As far as theism vs. atheism goes, let's consider the possibilities if you are a relatively good person.
God is benevolent: If God is benevolent he will not doom atheists, who have very real qualms about God's existence. A benevolent being would not doom another in its own image to suffer an eternity for having high standards for empirical proof.
God does not exist: In which case billions of theists are making asses out of themselves for absolutely no reason. It's a big waste for theists, but atheists have wasted none of their time in worship, etc.
God is malevolent: If a God is cruel and unreasonable then there is no reason to worship it- if I knew that God existed and was a malicious psychopath (i.e. Old Testament), and I also knew what sect of what religion God wanted everyone to join, I would still be hesitant to worship a being I know is fundamentally evil. Even if you are a theist, it is statistically unlikely that you chose the right religion to be rewarded by a malicious God, and why the fuck would you even worship someone who is a colossal asshole? To do so would be evidence that theists are lacking in principle, to worship a consciousness you know is evil for your own benefit is cowardly.
Either theists are ignorant of the potential outcomes, cowards who worship a being they assume is evil, or wasting their time worshiping a God who is going to accept them into heaven regardless.
Even if God didn't exist that still wouldn't be a good enough reason to disbelieve.
>Even if God didn't exist that still wouldn't be a good enough reason to disbelieve.
>if things are shown to not exist, you should still believe that they do
Religions are all just sets of practices all with the end goal of becoming close to God, or the Gods. There is no "right" religion. No magical man in the sky is going to send you to hell for being muslim instead of jewish. Additionally, most religions view God as the ultimate good, therefore to turn your back on God is to turn your back on everything good. An atheist, who does not believe there is a magic bearded man in the clouds has not necessarily rejected God.
Both sides take things like the Bible far too literally.
Pretty sure theists took their religions literally for the majority of human history, the non-literal interpretations are, for the most part, a recent phenomena.
The only reason you would need to be "close to God" is if God is a fucking asshole who will send you to hell if you aren't "close" to him.
It's like saying if "Justice" was found not to actually exist you should stop believe in it and pursuing it.
Why? Who cares?
It's worth believing in anyway.
Justice, in a literal sense, does not exist.
It is intangible, it does not exist.
A theory of justice can be rational and logically consistent (doesn't contradict itself), but a theory of justice can not be objectively good, unless you believe in some bullshit metaphysical theistic theory like platonism.
>God is benevolent: If God is benevolent he will not doom atheists, who have very real qualms about God's existence. A benevolent being would not doom another in its own image to suffer an eternity for having high standards for empirical proof.
Wrong. As is mentioned in many places in Scripture. IF you hear the word of God and refuse you are without excuse. Notice has been given and time has been given for you to act. Secondly the demand for high standards of "empirical proof" is a flawed excuse to try and absolve oneself of the initial problem of stubborn refusal to act.
Thirdly the parable of Lazarus demonstrates the peril of "empirical proof" further the story of Thomas gently reminds reader that it is those who believe without "seeing" that are blessed.
>If God doesnt let me into heaven because of my reasoning then he's a faggot
You are without excuse. Notice has been given. Time is ticking. Make your choice.
As soon as I finished this post I thought about another thing I wanted to say.
Heaven and hell are commonly thought of as places, final destinations that are physical and real. This is not the case. Heaven and hell are states of being. One who dies and "goes to heaven" has taken the necessary steps in his mortal life to unite with God in the afterlife. Conversely, one who dies and "goes to hell" has rejected God in their mortal life and will not be united with God in the afterlife, which is suffering.
When certain religions say x action will send you to Hell, they are merely making suggestions, their authority is no higher than that of any other man. Ultimately, they are mortal, and if you think what they believe in is correct and will get you closer to God, that is fine. But to say any religion is the absolute law of the land is foolish. Laws are made by men.
Let's take Christianity for example. People follow Christianity because they believe that Jesus Christ's teachings are the way to unite with God. This is no different from, say, Muslims. They all got their ideas from somewhere, but they also all got their ideas from man and man alone. So no, it is not unreasonable to believe that a man-like figure did NOT create the world, but this is not a reason to condemn all religion. Religion's ultimate goal is to unite with something higher, a greater power, God. And to apply qualities that are distinctly HUMAN like benevolent or malevolent to such a being beyond our comprehension isn't right. It is why worshiping God is different from worshiping a king.
>Justice, in a literal sense, does not exist.
Yet, we still believe in Justice and the search for it. Same goes for God.
>mfw even if God didn't exist he would still be Real and all-powerful
>Wrong. As is mentioned in many places in Scripture. IF you hear the word of God and refuse you are without excuse.
You and I have no empirical evidence that proves that one brand of theism is more valid than another, all the evidence is taken on faith which is not a reliable process for reaching the truth.
>Notice has been given and time has been given for you to act. Secondly the demand for high standards of "empirical proof" is a flawed excuse to try and absolve oneself of the initial problem of stubborn refusal to act.
You are telling me that if I don't lower my standards for an all-powerful God, that God will send me to hell, and this is somehow benevolent? No, making people suffer for an eternity because they have high standards for proof and view the idea of a deity as logically contradictory is not benevolent- you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
>You are without excuse. Notice has been given. Time is ticking. Make your choice.
You are actually assuming that god is not benevolent, ergo you are a coward if you worship said God.
God is claimed to exist in a tangible sense, by creating the Earth/being a personal God we should be able to detect his presence.
If God is only an intangible metaphor then there's no reason to worship God. Justice is a concept that is applied, God should not be both merely a concept and worshipped.
Is this some bullshit about God existing outside the universe?
If something exists "outside the universe" that is the definition of nonexistence- it has no matter or energy in this universe therefore it does not exist in this universe nor can it influence this universe.
>God is claimed to exist in a tangible sense
No, God is immaterial and transcends existence.
Yes, they did. I don't think that was correct.
Also, that is not the reason to be close to God. You are thinking of God as a man. A king. A dictator. God is not any of those things. He is something entirely different, something you cannot give human qualities. The reason to become close to God is to become something greater than yourself, to perhaps even become God yourself.You are better off thinking of God as more of a thing, rather than a person. A state of being.
Most people have probably heard of nirvana. This could be interpreted as being "close to God", yet Buddhism does not have a traditional "god-like" figure. It's simply because different religions have different ways of interpreting it, but you could say that both the teachings of Jesus and Buddha were valuable and worth learning.
You can't transcend existence and still have tangible effects on our universe.
>something you cannot give human qualities
Not true, if a being is perfect and the height of morality we can assume said being is benevolent without understanding it entirely
>The reason to become close to God is to become something greater than yourself
Worshiping a being that is only necessary to worship if it is malevolent makes you greater than yourself?
>but you could say that both the teachings of Jesus and Buddha were valuable and worth learning.
Wow, people with empathy come to similar conclusions? I guess God really has to exist in that case!
>the hypocrites and pharisees of /pol/ argue with atheists
God is real, as proven by the holy kabbalah.
However, almost all the "religions" based on God are run and followed by people whose delusional fanaticism, faith, belief, and sexual fetishism has taken over their life. "They have a disease of the mind" - Surah 2 of the Quran, describing believers as opposed to knowers
>You can't transcend existence and still have tangible effects on our universe.
He can by definition of omnipotence.
Unfalsifiable just means it's unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean fallacious or incoherent.
The God that we are called to does not as you imply have low standards of proof. For he sees and knows all.
You may think you can hide behind your reasonable reasoning on the day of judgement but everything you have done will be on display for Him to judge. What need does he have for standards of proof? He sees and reads all searches the hearts and minds for their true intent. A human judge can be lied to and so human justice is imperfect. But how do you lie to a judge who knows all?
But I digress had you considered the Parable of Lazarus you would know that the rich man begged the Patriarch Abraham to send Lazarus back to his still alive brothers as a warning to repent. As he claimed that would surely convince them. Abraham simply replies "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead"
The point isnt that there is a hell and heaven the point is that the Scriptures are your notice. If you are too stubborn to consider them then that is it. It does not mean that God will not reveal himself ever just as a person owing someone money may receive more notices after the final letter of demand so too can someone experience more revelations from God.
Your implications through logic are vexatious they are not as you claim to be "reasonable". You can grumble about it all you want, but in law those who do not pay heed when notice has already been given are without excuse. As is the saying ignorance is not an excuse.
Of course it's vague, but the fact that it does does not serve me in any way. I am not trying to prove to you the existence of God, just as I wouldn't try to prove to you the existence of something like happiness, or sorrow, or anger. I am just trying to describe to you how I understand it. And as I understand it, God is not a man in the sky that dictates everything that happens, and I think believing such a thing is stupid.
All I am saying is that you could equate God to Nirvana. Buddhism has its laws and guidelines to achieving Nirvana, just as Christianity has its. The way I see it, religion is similar to philosophy in the way that it is applied philosophy with the point of achieving a higher state of being.
I would also say that parts of religion that explain how the physical world came to be and why things happen can usually be discarded as we go along and learn more about the physical world. They were just a way of explaining the unexplainable. Today more things are explainable.
You can not be all-powerful if you have no matter or energy, you just don't exist. You can't exist "outside the universe", prove me wrong.
>Unfalsifiable just means it's unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean fallacious or incoherent.
You have an undetectable unicorn fucking you in the ass with its undetectable dick- prove me wrong.
>What need does he have for standards of proof?
If God wants anyone rational to worship his particular brand of theism, he should provide empirical evidence for his existence.
If he wants people to worship him in spite of logic and evidence, and will punish them if they don't, then he is malevolent and not worthy of worship.
>The point isnt that there is a hell and heaven the point is that the Scriptures are your notice.
No proof they're any more valid than Norse mythology.
>As is the saying ignorance is not an excuse.
If God actually believes that he is malevolent, because that means he has sent infants to hell.
>Unfalsifiable just means it's unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean fallacious or incoherent.
No, it's much worse. It means there's no way to distinguish its veracity from its falsity. It is therefore a completely meaningless statement that can be discarded without any thought whatsoever.
>just as I wouldn't try to prove to you the existence of something like happiness, or sorrow, or anger
Except all of those are concepts that define very real biological experiences
>The way I see it, religion is similar to philosophy in the way that it is applied philosophy with the point of achieving a higher state of being.
Except philosophy has to be logically consistent and conform to empirical evidence. You can't form a philosophy about getting undetectable unicorns sent by the devil to stop fucking you in the ass so you can be happy, that's more of a religion.
So you think God is 100% dark matter?
>Dark matter is a kind of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for gravitational effects that appear to be the result of invisible mass.
So God is going to send you to hell by controlling gravity?
What i mean is, all the prophets so far have been human. All the beliefs are centered on the fate of humanity. Jesus Christ came to Earth in human form, supposedly. What if there is other intelligent life out there?
And please don't give me Ken Ham's explanation. The guy is a certified moron.
How are the scriptures my notice? There are hundreds of varying holy books across the world. How do I choose the right one? Which ones are lies falsified by humans and which ones are divinely inspired? Which has the most evidence? I would like to believe in God, but in which God should I believe in, and how should I worship him?
If you can provide me a logically consistent, convincing answer to favor one religion over hundreds of others, then I will believe.
> God is benevolent: If God is benevolent he will not doom atheists, who have very real qualms about God's existence. A benevolent being would not doom another in its own image to suffer an eternity for having high standards for empirical proof.
> very real qualms
> implying that your qualms are not your perspective
Sorry bro, but you are going to answer for your sins. "I didn't know" isn't excuse.
>rational to worship his particular brand of theism
Stop hiding behind buzzwords. You can argue your belief in standards of proof all you want but notice has been given you have been warned.
>in spite of logic and evidence
Then you have appalling low standards of proof yourself.
>Worshiping a being that is only necessary to worship if it is malevolent makes you greater than yourself?
Again, this is applying human actions to something not human. An entity that is not human would not physically condemn non-believers to hell, therefore, that entity is not malevolent by your definition. The human taking the action of turning his back on everything good (God) would be the action that causes pain and suffering, and is solely the fault of the human. Additionally, the act of worshiping is an element of religion. If a man believes worshiping a person or an idol will get him closer to God, he will do it and tell other people to do it as well. It is an invention of man. Buddhists (some might, don't know entirely) do not worship Buddha as a God but their end goal (Nirvana) is similar to that of Christianity's (heaven).
>Not true, if a being is perfect and the height of morality we can assume said being is benevolent without understanding it entirely
To be honest, I don't know what you mean by this. We don't know either. But benevolence is a quality that a PERSON has. I was saying being one with God is a state of being. We can associate that state of being with benevolence, but their is no actual person to apply the quality of benevolence to.
>Wow, people with empathy come to similar conclusions? I guess God really has to exist in that case!
You're right. Everything good has to exist if there are people who embody it.
>You can not be all-powerful if you have no matter or energy, you just don't exist. You can't exist "outside the universe", prove me wrong.
Being unconditioned and unlimited by matter and space gives you infinite degrees of freedom.
>It means there's no way to distinguish its veracity from its falsity.
No it has nothing to do with truth.
It simply means it's unfalsifiable.
>. It is therefore a completely meaningless statement
No it has nothing to do with meaning or coherence. You can have perfectly coherent yet unfalsifiable claims.
>Sorry bro, but you are going to answer for your sins. "I didn't know" isn't excuse.
Nobody knows. Nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, although there are several hypotheses. The "God did it because I said so" hypothesis is not a convincing one, and if God expects me to be convinced by it he is malevolent and or a retard.
>Stop hiding behind buzzwords.
That isn't an argument
>You can argue your belief in standards of proof all you want but notice has been given you have been warned.
There's no reason your particular brand of dead kike worship is more valid than Norse mythology, at least you have yet to prove it.
>Then you have appalling low standards of proof yourself.
I don't believe in a religion which lacks logical consistency and empirical evidence, therefore I have low standards of proof? Da fuq?
Okay, but trolling aside. If the meta-verse is truly infinite then there exists a universe where a being has the power to create and interfere with other universes. Since within an infinity all possibilities must display themselves.
>If God is benevolent he will not doom atheists
Yes He will, you are freaks convincing people not to believe and leading them towards sin and immorality, precisely because He is benevolent you will not go unpunished
Good, the control device my ancestors created is working. Giving our idea to the Romans was a fantastic idea!
>Again, this is applying human actions to something not human.
Nope, this is defining the actions taken by an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient being.
>The human taking the action of turning his back on everything good (God) would be the action that causes pain and suffering, and is solely the fault of the human.
I already turned my back on the fallacious concept of a deity and I feel pretty good.
>but their end goal (Nirvana) is similar to that of Christianity's (heaven).
Are you saying no one's consciousness gets preserved in heaven after death? I agree with you entirely.
>But benevolence is a quality that a PERSON has
Benevolence is a standard we can apply to any conscious entity.
Existing outside of the universe is irrelevant. If square circles exist in universe 9929319239129395A3 that is no reason to alter our practices in this universe.
>He is benevolent you will not go unpunished
Nope, punishing someone for acting rationally would make you malicious.
This is what we do daily, we convince people that the christian religion is bad.
We have pedobear priests, we have fedorian armies, we have retards with reaction images, all of them to tell you how stupid you are for being a christian.
Also we have the most appealing of people, musicians, cool guys galore, scientists, proclaiming atheisthood.
Truly we aren't tempting you
First i am going to say it is good that you wish to consider things first before coming to a conclusion.
Second i cannot "convince" you to lean one way or another. The choice is and should be yours and that is determined by your relationship with God not by my logic or knowledge.
Thirdly scripture is notice by which Israel was supposed to teach the world the ways of the Lord. It is also notice by which Jesus Christ was to repair the relationship between Man and God. This is why it is called the Good News because it is news that salvation is at hand for those who believe and therefore avoid condemnation and damnation for those who hear and dismiss it for there is no alternative recourse to salvation if the news is rejected.
It is by prayer and by faith that you will find your path. For scripture makes it clear that it is not by one's works that one comes to God lest they boast that they came to God through their own works.
>love your neighbors, be good and peaceful
>help the poor and sick
>be less materialistic and greedy
>God loves u
yes what awful ideas to spread! truly degenerate!
The second Genesis story raised a big red flag for me. True, the serpent did tempt Eve to disobey God, but isn't it strange that the fruit God didn't want Adam & Eve to eat was the "fruit of knowledge?"
In other words, ignorance is bliss. Don't question anything or you will be cast out of your lovely garden of ignorance.
>If you don't accept my brand of theism that completely lacks empirical evidence and is not logically consistent you are an asshole who should suffer for an eternity
You are a fucking idiot.
>The choice is and should be yours and that is determined by your relationship with God not by my logic or knowledge.
So you basically just said "Lol you just have to know I'm right, I don't have any actual arguments to support my beliefs :)"
>Thirdly scripture is notice by which Israel was supposed to teach the world the ways of the Lord.
Why is Israel's notice more valid than Norse mythology or South American polytheism in 4th century?
>It is by prayer and by faith that you will find your path.
Faith is an unreliable process for reaching the truth.
>a demonic conspiracy is the only possible explanation for people criticising my beliefs. The massive contradictions between them and reality couldn't possibly have anything to do with it
>but isn't it strange that the fruit God didn't want Adam & Eve to eat was the "fruit of knowledge?"
The point was that bad things happen when people begin to decide what is right vs wrong, instead of following God.
It's a slippery slope.
Because only in the bible do you find ideas like that.
Besides which, how many of you judge others when you were told by the supposed SON OF GOD not to, that it was his dad's job?
Your Bible tells you that if you spout stuff that is completely inconsistent with reality, people don't believe you? What a revelation. Truly, it must be divinely inspired. I could never figure that one outon my own
>>Suffer no witch to live
Christians don't need to follow the old testament rules, like "eye for an eye" or circumcision or killing sorcerers.
Guess we better shut down science, then. No need for that when we have God for our every answer.
>Why God dunnit
>He works in mysterious ways
Very satisfying answers.
>Christians don't need to follow the old testament rules, like "eye for an eye" or circumcision or killing sorcerers.
Why not, didn't Jesus say he came to fulfill whatever bullshit the Old Testament said, not change it?
But it is written somewhere in the book, little does it matter that christians only have to follow some commandments and ignore the rest, if it is written it counts because atheists have brain problems!
When did Jesus call for genocides? Citation?
>Because only in the bible do you find ideas like that.
Good ideas are good ideas.
>, how many of you judge others when you were told by the supposed SON OF GOD not to, that it was his dad's job?
People make mistakes, it's not surprising.
How to be an atheist:
Instruction manual edition, explaining the atheist way
1. This is an introductory text detailing the story of the product.
2. This is an informative text that deals with old models of your item, not with the one you have, so you can get an idea of how it progressed.
3. These are tech specs for every model in existence.
4. Finally here are the instructions for the model you have.
How does an atheist interpret this text?
Ignore 4, apply the rest
Jesus clearly "fulfilled" (abrogated) the old Laws when he said
>"You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Eye for an Eye and Tooth for Tooth are old laws of justice, equalization; he replaced them with mercy (do not resist an evil person, turn the cheek). Clearly the old laws are being changed in some manner.
>in spite of logic and evidence
Logic does not discount God and scientific evidence has barely scratched the surface of what is the universe.
By those two pieces of "evidence" you have dismissed our claims. By logic I claim that it is reasonable to believe in God. By evidence I suggest that the universe has not formed in a way that science has satisfactorily explained. Further I suggest that by evidence a created universe is no more invalid than one defined under the standard models what we posit is a philosophical meta question that cannot be answered directly by mechanical science or at least requires a standard of understanding of the universe. To date this has not been obtained.
As such your standards of proof are based on shaky evidence. That is not to dismiss science's progress as being insubstantial but to construct an alternate narrative with the absence of God requires as high a standard of proof as a model that stipulates the universe was created by God.
>Why don't they? It's just as much a part of their scripture as the New Testament. How do you decide what parts don't need to be followed anymore?
By reading the New Testament and understanding Jesus' message.
The Old Testament had dozens of rules about court orders, how to handle theft, fines to pay, who pays who etc...Jesus said "if someone steals your shirt, give him your coat as well"
Which threw out a lot of the judicial laws out the window right there.
The OT had a ton of rules about the sabbath and strictly obeying it. Jesus broke that rule right away and pissed of some Rabbis, then he yelled at them saying "the sabbath is made for Man, not Man for the sabbath"
So you begin to notice a pattern...he's making some changes here. Also you have to read the books of the OT in context. Exodus was God's revelation to the Jews in particular time, in a particular situation...
Jesus presented commandments that were universal to all people, anyone can follow "love thy neighbor" and "turn the cheek" and the golden rule...
>By logic I claim that it is reasonable to believe in God. By evidence I suggest that the universe has not formed in a way that science has satisfactorily explained.
So basically, your 'evidence' for your claim is ignorance. It's the old 'we don't know, therefore goddidt'
Well if God is the first creator all things stem from God.
If God is perfect and Man is corrupted, Man could not truly know God. Any of God's actions would appear mysterious to Man since they are unknowable, hence, God's ways are mysterious.
>scientific evidence has barely scratched the surface of what is the universe.
>Logic does not discount God
Logically contradictory beings like square circles can not exist. If god is all-powerful that means he is not all-knowing, because if you know what you are going to do next you can not change it. Therefore God is logically contradictory.
> By logic I claim that it is reasonable to believe in God.
It's reasonable that God can have always existed, but not the universe? Seems legit
>As such your standards of proof are based on shaky evidence.
An all-powerful being should be able to meet high standards of proof. Inb4 muh free will faggotry
>but to construct an alternate narrative with the absence of God requires as high a standard of proof as a model that stipulates the universe was created by God.
>To discard my unproven assertions that are do not represent a logical necessity you must have evidence
>Any unproven assertion must be disproved with evidence
In that case, prove to me an undetectable monkey isn't shitting on your keyboard with its undetectable shit
I didnt say I am right I said you are to find out for yourself.
>Why is Israel's superior to Norse or South American?
That's as much a subjective as it is an objective question. Due to your inclination to so called "objective" evidence one can only say this. The Israeli narrative has survived for thousands of years there are verifiable locations of archaeology, the narrative is consistent differences in minor details are expected for something so old, the commentary and theology survives, there is robust debate about the theology, there are principles that are unique to the Christian narrative that to this day are still relevant and indeed may provide light to what needs to be done to address modern social issues.
>faith is unreliable process of obtaining the truth
But it does obtain the truth.
No, I'm saying if your idea of ethics is that it is objectively good because a Creator gave you said theory of ethics, science/scientists would dispute the validity of your theory.
Ethics/morality are not based off of any objective good, unless you are one of those retarded platonists that actually believes apples are trying to reach the higher form of apples.
A theory of ethics can be logically consistent and compelling, but no one theory is objectively better, however, one can logically/rationally be superior to another.
>I didnt say I am right I said you are to find out for yourself.
If you didn't assume you were right you wouldn't believe what you do. Derp.
>The Israeli narrative has survived for thousands of years there are verifiable locations of archaeology, the narrative is consistent differences in minor details are expected for something so old, the commentary and theology survives, there is robust debate about the theology, there are principles that are unique to the Christian narrative that to this day are still relevant and indeed may provide light to what needs to be done to address modern social issues.
This is just an elaborate appeal to population and authority.
>But it does obtain the truth.
You assert that, but you have no proof.
You missed one (well, many more than one, but here's the one that was first when reading your idiocy):
God went insane from being alone in the universe, developed multiple personalities (us) and you're only damned if you think you're damned - you only don't go to heaven if you think there is no heaven or that you are unworthy of it, etc. The fact of the matter is people all have different concepts of heaven (in fact, you probably know people that you know to have conceptions of heaven that conflict with your own while precluding the possibility of not getting in together or having some "fake" copy of the other person in your own if you make it in and the same for them). The most obvious solution to this problem (assuming a batshit insane God that is so utterly nuts he is us) is that we are living our own heaven/hell with competing conceptions thereof from the mulitple personalities (people) in it - there is no death if you think there is no death, only reincarnation or perhaps given our current level of technology even immortality if you work for it hard enough to make yourself and enough others believe it.
TL;DR: Good and evil aren't things you can attribute to God - drop the fedora because there is literally no waste of time greater than refuting your own existence.
>Any unproven assertion must be disproved with evidence
To have a good discussion. You would propose an alternative model to that which is being put forward. It is one thing to dismantle the religious model but it is another to assert the scientific model is correct.
In order for the scientific model to be demonstrated to be correct it needs to put forth an explanation justified by evidence meeting the same standards of proof as the religious model to demonstrate its validity.
In other words even though you have dismantled the Christian narrative ( which you havent but easily can if you did have the evidence that is ) then you have not demonstrated that natural science is the correct interpretation of the universe.
Nice argument, but you imply that being doomed/saved is based on an Universal Judgement and not a Particular Judgement. The poit is that in most brands on Christianity is not God that refutes salvation, but is that the one may refute such offer out of pride, spite, etc...
Also you imply that being a theist has no positive effect in your everyday life, wich is arguably wrong.
>science/scientists would dispute the validity of your theory.
They can't dispute it one way or another because its unfalsifiable. They have no tools to make a decision regarding the claim.
>You would propose an alternative model to that which is being put forward.
Science is incomplete, and so far, everything we have found in reality had a naturalistic explanation. Until we find evidence for something, we're not rationally justified in believing it to be true
There. How's that?
You know when you study Greek/Roman/Norse mythology in school and you get some moral message from them and still accept that those stories are not real? Why can't you just do that for all religions?
If you take it that way. All cultures experiencing some part of divinity relate it with their culture and history. Even if all interpretations are skewed from the truth that dœs not affect the objective truth of God.
I have seen and touched evidence in the form of diabolical manifestations.
Claims that I have a psychiatric disease must be accompanied by evidence in favour of psychaitry and of my case
>You can argue your belief in standards of proof all you want but notice has been given you have been warned.
We have, in law, mitigating circumstances and all that.
Stop hiding behind the letter of the Law.
This is why i dislike neo-protestantism.
>Because only in the bible do you find ideas like that.
Actually, yeah, we have stuff like the golden rule, but the christian version of it, a benevolent inversion, can't really find one, for example.
>Guess we better shut down science, then. No need for that when we have God for our every answer.
>Better shut down science, then.
>We have the Constitution to judge what is right and wrong.
But hey, we need to pull the conflict thesis somehow.
I am an atheist and as such believe that I am more enlightened, and dare I say more intelligent than theists.
And want do I do with this both innate and learned superiority?
I choose to denigrate myself on the armpit of the internet arguing with people who have beliefs that force me to label them as subhuman, squandering any advantage that my awesomeness may provide me.
Oh, also I am euphoric.
Well, there you go gents, when the ones that have to provide evidence is them, they resort to labeling you, without evidence, of mental illness, what more evidence do you need that something fishy is going on?
Of course they will deny it, it is on their best interest
Everything can be observed and there is nothing inmaterial, have atheists said thousands of time, but the case of a person that has seen evidence of diabolic manifestations, requires that person to prove it or they have an inmaterial disease.
How much more people do you need lying to you straight to the face, spitting you, hating you, to notice that something's not right?
I don't care wether or not there is a god.
I'm not going to live my life by some stupid rules, I'm here to have fun, and that's what I'm going to do.
Just as any laws, judging by morals is better.
I don't believe that's a real word. Also psychiatric conditions are pretty much real. And I believe that a guy that was actually possessed wouldn't go around on an image board for Japanese cartoons bragging about it.
>Relatively minimal shitflinging
>Actually debating the issue like intelligent adults
>It's a religion thread
Oh yeah, the evidence must be about my case, I don't care, obviously, for strange cases of neurological diseases that don't apply to me, as you are trying to save your ass by now
Which ones do you want evidence for? There are tons and tons of papers on most every kind of psychiatric disorders, but you don't have time to read any or search for any and so providing evidence will not do.
you can get to any proper citation from there, enjoy your reading champ.
I certainly don't have to prove it.
I see you don't have evidence, and that you lost the argument, yet want to stay here to make people suspicious because you're retarded or somehting
You don't have to prove the exceptional claim of supernatural manifestations but we have to prove the mundane claim of you being a lunatic? Now I know how American atheits feel when discussing with babtists and other crazy Protestants.
>You don't have to prove the exceptional claim of supernatural manifestations
No, I don't have to prove internal things I feel as it is not falsifiable. Nor does anybody who goes to the doctor have to prove the doctor that it fucking hurts.
You however, have to prove a claim that I have x or y mental illness, as it is falsifiable.
>go to a doctor
I did, he refuses to test me as I require (with evidence) and pretends I have some disease he never checked for in the first place.
That hardly qualifies as evidence
No, I think you're full of shit.
But you just said that whatever this manifestation is cannot be falsified. Now anything that happens in the phisical world can be observed by an outside observer, therefore whatever a thing happens in the physical world or not is a falsifiable statement. Therefore either your demonic possession is falsifiable or you are a retard.
But you said it happened "inside your body" and I doubt your body is of the metaphysical variety. And if the manifestation could be percieved by your body, it has to leave some kind of trace that can be experienced, therefore it's falsifiable.
>Wich is pretty much the definition of exceptional
No, we are all supposed to have one, pretty ordinary.
No, it must leave some kind of trace, exceptional trace, as schizoprhenia is an exceptional claim regarding very exceptional behaviour of the mind
>No, we are all supposed to have one, pretty ordinary.
key word being one
>No, it must leave some kind of trace, exceptional trace, as schizoprhenia is an exceptional claim regarding very exceptional behaviour of the mind
Your replies here are pretty exceptional
>key word being one
Why, have you found this one's pressence?
>Your replies here are pretty exceptional
They don't constitute evidence, however.
Beliefs aren't diseases, behaviours aren't diseases, organic alterations are.
So we would have no evidence of nothing, a miriad of mental illness claimers and very few claimers of demonic posession.
What would happen?
Let's review my belief's scriptures:
The majority of the world is in the hands of the devil and they do his will.
>Books don't count
Because a God would leave instructions to sheperds on a Blu-Ray or Laser Disc