>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
>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
>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?
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
>>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.
>>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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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
>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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
>>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
>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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?
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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?
>>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)
>>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 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/
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.