Why should I believe in God?
Should I just have faith or do I need to be convinced by the arguments of Descartes and Aquinas?
>>1041522
You should just have faith. No point in anything otherwise. Besides, all arguments are insufficient, as God cannot be "proven" rationally.
t. le existential Dane
according to christians?
fear of hell is a good reason
>>1041522
I'll prove it.
Have a look at history: christians were persecuted in Rome, but strangely enough it was alleged "devil" worshippers the ones persecuted in witch hunts and so on, and in the modern age we have "insane" people.
I'm sure you have noticed now that jesus is the antichrist and you shouldn't trust the bible a single bit, and you should hate your enemies, as most people in the world are actually devils -and this is still in the bible-, why love them? why be humble? why serve them? are you retarded?
And who told you that sex is bad if not the guy that wants to ruin mankind, the devil? Didn't GOD place lust for anal sex and a prostate in your butt? And then place a desire for it in there? Well? Isn't it HIS will then? Didn't HE made you so? How it is not HIS desire?
And notice how the faggots that pretend to be devil worshippers in here will take good care to defend that piece of shit jesus. Don't they claim to be wizards and pagans and shit? What fellowship would they have with jesus? And in a place with cp occasionally of all websites.
And you're now in kinda the good path, since God gives freedom, and you would not know the true commandments not the true name of the Christ.
Call HIM.
>>1042052
And don't use any other name that isn't GOD.
Be smart and astute, request miracles proper of a GOD.
>>1042052
>>1042058
Just be a pantheist m8
Relying on your rational faculties alone you can only get away with being a deist or pantheist. Anything more than that requires a leap of faith. Your call on whether or not that would be more fulfilling.
>>1041522
Because one day you will be here:
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
and the books of your life will be opened, and you will be judged to see if you attained Godhead.
and then this will happen:
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
>>1042052
This post gave me AIDS.
>>1046451
What archeological evidence?
Descartes was most probably atheist or at least agnostic like Hobbes was, and was scared by the Church, so he added that complete bullshit "proof of God" argument in the meditations due to that.
>>1046471
People literally read the bible and go dig up the stuff in the bible. Anything from Jericho to the Hittites to the pool of Siloam to the war cisterns of Jerusalem to the burned wreckage of Sodom and Gomorrah.
>>1046482
>The more copies of a book we have the more reliable and trustworthy that book is
Well this I guess Lenin is super reliable and trustworthy, because his works were printed in hundreds languages and in hundreds millions copies.
>>1046500
>peopel literally read spider man to uncover places in spider man, like new york
Wahtever city they find, it wouldn't prove a deity would it?
>>1046474
You mean agnostic atheist? Most atheists are agnostics.
>>1046600
Do they?
>>1041522
>year 2016 of the dead kike on a stick
>not being enlightened by your own intelligence
Come on now.
>>1046471
Moses is now confirmed fake, so at least part of the bible is just entirely fictional novels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity
Its not a history book.
"Archaeologists working at excavation sites like Megiddo in northern Israel, above, say that no evidence has been found to confirm biblical stories about a united monarchy ruling over a large area from Jerusalem or about the wanderings of the Jews in the desert during the Exodus."
>>1046658
What utter bullshit.
Go ahead and hypothesize what evidence a few million people wandering in the wilderness would leave 3500 years later.
Go ahead and imagine one single fucking thing that they would leave behind.
>>1046600
The spider man argument is honestly very stupid
Spider man isn't written with the intention to be anything more than a story.
>>1046658
Patterns of Evidence
>>1046660
Graves of their religious practice dating back to their era. Tools used by their culture.
>>1046660
"a few million people" a couple of ten thousands maybe at the most mate... seriously
>>1041522
Just believe whatever you are capable of believing in according to your intellect and temperament.
Let it be a natural discovery instead of a forced coercion.
>>1045454
>>1046466
Let's talk the bible.
>be dumb and don't test "god" heheh, you're just being "tested" instead of punished
>God gives lots of rules instead of freedom because He hates you being a homoxexual since He's the one making you a homosexual. Thus being this what HE wants and His will.
Anybody can understand this.
Easy to see: Oooooh, the devil is in the woooorld, and the devil wants to ruin mankiiiiind, so the devil forbids buttsecs and all manners of sexual and not sexual fun and makes you a slave of everybody turning you into a servant, just opposite of GOD.
Look what kind of faggot rewrote the bible.
>THIS IS DEGENERATE
Ah, you confess to hate what God wants of His humans? And that you want them bound to stupid rules that ruin lives and make life hell?
Rules you faggots don't even follow?
LOL
And my favourite: "God doesn't real"
Which translated means: Be stupid, don't start looking by yourself. Really, be stupid, can't you see how I'm laughing at you? No really, be stupid while I call you smart.
Anybody wanting to find God and the Christ should start looking from a freedom perspective, not from a slavery perspective, because if God makes a man that desires to be a woman, God wants this man to be so, and even wants this desire to come to reality because God loves humans, not demons that want to enslave you.
>>1046760
Buried in the sand. No tools were used. Food literally rained down from the sky. Nothing they owned wore out.
Now what.
>>1046474
[citation needed]
>>1046768
The men numbered over 600,000 iirc; can't remember if that was military men or just men. Either way, millions of people.
>>1046793
Go back on your meds.
>>1046793
>some people are destined to be gay at birth
I wish this meme would die.
Just because you're attracted to something doesn't mean you have to fuck it. Gay men have faked being straight and have successfully had sex with women and started families. So, even homosexuals can follow the "no gay sex" rule.
Not everyone is gonna get to marry and have sex with what they find the most attractive. I'm sorry, senpai.
>>1046848
why are you using blatant pol memes
>>1041522
Awareness of God is built into every human being. You don't need convincing, you were created that way. You just need to stop bullshiting yourself with childish atheism.
>>1046852
You got a problem with it?
>>1046821
Maybe you should start by providing a concrete example of a discovered artifact that is accurately described by a bible verse. Up until now all you've proved is that apostolic age texts and apostolic age artifacts seem to be from the same time frame.
>inb4 wishful thinking-tier wood scraps that are claimed as Noah's ark.
>>1046860
It's pretty cringy, dude. Rookie mistake.
>>1046867
I thought it was funny. Sorry to disappoint.
>>1046855
Sorry for straining your credulity, but some people really don't believe in gods. One can play this game from both sides:
>Privately, Mother Teresa experienced doubts and struggles over her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years until the end of her life, during which "she felt no presence of God whatsoever"
>>1041522
“Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths–not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.”
>>1046864
John Garstang, a British archaeologist, was then the first person starting in 1930 to lead an excavation using more modern archaeological methods. He dug at Tell es-Sultan from 1930 to 1936. The two most notable discoveries by Garstang’s team was a collapsed city wall toward the top of the mound (built on top of a wall which was built on top of the revetment wall…yes, possibly 3 different vertical walls), and evidence of a thoroughly violent destruction of the city. Garstang dated, based on pottery found at the same depth, the city was destroyed around 1400 BC. In his own words he writes:
In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative. Our demonstration is limited, however, to material observations: the walls fell, shaken apparently by earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C. These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial but it seems to be solid and without a flaw.
>>1041733
t. Pascal
>>1046852
Do you mean the picture or the post itself? Because the post is pretty spot on, speaking as a gay man myself.
>>1046899
So rocks?
>>1046881
Not really a game, I'm not here to change your opinion, I'm just stating that each man can sense the presence of God if willing. It is perfectly fine not to do it, at this point in life I'd rather die than live that sort of life without spirituality and would probably feel empty and tortured like Mother Theresa (can't really say what made her that way)
>>1046931
Each man can sense the presence of whatever he likes if he grits his teeth and wills it hard enough. I'm sorry earth doesn't have anything you're interested though.
>>1041522
>Why should I believe in God?
Well it might provide some overarching framing narrative for your sense of self-worth. So if you are desperate for meaning it might help you cope.
On the other hand it introduces nonsensical cosmology, promotes judgmental and tribal behavior, and is a gateway to harmful cults so be careful.
>>1046931
Human imagination is just for fun, it's not really "sensing the presence of God".
Daily reminder that you must repent now. Also, daily reminder that explanations without God, like the fable of evolution, have been debunked again and again.
Repent, filthy sinners, or risk burning forever
>>1046959
>>1046962
>>1046963
>>1046963
>breathable air
>>1046968
>>1046978
>>1046986
>>1046989
>>1046995
i had an "atheist" prof, im saying atheist because here dont really care what you believe in
he said ppl can consider it as a risk
as a non believer.
if theres is god and yadda yadda you will go to hell etc
if there isnt you didnt lose anything
>>1047005
>>1046925
Yes, the exact fallen walls of Jericho, burned with fire, exactly as the bible states. Except that one corner remained upright.
The corner where a certain harlot managed a brothel, and allowed two Hebrew slaves to escape. Her corner of the wall did not fall down. And she gave birth to Boaz, who sired Obed, who sired Jesse, who sired David the King.
It's all real dude. Despite your disbelief.
>>1047008
>>1047019
>>1047015
So did they find a red lantern and evidence of harlotry? Did they find some scrolls mentioning Boaz? Or did they find some rocks and ash in a city that has been inhabited non-stop for like 7000 years.
>>1047026
Get the fuck out of my thread, you dense piece shit.
>>1047041
The city was buried. The survivors built a new Jericho.
Do you see how disingenuous your request for evidence is?
>when Grandpa finds 4chan
>>1047116
tfw have grandkids
>>1047026
>Dumps shitty poorly drawn creationist comics
>Strawman argument
Are you retarded?
>>1047113
What even specifically is "childish and uneducated" about it? I don't get this specific insult. Seems kind of the wrong angle for you to take, why not go with "undignified" or some other word more aligned to the spiritual perspective?
>>1047149
How would you feel if I told you that I knew for sure that your mother and father did not exist?
>>1046474
>all smart people must be atheists like me
>>1047158
What we're saying is, it doesn't matter how we feel about it. I can demonstrate my parents to you - you can walk all the way around them in 3D and ask them questions. All you can do is attempt to assure me that your delusions have some 'real' basis.
>>1046432
How does agnostisism require a leap of faith?
How does deism and pantheism not require a leap of faith?
>>1047158
So you are saying you feel insulted when people contradict your worldview?
I'm sorry to tell you that people are going to have rational explanations for things that are going to be contrary to your overlapping spiritual terms that you have assigned onto real things. For example if I call something Imagination that you have assigned the additional spiritual category of Divinity, whose fault is it that you are upset? Is it mine for not anticipating your additional superimposed criteria, or is it yours for insisting on extra terminology? Since you are concerned with maturity and education, then why not take responsibility for the flaws in what you believe?
>>1046600
You can be true agnostic, at least, I am
>>1047185
So if I were to continually say you had no parents; that your mother and father did not exist, would you ultimately believe me?
Or would you think that my beliefs, contrary to what you knew to be the truth, were childish and immature?
>>1047186
He's only saying that you can't get all the way to Abrahamic Theism by reason alone.
IMO deism, pantheism, atheism all are least-common-denominator conclusions derived from relatively simple suppositions about the world around us.
>>1047186
Agnostic would be less than that, and require nothing but the ability to be satisfied by being ignorant and indecisive.
Deism is simple. Somebody made the universe, and it wasn't us.
Pantheism is simpler. One big God to do the big stuff like make the universe, and a bunch of other gods to handle other stuff.
>>1047192
It is my firmly held belief that you did not have a mother and a father.
>>1041522
>the arguments of Descartes
lel
>>1047207
The discussion of whether or not our parents exist doesn't end with just contradicting each other ad infinitum. I can PROVE my parents. You've already admitted that the only proof you have is your precious feelings.
>>1047207
Are you equating the reasonableness of having a biological father and mother to the reasonableness of believing in God? Categorically those two claims have different levels of falsifyability so that analogy is not as strong as I suspect you think it is.
Good smokescreen thought, like all analogies, since it redirects the discussion to a tangent issue.
>>1047222
Go ahead. Prove you have parents.
>>1047237
I'm invoking the exact same feeling that people telling Christians there is no God, or there was no Jesus, or Jesus did not rise from the dead, cause to believers.
Childish, immature denial.
>>1047215
You can be agnostic and unsatisfied
So you admit that it is a leap of faith?
>>1047208
Atheists make the same logical error that theists make, that we as humans are capable of understanding the mechanics of the universe to such a degree to make a decision one way or the other that god is or is not.
It's like arguing if we are really brains floating in a tube, there is no provable part of that statement in our current situation, so the only logical course of action is to admit lack of knowlege and wait for the event where we are in a position to make a logical conclusion.
>>1047192
>So you are saying you feel insulted when people contradict your worldview?
I think it's more taking issue with the lexicon of mocking dismissivness.
>>1047219
But I have a deep and abiding faith that I surly MUST have a father and mother, since I read a deeply moving fantasy novel once that described how wonderful and life-affirmed it would be to have a father and mother. Later I had a vivid and wonderful dream about them. Therefor I am absolutely certain beyond any rational powers of explanation that I have a father and mother.
I am absolutely livid at your childish and uneducated lies that contradicts my Truthful emotions.
>>1047207
You've already retreated from your original position (gg) of:
"there are no real atheists, just people deluding themselves" to
"people saying god doesn't exist is the same thing as me saying that another thing doesn't exist"
Which I'm glad you did do that - because plenty times in history philosophers and scientists have thrown out entire categories of science when they came up with better answers. Things that seemed very real until all of a sudden they weren't.
Phlogiston... gone.
Humours... gone.
God... next.
>>1047248
Trust me you don't want to go down this route, because you're arguing that an assertion can be proven wrong while simultaneously holding onto the untested assertion that there is a skydaddy.
>>1047252
If you are agnostic and unsatisfied, you would likely identify yourself as a "seeker" or some such nonsense.
I have to define faith first. Faith is not a religious word; it is a human ability. Specifically, it is the human ability to believe things you have not seen. Everyone has faith, in different measure, and everyone uses faith.
So by faith I know Jesus rose from the dead, even though I did not see it. By faith I know Jesus ascended into heaven, even though I did not see it.
For you, your first "leap of faith" is to admit that you really do not know anything for sure. Once you're there, you have a foundation to receive information not only from empiricism, by sight, but revealed knowledge from God through His prophets, and through His Son, by faith.
>>1047258
[citation needed]
>>1047252
That logical error applies to everything though. Every word we've invented for anything is a specifier for a specified object that we can't necessarily prove exists. Arguments for and against a god exist in the same playing field as arguments for and against a spatula in my kitchen. What we have got to realize is that the burden of proof rests on the claimant - that is - the person who claims "there is a god."
Atheists merely say "there's no good reason for that assertion so I'm going back to doing whatever else I was doing."
inb3 semantic discussion of atheism vs agnosticism, it just doesn't matter.
>>1047259
My actual position is "there are no atheists, just millions of shitty little gods running around".
Your earthly father is less real than my heavenly Father; yours depended upon mine for existence.
There is nothing unprovable about God; one day you will know, for sure, that Jesus is God. Your knee will bend, your tongue will confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And my assertion that you have no earthly parents is just as valid as you saying I have no heavenly Father.
>>1047149
>What even specifically is "childish and uneducated" about it? I don't get this specific insult. Seems kind of the wrong angle for you to take, why not go with "undignified" or some other word more aligned to the spiritual perspective?
Do you have children? It is exactly the same like when I talk to my daughters about things, they keep making silly arguments. It's not that they are stupid, they are very bright, doubt they will get much smarter in life, but they lack the experience. When you acquire life experience that is relevant to spiritual discussion it would be visible in your talk. Sorry for not continuing, due to lack of stamps one can easily derail discussion here
>>1047271
I've already made the first "leap of faith" (though I wouldn't call it that at all) logically my interpretation of my senses is imperfect and I do not grasp the whole truth or even a decently large portion of human knowledge.
Explain how the logical admittence of my own ignorance allows me to make an assumption that is not evidence based (all evidence pointing to god is strongly debated, weak evidence)
>>1047284
Back to blanket assertions of TRUF.
Dude you're an intellectual coward.
"One day you are going to stub your toe on the coffee table and realize that no divine being would put you through this much agony, and your faith will be shattered as the waves upon the rocks" - Shiggy 10:3
>>1047250
>have silly impossible worldview
>inevitably leads to contrary explanations
>"It's everyone else's fault that I'm mad! They are being so immature!"
>>1047284
Allahu akbar.
>>1047280
You can make intelligent decisions that are evidence based, not necessarily fact based. If there truly was a spatula in your kitchen, you could go there and through interpretation of sensory data and repeatable testing, conclude that there is logically a spatula in your kitchen.
Now if you walk up to me and ask me if you have a spatula in your kitchen, i've never been in your kitchen, there is no way to inspect evidence or test if you do in fact have a spatula in your kitchen. If I say anything other than "I don't know" I am making an illogical assumption or a leap of faith.
By being an athiest you are taking an illogical leap of faith that you understand the universe.
(Note repeating burden of proof wont change this fact)
>>1047288
Seems like you are projecting your parental authority complex onto an internet discussion.
>>1047290
You can begin to learn that God can, and has, and does, communicate with His creation now that you have no "knowledge" that He cannot.
>>1047303
Yes, it's my job to tell you the truth.
It is not my job to develop in you a hunger for the truth. That's on you, and you're running out of time.
>>1047305
What a bizarre summation.
>>1047335
People without children do not know anything about raising children. They just think they do. Not that you're in any danger of siring offspring, of course.
>>1047325
So you're arguing that we're "not inside the kitchen" with respect to the god question?
I think you're arguing for the possible existence of a moving-goalposts god, and no matter how much we do discover about the world you wont be ready to make a hypothesis. I agree that we know frighteningly little, but atheists primarily aren't concerned with eliminating the final gap that the god-of-the-gaps can hide in. They are more concerned with pointing out the inherent contradictions in theist's claims.
>>1047343
You are a clown doing your dance for an emotional pat on the head.
>>1047339
Assuming the "communication" does exist, there is no evidence that what I am personally recieving is anything more than emotional/psychological noise, how would I be logical in extracting "gut feelings" into a belief system?
>>1047352
What do you know about my children, I have 5 children, and they're black just so you white supremacist christcucks can die of envy
>>1047369
Calm down I wasn't talking about your race
>>1047361
Another bizarre summation.
Atheist = psychopath = devoid of empathy.
>>1047374
Dude what did you just call him? you fucking racist.
>>1047364
For one, you'd start reading it. You don't have any knowledge about it from what I can see.
There is a God; the universe God made is evidence of God. So much evidence that God considers anyone who disbelieves "without excuse".
God has reasons for creating humanity.
God communicated with humanity from time to time, mostly through His prophets, and then through His Son.
God makes covenants with people, and we're currently in the New Covenant.
And yes, God can and will communicate with you directly, if you demand it of Him. The more you want of God, the more He will give to you. There is no limit.
>>1047358
In terms of the inner mechanations of the universe and humanity in it's current state? Yes we are not "inside the kitchen".
It is an unprovable question, one way or the other, at least in the extent of my imagination, maybe one day we will recieve proof or at least strong evidence one way or the other on a higher power.
It's fine if you wish to attack organized religion logically, provided the structure is illogical (world was made 6000 years ago etc) but by claiming to be an athiest, you are making a claim on an unproveable question, and thus behaving illogically at some level.
If your purpose is to be closer to the actual truth (as I hope all thinkers are) we need to refrain from acting illogically when possible.
>>1047369
No danger at all.
>>1047398
>illogical (world was made 6000 years ago etc)
Why is this illogical?
>>1046660
Summary
The archaeological data do not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story: there is no evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.[15]
Scholars generally agree that while the exodus narrative contains late 2nd millennium elements, it has not been demonstrated that these elements could not belong to any other period and they are consistent with "knowledge that a 1st millennium BCE writer trying to set an old story in Egypt could have known."[16] A few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story, although historians of ancient Israel rarely respond.[17]
According to Exodus 12:37–38, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[19] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550 men aged 20 and up.[20] It is difficult to reconcile the idea of 600,000 Israelite fighting men with the information that the Israelites were afraid of the Philistines and Egyptians.[21] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people.[22] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[23] The entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE is estimated to have been around 3 to 3.5 million,[24][22] and no evidence has been found that Egypt ever suffered the demographic and economic catastrophe such a loss of population would represent, nor that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.[25]
>>1047391
I've read the bible, the talmud and the koran (as well as the sira and hadith)
>God made the universe, thus the universe existing is proof of god
Circular logic that doesn't actually mean anything
Everything else you say is dependant on the above being logical, which it isn't.
>>1047391
You don't even have the mental ability to posit a world in which these suppositions aren't the TRUF, do you? Because you're terrified by the alternative?
>>1047408
Reminder
Patterns of Evidence
>>1047411
>I've read the Talmud
No you didn't
>>1047408
Passover is celebrated by the Jews each and every year for the past 3500 years.
There is the Illwur Papyrus describing the plagues.
There are chariot wheels at the bottom of Alaqaba.
There is a monument on the other side of Alaqaba that Solomon erected to memorialize the Exodus.
There are slave quarters, Hebrew pottery, etc., found in the land of Goshen.
The Hyskos people just moved into Egypt and took it over right after this time, 1446 BC, without a fight.
Jericho has been found, destroyed just as the bible says.
The bible has an entire book on the Exodus.
You're basically just a Holocaust denier at this point.
>>1047403
Because our repeated testing and interpretation of sensory data of instruments informs many humans working in the field that our earth is significantly older
It MAY be only 6000 years old, but the evidence suggests otherwise, and taking a leap of faith with evidence and the scientific method is far more logical than a leap of faith by itself.
>>1047398
First, please ignore the Y.E.C.
What credence do you give the question in the first place? Do you also accept that the question of whether not Russell's Teapot exists in a "unprovable question" ?
>>1047411
I don't think you godless people have any idea what circular reasoning actually is.
God made the universe.
The universe God made is proof of God's existence.
No universe, no Creator.
Universe infers a Creator.
And you have not read the bible; that's just a lie.
>>1047413
Correct. I deal with the real world that God made, in the real universe that God made, with an eye on landing a nice spot in the next real world God will make.
I have no time for childish things.
>>1047438
>I have no time for childish things.
>4chan
See you in hell, polecat.
>>1042052
What a retarded post.
>>1047429
There is no test for age. There is no experiment to see how old the earth is. I'm afraid you've been duped into thinking that ten million years of radioactive decay takes ten million years. You've been duped into thinking there are stars ten million light years away that emitted photons you are just now seeing, ten million years later.
You are believing the lies.
>>1047435
>The universe God made is proof of God's existence.
The most tautological thing you could have posted.
Are you deliberately doing this?
At this point you would be better served by abandoning any pretense of reason and going back to the demagoguery.
>>1047431
>Ignore the truth.
>Let's talk about fake teapots instead.
>>1047444
This is not a childish thing to me; this is how I redeem these evil days.
>>1047425
>Jericho has been found, destroyed just as the bible says.
All Canaan it cities were abandoned with no evidence of destruction (most of them) or destroyed (very few) over a period of hundreds of years. The conquest of Canaan DID NOT happen. Just stop.
>You're basically just a Holocaust denier at this point.
I could prove just about anything with christian tract propoganda. The fact is that there are a lot of Jewish archaeologists that have tried to prove old testament literalism and they've managed to come up with nothing convincing.
>>1047449
"God" is the title for the being Who made the universe.
There exists a universe.
"God" made it.
>>1047457
Of course it happened.
John Garstang, a British archaeologist, was then the first person starting in 1930 to lead an excavation using more modern archaeological methods. He dug at Tell es-Sultan from 1930 to 1936. The two most notable discoveries by Garstang’s team was a collapsed city wall toward the top of the mound (built on top of a wall which was built on top of the revetment wall…yes, possibly 3 different vertical walls), and evidence of a thoroughly violent destruction of the city. Garstang dated, based on pottery found at the same depth, the city was destroyed around 1400 BC. In his own words he writes:
In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative. Our demonstration is limited, however, to material observations: the walls fell, shaken apparently by earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C. These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial but it seems to be solid and without a flaw.
Everything in the bible happened, or will happen.
>>1047418
Yes I have
>>1047431
I'm sorry i'd love to answer your question but I do not know what Y.E.C. or russels teapot is, I have not studied philosophy as much as i'd like to
>>1047435
Your reasoning implies that I must believe your first assertion for the assertion to be true
I do not know how you can be logical and consider this an acceptable line of reason.
And yes I have, it was a good read
If you feel you need a reason to believe in God, then don't. One day your life may be touched by Him/Her, or it may not ever. You will get a chance in your next body if you don't in this one.
I'd been a fairly militant Atheist for most of my adult life until I feel I found God by getting in touch with nature.
>>1047471
You can lie to the godless all you want; you read neither the bible nor the talmud, concerning yourself only with the quran.
>>1047478
It is appointed for a man once to die, and then the judgment.
There is no second chance. Nor is your current life an indicator that you will ever be perfect.
>>1047487
I am not suprised you are making illogical assumptions (that I am lying) after that line of circular reasoning you just displayed
>>1047447
>There is no test for age. There is no experiment to see how old the earth is. I'm afraid you've been duped into thinking that ten million years of radioactive decay takes ten million years. You've been duped into thinking there are stars ten million light years away that emitted photons you are just now seeing, ten million years later.
Guess I should throw out 10 years of learning how atoms work because some fundie found christian tract propoganda and believed it.
How do you honestly reconcile the fact that we've built nuclear bombs, nMRI machines (nuclear magnetic resonance), electron microscopes, drugs designed at the molecular level, microwaves, radios, televisions, cell phones, atomic clocks, GPS, DNA testing, superconductors, microprocessors etc. etc. etc.
All the things we do that require intimate knowledge of how atoms work but we just have no idea how nuclear decay (something so simple we teach it to freshman) works? Like what the fuck drugs are you on that allow such fantastic mental backflips??
I'm posting this from a phone built of tiny transistors so small we have to account for quantum mechanical bleed through of electrons, and it's going to oscillate atoms at just the right frequency to produce a short wave radio signal which will be picked up by a cell tower and transmitted via fiber optic to the fucking Internet but we don't understand basic nuclear decay? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
hahahaha
>>1047465
>Our demonstration is limited, however, to material observations: the walls fell, shaken apparently by earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C.
Dubious, but even if accepted it only proves that there was a fire and an earthquake "some time" around 1400 years ago.
>These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial
Right.
>but it seems to be solid and without a flaw.
That is to say, the things that we found don't contradict it, but we find very little to support any claims beyond "there was a fire and an earthquake"
TL;DR You don't even have the reading comprehension skills to understand your own copypasta
>>1047490
Hell is the material world; it's all around you if you just open your eyes. We are all doomed to a perpetual cycle of life and death until we fnally choose to surrender to Him/Her and ascend unto the spiritual plane/afterlife.
>>1047485
The RATE group did solid work showing accelerated nuclear decay, and used helium diffusion as a more reliable indicator. The same radioactive decay must diffuse helium at known rates; the presence of helium belies the claim that the radioactive decay is millions of years old.
In the first instant of creation, much happens that does not happen now. Massive energy is expended.
To claim that all things were as they are now is a false assumption; to claim to be able to see into the past a mere delusion.
>>1047494
We both know I am telling the truth. I doubt you can even explain the parts of the talmud, or the reasons it was written.
>>1047500
He's going to argue that we know how science works now but that we don't know how science worked THEN. It's obscene but it's coming...
>>1047500
Correct. You think you understand the creation of the universe because we have nuclear weapons.
>>1047502
And you think 1400 BC was 1400 years ago.
>>1047515
You called that impressively well
>>1047506
Hell is a lake of fire.
>>1047471
YEC is Young Earth Creationism.
Russel's Teapot is the invisible teapot floating around Mars that you can't disprove. In other words, we can dream up all sorts of un-dis-provable claims - but how much credence do we give them?
>>1047515
I don't even know what you mean.
>>1047521
I don't get the joke.
>>1047527
It's already disproven by its creator saying he made it up.
Have you zero discernment? Do you really think Russell placed a teapot in orbit?
>>1047534
>It's already disproven by its creator saying he made it up.
He might have been wrong.
>>1047541
You might be retarded.
>>1047527
If it is actually unprovable, then the only logical stance is not knowing, any other stance is a leap of faith (though some leaps of faith are more logical than others, they are all inherently illogical)
So I would say, it's possible, but I don't know.
However, I have a feeling we will be able to disprove the teapot far quicker than we can make a claim on the foundations of the universe
>>1047519
>Correct. You think you understand the creation of the universe because we have nuclear weapons.
You claimed we have no way of dating anything, which is silly, and now you're moving the goalposts. Respond to my argument or fuck off.
How is it that we can do all of those things but we can't radiometrically date things?
>>1047544
Only as retarded as christians
>>1047515
welp, guess you were right hahaha
>>1046848
>No, what God wants is the opposite of what God wants.
No, God clearly made that guy desire dicks.
As nothing escapes God's control, since He is omnipotent and there's no free will that escapes omnipotence.
>No I define what's good and evil, says so in the bible
Oh?¨Do a miracle.
>>1047545
Well the 'god claim' is tied up in the circular reasoning of defining god as "that guy who made the universe" unfortunately, but if we extend the definition of the teapot to be "the invisible teapot that holds the solar system together"...
... do you think that helps the argument for the teapot? the solar system is still here, after all...
>>1047566
With that logic God is the only reason anyone does anything, and he approves of everything done.
>Being poor and a slave to everybody and a pussy that let's himself being slapped in the face without any defense is being good?
Good things are desirable things, being fucked over is not desirable and thus not good.
See heaven and eternal life and joy? Men desire to be happy forever, so that's a good thing.
See being burnt alive in torutre? Men don't desire that so it's a bad thing.
See pleasure? Men desire it so it's a good thing.
See Pain? Men don't desire it so it's a bad thing.
Ta-DA! Good and evil.
See being fucking in the butt by a dog? Some women desire it, so it is a GOOD thing.
See being fooled by a demon like you who wants to define what's good and evil and take away our freedom and fuck us over?
That's a bad thing, we don't want it.
Good and evil, as I said.
>>1047573
Yes retard, you are nothing, absolutely nothing, you don't even exist without God.
>>1047569
Because the teapot is unproveable with our current ability, claiming different properties on the teapot doesn't stregthen or weaken any "case" for it, it simply is unproveable.
We will be able to study mars before we understand the entire universe, that is the only thing I meant when I said we will discover the truth about it first.
>>1047546
We have no way of dating things, despite our understanding of achieving critical mass.
What you said is irrelevant, and was akin to "we can make nukes; we know everything".
It's preposterous.
>>1047548
Oh my no. Actual retarded, not just slandered by satan's spawns retarded.
>>1047515
>He's going to argue that we know how science works now but that we don't know how science worked THEN. It's obscene but it's coming
I mean, it's a good enough idea that physicists have considered it (that perhaps physical law has some time dependent aspect ie it changes over time). There are 2 ways to test it: extremely precise measurements in a lab, or less precise measurements of a "natural" lab - that is - looking at very old objects in space and seeing how they behave. We've found zero evidence that physical law changes over time. If it did it's extraordinarily minute - we've ruled out anything else.
>You think you understand the creation of the universe because we have nuclear weapons.
I mean, you have to go earlier than 0.0000000000001 seconds before our knowledge of physical law breaks down but we don't understand it exactly. We're still miles farther than you could ever even conceive of though.
>In the first instant of creation, much happens that does not happen now. Massive energy is expended.
That's the entire reason we build colliders, kid. To test those energy levels.
>>1047595
>We have no way of dating things, despite our understanding of achieving critical mass.
>What you said is irrelevant, and was akin to "we can make nukes; we know everything".
What I did was give concrete examples of things that require more knowledge of atoms than radiometric dating does but that - despite your ignorance - you would have had to encounter because they are so common. I know that these things require more knowledge of the atom than radiometric dating requires because I have multiple physics degrees. You don't and so in your ignorance persist with the idea that we don't know how to radiometrically date things - a claim which is patently absurd.
>>1047582
I'm impressed by your commitment to agnosticism but I think deep down you really have a belief about whether the tea pot exists. you're ateapotist.
;D
This thought experiment is why agnostics say that atheists are overconfident, and atheists say that agnostics are wishy-washy. Naturally and in spite of ourselves, we give no credence to outrageous claims, and both the teapot and skydaddy are outrageous claims.
If you lack the stomach for faith drop religion all together, it's meaningless otherwise. Kierkegaard himself explained that if you either become Christian for moral reasons or personal ambition you fail the whole thing.
>>1047610
It's depressing that scientists' humble "we know so little" claim gets co-opted and abused by the intelligent design crowd.
>>1047649
>It's depressing that scientists' humble "we know so little" claim gets co-opted and abused by the intelligent design crowd.
It is a shame, and it bugs the ever loving shit out of me t b h. When we say "we don't know" it usually means we could full half a dozen volumes on the topic.
>>1047633
Feel free to believe what you will, but to me anything unproveable is possible (we could be in a matrix).
I wouldn't claim you are overconfident, just illogical.
>>1047630
And you completely and utterly failed to show how the assumptions necessary for radiometric dating are solid science.
Because they're not.
>>1047649
It's hypocritical.
And compared to God, mankind collectively knows nothing.
>>1046848
If you're gay then fucking women won't make you straight. A gay is a gay. People are born gay.
Also posting /pol/ memes is embarassing.
>>1047670
There's logic and then there's credulity. I think we both agree that neither of us would base any decision-making in our lives on the possibility of 'unprovables'...
But more than that, I don't want to be the kind of person that admit the possibility, however remote, of 'unprovables' like invisible teapots, incorporeal unicorns, and so on, and so on. Especially when WE KNOW that I just made those categories up.
>>1047684
(You)'re precious.
>>1047690
>People are born gay.
There's not enough evidence supporting this.
Also, I didn't say fucking women will make a gay person straight, I just said that they'll have to settle for it, just like a fat guy who is attracted to skinny women will sometimes have to settle for fat women.
>>1047682
>And you completely and utterly failed to show how the assumptions necessary for radiometric dating are solid science.
>Because they're not.
How am I supposed to do that? You won't take anyone else's word for it but you won't bother to learn about it for yourself.
If you won't actually study it in a university and learn that it HAS to work then I can do nothing for you.
I could lay out a 10 page max post on how and why it works and you would just dismiss me as wrong - that's literally what you're doing to every other scientist in the world.
All I can do is point out how absurd it is that we can create devices you use every day that require much more technical knowledge of how atoms work but you merely dismiss it out of hand because you're not smart enough or educated enough to refute my argument.
It honestly feels like I'm arguing with an ant at this point.
>>1047701
I was bought with the lifeblood of the Son of God Himself.
Bet your ass I'm precious.
Who bought you, and how much did the devil pay?
>>1047697
>we don't need to base our decision making on unprovable things
Sure, no need to worry yourself over claims that cannot be asserted one way or the other. As an Agnostic I allow myself not to know something, and that's ok.
No matter how ridiculous something is, if it is unproveable, it remains unproveable.
>>1047716
Yes.
It's absurd to say that any man can know the starting conditions of the universe.
It's absurd to assume that everything was as it is now.
It's absurd to assume that nothing contaminates anything.
It's absurd to assume that 10 men with 10 samples and 10 machines that all come up with reasonably close answers somehow represents the truth of the matter, denying any systemic error.
It's not scientists looking at the Big Bang; it's Scientismists.
Proper science is observation, experimentation, repeatability.
None of which you have when you look backwards in time.
>>1047724
bought with blood? what is this nonsense? I'm sorry you were bought by anyone; trafficking in persons is a serious crime and I'l help you any way I can.
>>1047732
Yes, the things of God are nonsense to the godless.
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
>>1047690
It's a demon trying to define what's good and evil.
And good things are easy to recognize because you want them, so are evil things.
Do you really thing being hapless against your enemies is a good thing?
Or being kind to them against your will of all things?
Or even love them?
Doesn't it sound like an abomination proper of a demon that makes you act against your very nature?
Think about it, what is an abomination if not an abberation against your very nature?
Do you really have it in you to lick the butt of the guy who wants to kill you instead of disposing of him in any way? And give him your money? And being kind to him?
>>1047738
>90 AD
>Anonymous Author
next you'll tell me that following moses' or even noah's laws isn't important to salvation. XDDD
>>1047731
>Yes.
>It's absurd to say that any man can know the starting conditions of the universe.
>It's absurd to assume that everything was as it is now.
>It's absurd to assume that nothing contaminates anything.
>It's absurd to assume that 10 men with 10 samples and 10 machines that all come up with reasonably close answers somehow represents the truth of the matter, denying any systemic error.
>It's not scientists looking at the Big Bang; it's Scientismists.
>Proper science is observation, experimentation, repeatability.
>None of which you have when you look backwards in time.
t. I literally know nothing about cosmology
Thanks though, at least I don't feel so bad ignoring you.
>>1047750
>next you'll tell me that following moses' or even noah's laws isn't important to salvation. XDDD
Correct.
If it were, there is no need for Jesus to come and die, now, is there. The Jews already had the Law, and the Gentiles already had the Law Lite.
>>1047750
Oh, and Luke wrote Acts. Not Anonymous. We're not that old a group.
>>1047754
Correct. You know nothing about cosmology, or you'd believe in God.
You can choose to ignore God.
You cannot choose the consequences of ignoring God.
>>1047642
Also to add to this, the main reason why Christianity lost steam in the west, isn't only because of the progress of science and the Enlightenment.
Christianity long before that had become a shadow of it's former self, it's god had become cold and detached, a mere shadow that clung on to an the institution of the Church. The Christian who today claims that "he knows he has found God" is rightfully laughed at, because our age has no patience for that kind of nonsense. There are beliefs which are apt, pragmatic and sensical and those that are not. But religion doesn't have anything to do with reason or knowledge, nor should it, else it would lose the whole point of believing in something as extraordinary as God or Jesus Christ.
This is then the problem of the fundamentalist, unable to corroborate his belief with the existing world he claims that "he knows the word of God" , but this is only because he lacks the inner belief Christianity demands of him, so he has to prove it constantly not to others, but to himself.
This is what Nietzsche meant with teh "God is dead" line, people can no longer beleive in a real living exiting God in the world, so they follow his shadow.
I really don't think it's anymore complex than that.
>>1047776
Not how I see it. I see it as a wave spreading out, and now returning to the source.
>>1047765
Are you always the same guy? Because if you are then you're astoundingly thickheaded
>>1047812
>Are you always the same guy? Because if you are then you're astoundingly thickheaded
I'm pretty sure he believes every time an atheist gives up and stops arguing with him he's saved 10 souls.
>>1047812
technically you should have put your "t." in greentext. he's got you in a corner now. when you make a memetic mistake it's basically the end of your argument. XD
>>1047825
the mere existence of dis-belief is a far more effective rock-shoe than 24/7 christposting. Or didn't you know that disbelief is on the rise?
>>1047435
>Universe infers a Creator.
Holy shit it's you again.
This always happens you always get BTFO and you literally always mix up imply and infer. The Universe is not proof of a creator that's just retarded.
>>1047841
Even if it did infer a creator you're still taking about 5 big ass leaps of logic before you arrive at the christian god
It's such a con. It pisses me off every time I hear it
>>1047825
>wherever I am I must christpost
why do you have to shit up a perfectly decent board?
>>1046533
Well if 2billion people reed it it would be more reliable and trustworthy, people buy apple phones, clothes, go to places because someone told them the thing/plave was good. So 500 million people read it and it gains 2 billion followers
>example
>>1041522
>Why should I believe in God?
You don't have to if you don't want to.
>Should I just have faith or do I need to be convinced by the arguments of Descartes and Aquinas?
If you end up believing in God, you should believe in him because you have some reason to.
>>1046437
Isnt that the equivalent of a Pure Land Buddhist threatening you with reincarnation in the realm of hungry ghosts if you dont have enough good karma
>>1041522
>Should I just have faith or do I need to be convinced by the arguments of Descartes and Aquinas?
Even with Aquinas or Descartes you still need faith m8.
>Why should I believe in God?
What else are you going to do?
>>1048037
>What else are you going to do?
Not believe in god? It's really not that radical a position.
>>1047197
>"I know that I don't claim to know but what it is I claim to know I don't know"
Are you retarded? Do you have a religion or not. Answer the fucking question, you sophist
No: atheist
Yes: theist
>>1047215
>pantheism
>a bunch of other gods
Okay m8
believe what you feel is right, op. not whatever majority tries to scare you into believing.
>>1046437
>implying
>>1046740
It's an urban myth turned into a comic. It might be true.
>>1046821
you have no proof.
>>1046899
it's amazing what you can find when you're trying to find it where it's not. :^)
what I have always had trouble understanding (especially regarding white/European/Caucasians) is why would you abandon the Gods of your native ancestors and all their beliefs with some far removed kike on a stick that has fuck all to do with your history.
>>1041522
If you care about what's likely true, you shouldn't. Any description of God beyond an abstract impersonal frame of existence (which might as well not be a deity in its own right) is nigh indefensible without deferring to "I just have faith." If you don't care about what's likely true, there are many practical reasons for believing in God. It gives warmth, hope and comfort and all that jazz, and the human psyche tends to be naturally drawn to it.
>>1049474
go play with kids your age varg
>>1048626
Atheism is the religion that there is no god
I don't have a religion, because there is no logical stance to take, so I am agnostic
>>1050244
True agnostisism means you don't claim to know and you refuse to make a decision without adequate knowlege, I am neither theist nor atheist, I am agnostic.
>>1050250
That's called atheism.
just believe, dood
>>1050254
I do not believe there is no god
Nor do I believe there is
I do not believe I understand the mechanics of the universe
I have not made a decision
I will not be pigeonholed into a belief system that I do not subscribe to
>>1050262
Atheism doesn't mean believing there's no god, it just means you don't have one. Rocks are atheists, newborns are atheists.
>>1050268
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Sounds like you're just making up a definition
It is illogical to group my way of thinking in with people who are CONVINCED one way or the other is right
>>1050244
Atheism isn't a religion. It's the aversion to the idea of deities, or the stance that deities are unlikely.
>there is no logical stance to take
If you really think about what deities are, yes there is a logical stance.
>>1050273
Lacks belief fits what I'm saying, so you just disproved your own argument.
I've never actually heard of or met an atheist that "believed there was no god," so I find defining it as that to be a bit hilariously retarded.
>>1050262
If you do not believe in a god, you're an atheist. stop trying to be a special snowflake.
>>1050273
>or lacks belief
His definition is in the one you just linked.
>>1050277
Atheism is a belief that god does not exist, by being an atheist you have made that judgement.
An unprovable idea remains unprovable no matter the qualities of the idea.
>>1050283
I do not lack belief, I have not made a decision because it is illogical to make a decision
>>1050284
Stop becoming defensive because your position is illogical
>>1050322
You're just making up what atheists believe and then claiming you're right, and you also don't understand what simple English words like "lack" mean.
>>1050327
You're just making up what I believe and claiming you're right
I refuse to be catagorized with people who have made the same illogical leap of faith as theists, I am true neutral on the position.
Looking into further definitions I can see that the word is used both for extremely broad and specific things at the same time, there must be a distinction made between my logical position and the illogical position of most of athiest thought. If there isn't a word in the english language, congratulations, you win semantically. But idealistically there is still a conflict.
>>1050322
if you're not a theist, you're an atheist.
>>1050345
I'm not making up what you believe, you've stated over and over in this thread that you think atheists believe there is no god. Some probably believe that, but that would be a small minority of atheists.
>>1050356
I don't know what planet you live on, every self identified athiest i've met is quite set on the belief that there is no god
>>1050348
I concede semantics. its's a shame that the word is so broad but it is typically associated with people who use the word "skydaddy" and actively assert god does not exist
I still will not identify as an atheist in conversation because I do not wish to be associated with anything that isn't the logical true neutral position.
>>1050363
>I don't know what planet you live on, every self identified athiest i've met is quite set on the belief that there is no god
Unfortunately you need some awareness to lie convincingly. Not even the celebrity atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Gervais, etc. that religious lunatics love to cry about believe there is no god.
>>1050363
Skydaddy is typically used in response to specific religious gods, and certainty that those gods don't exist is perfectly logical. It's a fact that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist unless of course you discard the notion of fact entirely.
>>1050389
You can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can use your critical thinking skills to recognize that everything about Jesus, for one thing, contradicts the laws of physics. You can recognize the incredibly obvious reality that the religions themselves were tailor-made to control people.
>>1041522
You should because he believes in you. There is a god I just think people have a hard time believeing it because he looks like us a man and he didn't choose to be some giant galactic black hole nebula dragon that appears time to time
>>1042052
I just know your laughing your ass off, high as fuck, at your long retarded post that I read for some fuckin reason.
It was kinda funny tho heh heh good job buddy.
>>1050408
>oh heheh, you were high.
No, it's the truth.
>God hates humans and makes them undesirable to how He wants them!
>God makes a girl a slut because He doesnt want her to be a slut
Meanwhile in hell:
>oh haha we sure are ruining mankind saying fucking is bad so they dont fuck.
>muh morality
>muh faith
All bullocks. We don't need God.
>>1046855
Yeah. Humans are hardwired to seek agency even when there is none. It's evolution bruh.
Jesus Christ what the fuck is up with these threads? Can't we just have an atheism vs Christ general? This cancer needs to be fucking contained. It was disgusting cancerous bullshit on/sci/ and now it threatens /his/. Not all of us are Americans who are obsessed with Christ. Fuck. I just want to discuss history and art in peace.
>>1050396
You can reasonably prove something that is an observable or measurable phenomena
You can't observe or measure something like a god or lack thereof (with our current ability), thus it is illogical to formulate an opinion.
>>1050396
>son of the omnipotent creator of everything
>b-but laws of physics
You're pretending to be retarded, right?
>>1049241
It's your claim that lacks evidence, not mine. Mine has a detailed historical account that is true.
>>1049253
Yes, all the information at our fingertips, no need to actually know anything anymore.
>>1050345
>I am true neutral on the position.
You are a rebel and a traitor.
>>1050396
Tell me how the laws of physics control the Lawgiver of physics.
>>1041825
Or eternal life in total absence of death - no pain, no suffering, no need for sustaining trough dense matter and an everlasting evolution towards godhood.
>>1051316
>omnipotence is possible
good one
How to test for demons in your surroundings:
Let's have a look at history.
Rome persecutes christians.
The inquisition and witch hunts persecute "witches" and "devil worshippers" that do "magic" (miracles) - Notice the date when black death appeared.
Psychiatry still hasn't been proven to have a clinical test that objectively defines who has a "mental illness" all we have is some photographs, and lots of words where "maybe" "could be" "must have" and other "probablys" appear. And those meds are known (search the internet) to make you unhappy, suicidal, anhedonic, etc.
It is still the same persecution of the same christians but merely pretending.
The bible says (and it has been modified to hell and back by those who hate mankind) that the devil hates humans.
Let's see an example:
Serve your enemies, love your enemies, be poor, be dumb, give your money away. Do not make sure if this is actually God, you do not try and test that, it is "sin", humilliate yourself everywhere and die a virgin, be struck painfully by everyone and don't defend yourself and give the other cheek. God is "testing" you, not punishing you for following the wrong path. Pleasure is bad, suffering good. Your sexuality is evil.
So, in short, pleasure is "evil" and suffering "good", anyone able to tell me if these are not the words of a hellish fiend that hates you and takes you for a fool?
When you look for God and the Christ, you look with faith and skepticism, omnipotence is omnipotence, and a lack of convincing miracles is impotence, and you look from the perspective of freedom, from the one where you are loved and desired as you are.
