>How many things need to go wrong in order for a car to breakdown? Any of those things.
and they did too but natural selection made it's work
>Evolution is retarded because it ruins symbiotic relationships, it violates the laws of entropy and biogenesis.
how does evolution violates laws of entropy or biogenesis? it actually exists for laws of entropy and biogenesis
>You never "grow" new DNA, you only scramble or loss information. That's what creates variations of dogs or human races, but you will never be able to breed horses with wings or turn dogs into apples. They do not have the genetic code to do that.
that's the most retarded thing ever. you belive that a horse onde day had a mutated son that turned out to be a dog?
>Evolution implies you change through mutations. Well guess what? Your body has self-repair mechanism that fix mutations.
yes but it cannot repair DNA and that's what changes in evolution
>Another problem is this. Suppose an animal has a mutation, he will not survive in the wild because mutations are harmful, not benevolent. And who is it going to breed with?
mutations can be harmful OR benevolent. natural selection decides wich is wich
>The theory of evolution has so many flaws, holes and errors it's not even funny.
care to tell me another flaw so i can disproove it?

>>564251
continued
>If stands on nothing but frauds aswell, and pop-sci garbage like Bill Nye that push this agenda in an attempt to discredit the Bible.
lucy and all other archeologicals findings and present day evidence are hoaxes but a 2000 yo book about a dude that talked to a bush is fact?

>>564247
assuming God is all powerful it doesn't subtract from his other duties to bless a football with deflation or something.

>>564237
It hasn't been debunked though, all the 'evidence' presented itt is awful to the extent that the people posting it should be banned for breaking the rule about high level discourse

Also, belief in Christianity isn't mutually exclusive to belief in evolution. Quite simply, you're an idiot.

>>564266
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Evolutionism has been completely destroyed and torn apart.

This is why I say that you Darwinists are complete lunatics. You're clinging to a dead theory that's been BTFO years ago by people like Kent Hovind.

Evolutionism is a cult.
It's a cult of death and plastic monkeys.

>>564237

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily have anything to do with evolution. You caoul be an atheist and not agree with the theory of evolution.

Not that your ludicrous claim to have debunked it is remotely true.

>>564266
>Christianity isn't mutually exclusive to evolution

It is.

The Bible says that death came after man.
Evolution implies that death came before man.

>>564277
This is time cube level shit

>>564282
please define "death"
cose as far as i remember death has been hapening in the last 4.6 billon years

>>563930
Well why the fuck did he choose us? As a Jew personally descended from the Israelites I know we aren't anything special outside of what some scroll tells us. We're just a certain people who came up with a certain thing that became popular after a certain form of it (Christianity) allowed missionary work. Literally no Jews anymore outside of far right zionists belive the chosen people thing anyway

>>564237
Actually, they just give it the benefit of the doubt because it makes no demands over their life.

>>564206
>A single cell is more sophisticated than all of the world's computers and space stations combined.
Modern single cell =/= early single cell. There are easily several transitional stages available even as proto-life with RNA machines.
>Cells are like factories - they need all parts simultaniously in order to function. You can't "evolve" slowly, they need all those parts at once, i.e. direct creation.
They need all those parts at once because they've evolved to need all those parts at once.
>How many things does a car need to be able to drive? Thousands of things. How many things need to go wrong in order for a car to breakdown? Any of those things.
Depends on the car. Modern cars have many more things that can break down and on some cars you might get broken or poorly functioning parts that don't disable the car right away.
>...
It never violates the law of entropy and there is no law of biogenesis. Symbiotic relationships evolve together.
>...
Genetic code is universal. Which is why we can get bacteria to produce proteins that are not native to bacteria. Bacteria even regularly pick up new DNA from the environment. You are only going to get gradual mutations though because larger organisms have many genes that encode for many proteins and a change which is too large is unlikely to pass.

>...
Which is why mutations are less damaging. But repair mechanisms are not perfect. And repair mechanisms such as "Crossing over" where two homologous strands recombine actually promote variation and evolution as a result.

>...
Mutations are not specifically damaging. They can be beneficial, harmful, redundant or neutral depending on the type of mutation and how it changes the protein.
Bacteria swap genes often so beneficial mutations can spread through bacteria(No real species barrier) and sexual organisms with two sets of chromosomes have strong redundancy since one chromosome can still produce a functioning copy.

>>564282
>literal readings of the bible

>>564291
>4.6 billion years

That's strange, because the world is about 6000 years old.

Where did you get "billions" from? Out of your ass?

>>564237
>evolution is a faith that all irreligious people believe in
Losing me there. my belief that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god is inconsistent with hell and evil has nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution could not exist at all and I still would not believe in Christianity when there are a hundred other religions that don't sound like bullshit.

5000 year old earth was debunked a long time ago. The flood story itself is blatantly cribbed from the epic of gilgamesh.

Can you believe in either?

>>564305
carbon radiation, the age of our sun compared to other known stars, the cosmic microwave background.
where do you take 6000 years? out of a book?

>>564315
Radiometric dating is unreliable m8.

A freshly killed seal dated 20,000 years old.

The method itself doesn't work.

Evolutionists just pick a number they like and pretend it's fact.

Why do Christians cling to a book that has been debunked thousands of times throughout history? Its basis is only as valid as the mythology of any other bronze age tribe

>>564305
>That's strange, because the world is about 6000 years old.

That's weird. Someone should have told the Sumerians the world was going to be created soon back when they were inventing glue.

>>564334
When has it been debunked?

The Bible has survived many hammer blows, alot of people have tried to prove it wrong but nobody has.

Infact, the more time passes, the more the Bible is proven right. i.e fulfilled prophecies, Revelation end times, etc.

>>564333
You know what isnt unreliable? Your mom squirting when i shove my cock in her cunt

>>563562
That isn't how belief works.

There's no evidence regarding salvation, so salvation based on works rather than profession of faith is also possible. This would give atheists a nonzero heaven chance.

We don't have a clear picture of what hell would be. It's possible the atheist fail state is identical to its win state of simple annihilation.

Also, if an omniscient God knows the outcome of events and chooses whether to intervene (even if he always chooses not to) then that God determines the outcome of all things. Predetermination seems pretty likely here.

Finally, that's not how belief works. Again. Professing belief is not believing. Your parents did not believe in Santa, whatever they said. An omniscient God would know your intent if you professed belief because you might get eternal postmortem blowjobs.

>>564333
ok, even when i don't know what seal you are talking about. i said three things and you talked about a seal as an example of something so reliable it was used to proove the veracity of things like the dead sea scrolls.

>>564353
>i don't know what seal you are talking about
That's because you haven't seen Kent Hovind's videos debunking evolution.

>>564251
>they are not, earliest cells were nothing more than lipid balls with the simplest RNA inside
Technically they'd be a dual layer phospholipid membrane surrounding the RNA.

>yes but it cannot repair DNA and that's what changes in evolution
There are countless mechanisms that repair DNA flaws.
They just can't repair them perfectly.

>mutations can be harmful OR benevolent. natural selection decides wich is wich
Mutations can be anything.
They can be a massive change or they can cause no change at all.
For instance a massive change would be a base insertion or deletion in an encoding sequence since that would shift the entire reading frame by one base pair or a start codon can suddenly be present in a non-coding sequence which creates an entirely new protein.
A non-change would be a base pair being swapped with a redundant base pair that still encodes for the same protein(usually the third in sequence because of wobble pairing).

Though it is true that natural selection decides which is which but it isn't as simple as harm or benefit.

>>564365
you made my statement more perfect. were you trying to disproove me or correct me? anyway thanks

>>564359

Yes, but Kent Hovind isn't a serious source of anything.

>>564345
What makes the bible more valid than Judiasm? If it nullified Judiasm by virtue of sucession then certainly Islam is the true faith

>>564359
oh yeah, the guy that blamed darwin for WWII

>>564359
>Kent hovind

Kek

>>563624
>Ignoring the mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism,
?

>>564377
Islam denies the deity of Christ.

The Quran is full of contradictions, Mohammed was a false prophet who had contact with a demonic spirit.

This death cult was created by the Vatican in 600 AD in an attempt to eliminate the Gospel in the Middle-East and North Africa.

>>564386
>i have no argument
>>564390
>i have not read the thread

>>564392
>Mohammed was a false prophet who had contact with a demonic spirit.
oh but the talking fire bush was god itself

>>564372
Correcting some mistakes was my intention.
I did make a mistake though since countless is hyperbole. You can relatively easily count DNA repair mechanisms I just can't be bothered to list them all since they are largely irrelevant.

>>564396
We have no reason not to take the bush at its word

>>564406
so you are saying that the bible lies?

>>564406
misread, my bad.
so you trust more a bush than an angel?

>>564396
Mohammed literally shit his pants when he had contact with this "angel" who choked him and attacked him.

All the angels in the Bible say "Do not fear!" and do not attack you.

Yet the "angel" in the Quran physically harms Mohammed and orders him to write.

Islam is a Satanic religion.

>>564416
all the angels say "do not fear" but when christian prophets say "convert or fear your ethernity in hell" its ok?

>>563927
The universe is not perfect. Therefore, either a)God is not perfect b)God did not create the universe or c)God purposefully created an imperfect universe to cause more suffering.

>>564432
Or

D) Man rebelled against God, and that's where all the evil and sin come from

Maybe you should read Genesis you retard. This is basic Christian history.

>>564444
checked

>>563944
Why does he need to "try" to make anyone go to heaven? People either go to heaven or not based solely on HIS will. There's no trying involved, and the sacrifice play is simply both absurd and needlessly complex. If he cared about people going to heaven, everyone who wanted to go to heaven would, full stop.

>>564444
and why did god made man so rebel? did he wanted us to rebel and deserve punish? is he so sadistic?

>>563996
>Jesus lived a perfect sinless life.

Prove it.

>>564451
Free will.

inb4
>b-but why didn't God made us perfect incapable of sinning?

Read the thread, this has already been answered several times.

>>564444
So why was man not created perfect? A perfect man would not have rebelled against god because to rebel is to acknowledge imperfection. Or are you claiming that to have free will is to be imperfect? In which case either a)God is perfect, therefore just an automaton without free will or b)God has free will, therefore can't be perfect.

>>563562
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. it assumes that christians are the only option.

What if it is in fact Odin? Or Ganesh. Or Ra? or Islam.....


The fact is, you do not believe in 3000 gods, that you call myths. You dont worship the Thunderbird, or leave sacrifices to Huitzilopochtli. You dont worship the flame and Ahura Mazda, etc. And nor do athiests. the only difference is they dont follow 3001 different myths.

>>563624
and then you get idiots like this...

>>564460
Because then we would be nothing but robots/zombies. A flawed creature.

God wants genuine love from free will.

The same way you want the genuine love from a real puppy, not a toy puppy that is programmed to make noise.

>>564444
>D) Man rebelled against God, and that's where all the evil and sin come from

So, parasites that lay eggs in people's eyes are a product of us eating some fucking fruit? How the fuck does that stand up to logic?

>>564462
Christianity is the only option.
It's the truth.

You can role-play and be edgy all you want, that's not going to change anything.

>>564462
>implying all these gods aren't anthropomorphized aspects of the same reality


Hurr durr one god further XD

>>564468
if god knows everything then he doesn't needs to prove us to know if we actually love him. so makeing us suffer to prove actual love makes him an asshole

How do Christians respond to the fact that truly spontaneous free will is impossible in a causal universe? We live in a universe of cause and effect, since god is the first cause and has perfect knowledge, he knew how the universe was going to play out and choose to create a universe in which man would rebel and sin against him.

>>564478
>It's the truth.

Prove it.

>>564305
Everything you've said in this thread is wrong, you're retarded and you should kill yourself.

>>564392

The Gospels are full of contradictions. For crying out loud, they can't even agree on what day Jesus was crucified on.

>>564480
>implying that isn't heresy

>>564478
Just stop you embarrassing faggot. I hate fedoras too but you're part of the reason they're so insufferable

>>564468
Free will doesn't exist from the perspective of an omniscient and omnipotent creator that totally comprehends what it is doing.

Since the brain is deterministic.

Though he isn't omniscient or omnipotent and doesn't comprehend what he is doing during the Genesis story so I guess you're correct in that regard.

>>564495
I'm not Christian or fedora. Go back to Sunday school with your Walmart-tier Christianity faggof

>>564468
>Because then we would be nothing but robots/zombies. A flawed creature.

If god is perfect, surely he could've created perfect beings that have free will unless you're saying that I'm right and god, being perfect, is nothing but an automaton.

>>564501
How about you go back to the commune with your new age hippy shit?

>>564508
Learn the history of your own religion you dipshit retard. Mysticism has influenced Christianity since the early church

>>564444
Oh, and even if you're right, that only explains why man is imperfect, not why the rest of the world is. Unless we're back at "God is a fucking asshole."

>believe in me or else I'm sending you to eternal suffering
>also I love you

Ummm I'll just take another religion, thnx

>>564527
Epic XD that George Carlin, what a character :)

>>564533
Ikr

>>564533
He has a point though. God's love sounds a lot like the love an abusive drunk.

Personally, even if God existed, I still wouldn't worship the narcissistic fuck.

>>564549
My favorite retort from thumpers is that God's morality transcends ours. So you know, shit that is patently wrong is right on the cosmic scale, despite us being supposedly made in his image

Just lol.

What if you try to make yourself believe, but can't do it. Do you still burn in hell?

>>564564
Read Kierkegaard you goober

>>564568
Why do people fucking act like God is some bitch you're trying to smash and you always gotta watch what you say? Fuckin A you niggas are living in cartoon land

>>564571
why don't you just explain his argument instead of making me waste hours reading bullshit? i don't send you to read the god's delusion or the origin of the species

>>564568
How is that even possible? And why would you want to make yourself believe something you don't believe in?

>>563562
>I act like I believe in god to avoid the possible consequence of him existing
Isn't this akin to trying to cheat god? You're not getting into heaven this way buddy.

>>564581
He's probably talking about Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical.

I really hate these threads. The Christians seem to have a really bad habit of leaning on other thinkers rather than making actual arguments of their own.

The Great White Throne judgment is going to be a great day.

>>564581
The ethical is subordinate to the Absolute. In some cases - Kierkegaard uses the example of Abraham - the Absolute suspends the ethical so it may be more fully realized through its chosen person. Faith isn't some maudlin, half-asked belief in God, but absolutely resigning yourself to the fact there probably isn't one and "drinking deep the cup of life's profound sadness", and STILL believing in something right behind the world. Faith is a paradox.


An honest, conscientious relationship with the Absolute in your heart of hearts transcends morality, if it needs to

>>564587
to save yourself from (the supposed) hell maybe
it's simple: im afraid of hell actually existing but i personally don't belive there are gods so i can't honsetly belive in god but i still fear hell.

>>564595
Like the fedoras don't? Laffo. And I'm not even Christian brosef. I guess you have to invent a new argument for the existence of god everytime you talk about him

>>564600
that's simply saying that we shouldn't even try to comprehend god. completly stupid if you ask me

>>564604
>Like the fedoras don't?

Not particularly. They usually make their own arguments, and you rarely see the equivalent of "go read some Kierkegaard" or "go read some scholastics" from atheists.

>>564602
But if you can't honestly believe in god, you also can't fear hell.

>>564617
yes i can, i fear something i don't know if it exist or not, i fear that i'm wrong and it exists.

>>564617
But hell doesn't necessarily needs to be a specific religion's version. One could think that the abrahamic religions are bullshit for a number of reasons but still fear that there is some kind of divine judgement after death, held by some non-yahweh divine entity.

>>564615
Yeah like regurgitating textbook definitions of natural selection. Please

>>564611
Not really. You know God through yourself, as it is only through you, your ontological status as the locus of your own consciousness, that God can be made known to you anyways

>>564639
so... each person makes it's own morally perfect god?

File: 1440121915082.jpg (26KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 512x384px

>>564138
Every fucking time this gets posted.

>>564633
You read the arguments of others, and formulate your own opinions. The textbook definitions only get trotted out when some fucking scientifically illiterate fuckface says something that's outright, empirically wrong.

>>564639
Why would anyone bother with that? Why not go the Stirner route and acknowledge yourself as the highest point of your own existence?

>>563624
Yup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM

Man dies, comes back to life, what he saw.

>>564679
there is also a guy who said that xenu enslaved us all but that doesn't means it's true

>>564690
scientific Fact, that.
our saviour, L. Ron Hubbard told us, in books, before he left the earth to explore greater understanding outside the confines of His body.

>>564700
if i should choose a sci-fi story to worship as a religion i would go with something more fun like jedism

>>564718
its not a "story"., its Fact. it says so in the book.

>>563562
>264 replies
We really do need to separate cancerous humanities from history.

>>564720
star wars also says it's a fact. it all happened a long time ago y a galaxy far far away. btw, i hope you know l ron hubard was a sci-fi writter

>>564727
you mean Cancerous religious fucktards who obsess about god?

>>564727
even when it's sad. that "canserous humanity" is a crucial part of our world history

>>564727

>Humanities board
>Divinities keeps being spammed

>>564738
>Philosophy threads that go nowhere.
>Religion threads
No. The whole fucking humanities must get its own board. It's done nothing but generate butthurt threads and /pol/tardation.

File: 6.png (219KB, 1423x847px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1423x847px

Christposting needs to become bannable.

>>564754
No, we need a /rel/igion containment board. Please don't stick philosophy with religious nutfag idiots.

>>564644
>>564654

You're beyond good and evil but you don't degenerate into hedonism. There's no good and bad, just cause and effect, just truth and error, what moves you forward and what sets you back on the path. For example, you can defuse your temper with pure awareness, an objective state of mind that sees it coming and nips it in the bud.

>>564761
We shouldn't separate the boards too much. Religion is also a important part of history

>>564767
so there is not evil, just error. so comiting and error is evil. so being human is evil

File: gif5.png (104KB, 309x582px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 309x582px

If god take such pride in his work that he demands every one of his creation to praise him, otherwise you get eternal damnation, why is he seen as benevolent?
Who truly deserves such a fate?
If hell is not punishment why is an absence of god seen as bad?
How is god the ultimate decider of morality is it is so easily changed and different in some points of view?
Why don't we instinctively know good and bad instead of having to take someone else's word for it? How would that take away from free will?
Why would an infinite punishment be worthy of a finite crime?
Where does preemptive damnation end and choice/free will begin?
Why should Non-Christians fear hell if, to them it is just an empty threat and a ploy to bully them into submission?
How do you know you haven't been bullied into submission yourself?
How do you know, from the several dozen different faiths, dead and alive that your is the right one?
How do you know that you wont go to hell for choosing the wrong one?
What even is hell?

>>564780
Sunday school tier

>>564761
the problem is that if we do that, the /rel/ board will be filled with atheist bashing religions and no one except shitposting atheist want that. (im atheist only that not shitposting atheist)

>>564776
If you feed your shitty side yeah

>>564782
ok, so?
tell me why.

>>564785
but there is no shitty side. only wrong side. and thats created by god becose he is allmighty and we dont know why he created hitler, cancer and evolution.

>>564784
That's fine, because it will set a precedence to ban all religious posting on boards that normal people want to use.

>>564774
Nobody is actually talking about the history of religious, they're circlejerking and acting like buffoons

>>564784
And the religion talk that we have on /his/ right now is better how? Any time christianity comes up, half the thread is taken up by YEC shitposters and most of the rest is the same arguments repeated over and over again.

>>564804
i won't there is no shitposting here but i imagine a /rel/ board being 95% concentrated shitpost

>>564804
This is exactly the point. There are multiple threads that are very transparently an excuse to shitpost about Christianity; they're boring, redundant, and waste everyone's time. Obvious religious posting should just be banned.

Obviously talking about ACTUAL HISTORICAL TOPICS is okay, but not religious topics.

>>564815
Exactly, it would be exactly like /pol/, a containment board so we have a precedence to wash the other boards of religious shitposting. Doesn't matter how "good" /rel/ is, the point is to keep them off /his/

>>563676
I found the Protestant.

>>564792
Well that's the test

>>564824
test of what? if we do right or wrong? if god is allmighty he would know what would i choose without making me choose. and making me choose (most the times suffering in the process) makes him an asshole

>>564815
I don't really care whether it's done by an overall ban on religious discussion in non-historical context or by creation of a containment board, I just want this shitposting off of /his/. Coming from /tg/, I really expected /his/ to turn out better. Being a general board for humanities kind of ruined it.

>>563624
>mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism
>mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism
>mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism
>mountain of evidence supporting Christianity over atheism

>>564828
To realize the eternal in the temporal, the hardest test there is

>>564834
>Being a general board for humanities kind of ruined it.
This, there's hardly any interesting threads now. I made a few interesting philosophy threads in the beginning and I enjoyed lurking several history threads, but now the front page will be like, 1-2 subtle /pol/ posts, 3 /christ/ posts, and a few derailed attempts at obscure history that's not interesting.

>>563624

This image is you IRL: >>564756

>>564834
i don't think you are wrong there. but its all over again. once ther /rel/ thread is filled with shitpost, the ones on /rel/ that don't want shitpost will ask for an /ath/ism board for that shitpost to migrate, and the ones on /ath/ will ask another board for the shitpost to migrate and over and over. its better to have the shitpost disseminated over several boards.

>>564840
i don't understand. care to elaborate a little more?

>>564846
Or we COULD just have a ban on religious posting and leave the shitposting for /b/ and /trash/.

>>564846
>its better to have the shitpost disseminated over several boards.
It's not though, it's clearly concentrated here since anything that's not blatant trolling isn't deleted.

And your argument that "we'll come to an infinite regress of containment boards" is fiction. Christposting has been a problem on /lit/ and other boards for years. It's a very specific problem.

>>564857
but there is religious posting that is not shipost

>>564848
To strive after a transcendent ideal in the "ocean of suffering" that is the universe

>>564868
If it means no YEC shitposting, I'm fine losing that.

File: image.jpg (850KB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 2592x1936px

>>563739
This is what STEM has done to the world. Millenials read a sensationalist Oatmeal comic on Facebook or watch a shitty pandering Bill Nye interview and believe that they've achieved some incredible grasp of humanity and the universe, all without putting forth any actual effort to educate themselves beyond basic IT skills. It's fucking disgusting.

>>564878
Fuckin ayy

File: 1449528522761.jpg (140KB, 1552x1152px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1552x1152px

>>564823

Shit the fuck up Chatolicuck we both know that today's Catholicism have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

I mean the fucking pope himself have said that you don't need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven. You're just a money-grabbing power-hungry organisation whose sole reason to not have gone extinct are glorified LARPers pretending to be Christians. Gays, Atheist, Communists and God knows what are taken in with open arm by God if Chatolicucks are to be believed.

You pick and choose on what to believe on arbitrary grounds to suit your needs just to stay relevant. The 30 year old war would never have happen and Europe and Germany wouldn't forever have been in ruins if it wasn't because you fucking kikes couldn't allow ordinary people to have a personal relationship with God that didn't involve a fucking priest controlling you.

Fuck you guys make me sick.

>>564878
>This is what STEM has done to the world. Millenials read a sensationalist Oatmeal comic on Facebook or watch a shitty pandering Bill Nye interview and believe that they've achieved some incredible grasp of humanity and the universe, all without putting forth any actual effort to educate themselves beyond basic IT skills. It's fucking disgusting.
You could say 100% the exact same of most religious fags who go to church and listen to a few verses and believe they've achieved some incredible grasp of humanity and the universe, all without putting forth any actual effort to educate themselves beyond basic driving skills.

I'm tired of christians playing this "atheists are so dumb" game. I work and live with a bunch of Buddhists (literally, from Vietnam) and atheists, and the bottom line is..

most atheists, and nonChristians, simply DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CHRISTIANITY. Most just live their lives and none of it passes through their brains. Nobody listens to the debates, thinks of it, or gives a fuck. It's all a minor nothing to most people. You just project because you live in a tiny sphere of inbalanced perspective, you don't know what atheists are actually like.

File: images (1).jpg (10KB, 255x198px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 255x198px

>>564884
BTFO

File: image.jpg (214KB, 339x1000px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 339x1000px

>>563772
>Buddhism is a new age cult
>Is a thousand years older than your Jew's cult of personality

Whatever m8.

>>564868
That's a necessary sacrifice.

>>564898
so was jesus

>>563798
This argument implies that God wouldn't leave you for basing your devotion on a high schooler's understanding of statistics rather than absolute faith.

>>564910
Since God is omnipotent, Jesus's sacrifice was completely and utterly unnecessary.

>>564919
but it was a good plot for a best-seller

>>564876
Why?

Why do you want to censor the truth so much?

>>564934
He's a butthurt evolutionist.

Evolutionists are known to censor their opponents. They threw Kent Hovind in jail for exposing their Darwinian monkey cult for what it is.

They can't handle criticism and scientific facts.

>>564934
Because what you call "truth" is complete and utter nonsense to anyone with an ounce of sense. And by the way, you're going to hell for posting on 4chan.

>>564945
0/10

You're not even trying.

>>563857
This is all that needed to be said. /thread

File: heresy.png (115KB, 1405x553px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1405x553px

>protestants

>>564944
0/3 b8 too obvious m8

>>564946
Only because you're not worth arguing with. You'll just post the same lies over and over again, discarding everything that blatantly proves how wrong you are, just like every other YEC shitposter on the internet. You see, I've dealt with your kind before.

File: image.jpg (106KB, 599x487px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 599x487px

>>564885
Touché tbqh

File: image.jpg (904KB, 1530x2048px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 1530x2048px

>>564884
U sound mad m8. Wrath is one of the cardinal vices u kno.

>>564884
Jesus did the same thing.

>>563562
im agnostic and what is this?

>>563562
>If Christians are right
Neurotic self-obsession, the inability to enjoy any aspect of life

>If atheists are right
Freedom and relaxation

>>563856
anon, if you come to my house and suck my dick I will pay you 1 million dollars every year for the rest of your life.

If you don't suck my dick, I'll go to your house and kill you.

You are objectively stupid if you don't take this offer.

Feels good being a Christian.

I don't fear death, unlike atheists.

>>565267
>I-I'm gonna live forever! This body is just a vessel!

K

>>565267
Actually according to at least one study, a large reason Christians do not like atheists is because they're reminded of death.

http://theconversation.com/for-believers-fear-of-atheists-is-fueled-by-fear-of-death-41724

>>565346
That's awesome. Reminds me of a fantastic story of David Hume. He was infamous for not believing in the afterlife, and dozens of Christians tried to convert him on belief that everyone is afraid of death.

As the story goes, a group of women came to him to convert him, and instead he distracted them with funny jokes and lighthearted wit. Later that day, he died.

Maybe it's true, the reason Christians hate atheists is because we can be okay with not existing, and they can't. We are stronger.

File: 1432659893241.png (1MB, 1096x731px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1096x731px

>>564138
>quoting Cunt Hovind
Look kids, a retard!

File: holy lol.png (1MB, 912x905px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 912x905px

>>563624
>Believing in an ancient man-made concept so much that you actually think you'll suffer for eternity if you don't believe in ONE certain ancient man-made concept out of the hundreds of ancient man-made concepts

>>564767
>You're beyond good and evil but you don't degenerate into hedonism.

Why would you have to degenerate into hedonism? Assuming you value yourself, you have a good reason to not degenerate into hedonism. The self can easily take the place of God.