Can somebody explain to me how atheism is logical?...
I just don't understand how something can come from nothing...isn't that against the laws of physics?
How does 0+0=1?
I don't understand the logic
> I just don't understand how something can come from nothing.
Atheism never claimed that.
>>937580
Nigga I'm a recovered former atheist and that shit wouldn't have won me over if I were high and drunk.
The most common form of atheism is a result of spiritual aspergers, an inability to handle the abstract and intangible leading to positivist delusions.
>>937580
What's with the shitposting today? It's usually not this bad.
>>937580
>I just don't understand how something can come from nothing
This isn't atheism. It's creation ex nihilo which is ironically what some forms of theism profess, that a God conjured matter of nothing
Atheists do not by definition believe in a created universe. And the big bang doesn't even profess itself to be an act of creation but rather an expansion of material that already existed.
You have also inadvertently implied that atheism=science explains things and theism=mythology explains things....which is really an arguement against theism.
I just don't understand how this is an argument for God. Either God also came from nothing and you're back to square one, or God came from God, and admitting that a thing can come from itself, God is not longer necessary.
how many threads are required for the exact same argument
why don't you people just have this argument with your imaginary friends or something
>>937580
>singularity means nothing
>the known universe is the universe
>there ought to be an uncaused cause that causes everything
This thread again
>>937602
The inability to handle the abstract leads to theism in general. Just look at how many paradoxes there from anyone who tries logically evaluate definitions and properties of God. You need to ignore many of pretty glaring contradictions to be classic believer.
OP here
I guess nobody has anything logical to say
Goodnight, I tried
>>937609
> God conjured matter of nothing
If not from nothing then from what?
>>937580
Than where did God come from?
OP here
You're
>
>>937611
Don't forget the most logical option that God came from God's God and so on.
>>937632
He is eternal. He doesn't need to come from anything.
>something must have come from nothing if there is no sky daddy
Did skydaddy come from nothing?
>>937580
Eternal inflation, look into it.
>>937634
You're not OP
I'm OP and I'm asleep
>>937631
Ask christians. Maybe it's ether, maybe it's pixie dust, maybe it's god farts.
>>937580
x + 1 = y
where x ≠ God
I hope this non-analogy is shitty enough for you to accept
>>937643
I'm OP with forcefields
>>937638
>"This Atheistic worldview doesn't work, it's not logical"
>"-But God is also illogical"
>"-Lol God doesn't have to abide by arbitrary rules such as logic, silly atheist :P"
>>937580
I don't understand either. But I don't feel obligated to fill in the blanks and decide god did it.
>>937645
It isn't
It's a standard atheistic nonexplanation
>>937660
Yeah I chose it to perfectly mirror the OP
>>937580
probably gonna get some tips for this but here is my train of logic
>Laws of Universe are a part of the Universe
>Universe is finite
>Universe has a definite begining
>Before this time there existed some other form of existence with other rules and laws
this is where is can diverge into two options
1
>God or some other being created the universe in this other existence
2
>In is this existence it is perfectly normal for nothing to come from something and our universe is a result of this nothingness turning into something
>>937656
There's nothing illogical about something being eternal. The problem for christians is, the universe itself can be eternal and god is just a completely unnecessary assumption that rests on several other unsubstantiated assumptions.
>>937656
I don't understand the point your trying to make
Are you saying the atheistic worldview makes sense but God doesn't?
>>937611
Ah, this man knows.
This is because god isn't really god, but is an advanced machine created by humans (or possibly aliens) in the future (or possibly the past or right now even if aliens did it) after they reached such a level of technology where time-travel and extremely sophisticated robots are possible. And so this creature, was created by beings, who were also created by this creature and so forth.
>>937602
>recovered
Believing in a deity is not rational in the slightest. At all.
>>937662
Guess what
I am OP
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW...
I don't understand how you think what you said means anything though, do you understand the concept of God?
>>937667
He's saying that god is an extremely illogical conclusion by very nature.
>>937677
Yeah but who was OP
>>937677
Why is that?
>>937681
But why?
Nobody is explaining t me why God is an illogical concept...
>>937686
Well I guess it depends on what you consider a deity is.
>>937686
Believing in something which is put forth by arbitrary, inconsistent, contradictory and illogical fiction written by primitive, possibly psychologically ill human beings, that is also not supported by any modern science whatsoever doesn't seem logical to me in the slightest.
Very simple. There's zero evidence for any god existing. Whenever we observe reality, we see absolutely nothing that resembles a conscious agent that guides to whole of reality to a specific goal.
You could of course say that God is some metaphor for reality, but then (at least in the Abrahamic context) the concept loses pretty much all its meaning. The metaphorical god is essentially a return to the pre-Abrahamic gods, which were viewed in this way
>>937689
Here's one objection. It posits a non-physical thinking being. Thoughts only occur (in so far as we know) as brain activity.
Now this concept might be logical, but one must then at least describe (let alone prove the validity and soundness) of the mechanism by which this god thinks.
>>937664
>1
>>God or some other being created the universe in this other existence
Shouldn't this be
1
>The universe came from a universe outside it
1.1
>The universe formed from nonsentient laws or forces in the Outer Universe
1.2
>The universe was intentionally created by a sentient being in the Outer Universe
1.2.1
>The universe was created by a sentient being in the Outer Universe for study
1.2.2
>The universe was intentionally created by a sentient being in the Outer Universe that is recognizable as a deity
1.2.2.1
>The universe was intentionally created by a sentient being in the Outer Universe that is recognizable as one of our many conceptions of God
1.2.2.2
>The universe was intentionally created by a sentient being in the Outer Universe that is recognizable as my conception of God
>>937701
But how do any of your accusations not apply to other writers or even yourself. I don't understand the reasoning of this bias towards certain people but not others
>>937602
>a recovered former atheist
You were never an atheist.
>>937689
Because god is immune from conventional logic.
Positing that something exists above the standard we hold to everything else is quite a big leap.
>>937611
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
>>937680
Yeah to me the concept of God means a creator being that we tell stories about, whether it was the Jews or the Hindus or the Chinese.
There's a lot of things that the universe could have come from that we never told stories about.
>>937720
>God's magic lol
>>937717
You're insulting yourself and other people immensely by pretending we can't comprehend the unlimited possibilities of God and apply them to the logic we have available to us
>>937715
Because only religious and spiritual people make positive claims for these things, of which there is no logical reason to believe. Almost universally they are unfalsifiable ones as well, which makes them ridiculous by any scientific standard.
>>937726
That's true, we can't comprehend them. The incomprehensible nature of god is the corner-stone of every theodicy ever crafted.
>>937721
Wew lad
You have a different interpretation of what God is than anybody else has ever had
You must be pretty intelligent and logical
Dips Bedora
>>937733
*tips menorah*
Shalom.
>>937720
> God should exists because anything should have the first cause!
> Except God because it isn't like anything should have a cause anyway!
>>937644
God farted himself into existence
>>937733
>than anybody else has ever had
I'm not that creative. Isn't Yahweh a God? Shiva? Tian? Why don't you tell me what your conception of God is?
>>937728
Only atheists make positive claims for these things not to exist, which there is no logical reason to believe
Explain to me how this is any different
>>937720
>Just because we can argue the universe was created, that doesn't mean we imply that everything needs a creator to exist
Except that's literally OP's argument
>>937736
Is that video abput the old Kalam bullshit again? Can all you christfags do me a favor and stop using those ridiculous word games to 'prove' the existence of your god? Literally all of them have been debunked into oblivion now, assuming they were ever relevant in the first place, which I don't think they ever were
>>937580
Atheist DO NOT conclude that something ever came from nothing.
Logical atheists would say WE DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER to that question.
We don't make up magical beings to explain the things we do not have logical answers for.
>>937743
>Only atheists make positive claims for these things not to exist, which there is no logical reason to believe
>positive claim
>not to exist
>positive
>not
Honestly, do you know how to read? The word 'not' is fairly well established as a negative
>>937743
Not believing in something is not making a positive claim. The burden of proof is on the one who claims something exists, not on people who don't agree. No one can reasonably claim to know for certain whether or not such a thing as god exists, as the concept of an omnipotent/omniscient god is unfalsifiable.
What bugs me is that people always describe whatever conceptualization of God they're arguing for as a "creator being", which implies intentioned, willful, mindful creation, instead of some indifferent generic force without a mind. Can someone please explain how the former makes more sense than the latter?
>>937754
>Passed that everyone else fills in their own blanks though
The problem is that in these arguments, the theist jumps immediately from "X that the universe came from (which it may not even be possible to know anything about)" to "my personal conception of God down to the number of nosehairs" without any justification in the middle
>>937743
> Only atheists make positive claims for things not to exist
Yes. It isn't like some scientists ever claimed that perpetual motion machine doesn't exist or literally every mathematicians claimed that biggest natural number doesn't exist.
>>937756
....wat
Are you saying I can't claim that something didn't happen?
You're joking right?
>>937767
>atheists
>scientists
Are you trying to say there's a difference? Kek. Ok
>>937580
Atheism is no belief in God or gods not the big bang theory fucking retard.
>>937759
> The burden of proof is on the one who claims something exists
Holocaust never happened. The burden of proof on you my friend. [spoiler]Technically burden of proof is on the side that claims something.[/spoiler]
>>937768
You can, however, the claim that 'something didn't happen' isn't a positive claim.
If I claimed that 'you don't owe me a million dollars' is a positive claim, on which the burden of proof rests on you, would you accept that as a positive claim?
>>937766
Yeah, but you're jumping from my point to your own bias against people who believe I God
I don't see the difference between what you're doing and what you accuse people who believe in a God of doing
>>937754
>Not Jewish, sorry
Oblivion comes for you then, goyim.
>>937763
Our world is clearly designed by intelligent being of great wisdom. For example God created grain, cats and dogs for human to live better. Just look. Look around you and you will see the complexity of creation that can't be unintentional.
>>937781
No he isn't, he's just exposing a massive leap of logic you're taking.
>>937779
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
>>937714
that is a lot of typing to say nothing
>>937776
Good thing you can take a trip down to the concentration camps, read testimonials of victims, see video footage and photographs, read Nazi documentation of the entire event, etc. Unlike god, of which you have at best some very old fiction. Your analogy is garbage, and you're clearly grasping at straws because you have nothing to contribute, not that you did to begin with.
>>937786
You are fucking retarded we the fundamental forces allowed that to happen.
>>937786
>le "You should just see it" argument
Got it. Just the faulty irrational primal human instinct and magical thinking at work again.
>>937787
He is doing the exact same thing
You saying he isn't doesn't make it true
Did you even follow the conversation? Because you're accusing me of doing something I didn't do
>>937781
Well, if it turns out that the universe was created by a big nonthinking explosion in another universe with different laws, would you call that explosion God? Or if it was made by two inert bubbles intersecting, would they be God? If it was a computer simulation, would the programmer be God albeit he be a fallible being among billions of others like him? The word God is impossible to separate from its religious connotations, and yet there is no religion formed around bubbles and explosions and code monkeys.
>>937786
>Our world is clearly designed by intelligent being of great wisdom.
And how did you establish that it 'clearly' is? Is there some method by which we can establish the difference between 'clearly designed' and 'clearly not designed', and a test to figure out which on it is?
Right now you're just presenting an argument from ignorance. Your argument is quite literally 'I don't understand the complexity of reality, therefore god did it'. That's not an argument
>>937795
God is an essence of all fundamental forces.
>>937776
Refer to google, wikipedia and memoirs from <insert country of your origin here> for proof that it did happen.
The burden of proof is on positive claims. If you doubt the validity of the evidence, that's your prerogative.
>>937790
I don't think you do. You declare the words 'no' and 'don't' to be positive. If you think they are, I have some bad news for you
>>937802
You got proof retard?
>>937793
Those are the steps you must take to go from "The universe came from something" to "The universe was created by a transcendent being who thinks, in some fashion, like me, but is like a much superior me. And this being fits my conception of him." In other words, to God.
It's a lot of typing because it's a lot of steps.
>>937800
Well, you're just throwing a bunch of questions at me, I don't feel like addressing each one 2bh
I would call the force where these things you rattled off come from, God, not the bubbles and other things you said
>>937813
But thats completely retarded, how in the fuck could walking apes on a fuck figure out the creator of the universe, you christians are braindead seriously.
>>937799
No, he really isn't. You went from 'the universe had a beginning and a cause' to 'that cause is a conscious entity that guides the whole of reality and subscribes to my specific worldview', without ever explaining how you got from one to the other. If I have any bias, it's against 'logical' chains like these that were never explained or justified
>>937807
You don't have a basic grasp of the English language eh?
If I say, "That did not happen," that is a positive claim. I am affirming something. It's very simple
>>937813
They should all have the same answer. I'm only asking you one question - if the source of our universe turned out to be nothing like what you imagined God would be, would you still call it God? Would you be angry at me if I didn't call the explosion God?
>I'm pretty sure the basic, most fundamental, and agreed upon understanding of God is the entity that created the universe.
If an explosion created the universe, then by your definition it must be God. Or else revise your definition.
>>937809
that was the point of some other being because to elaborate is pointless since there is no way to really know or argue which is correct. The point was that the universe doesn't need to have been created by a God or anything else it is possible that it "poofed" into existence.
>>937815
Same as they could figure laws of physics? Using logic and reason. It isn't that hard to come up to self-evident truth about divine creator.
>>937815
....where is this coming from and how does this have anything to do with what I said?
It seems very clear that you have some biases and aren't capable of discussing the basic ideas we were talking about and have to resort to unfounded insults
>>937819
It happened is positive claim.
It didn't happened is negative one.
>>937819
If that is affirming something, can you please explain, in your own words, what denying something is?
>>937827
Yes your sky jew made the entire universe its all true, why are you people so stupid?
>>937824
Explosions don't come from nothing. Even science agrees on this. There's a source that it came from, it's very simple to see, I don't know why you're pretending not to see it
>>937819
I think you're the one who doesn't understand the English language buddy. Claiming something didn't happen, or doesn't exist, is making a negative claim. Claiming the opposite is making a positive claim. The example of atheistm isn't necessarily a negative claim, it simply professes that the individual doesn't personally believe in said positive claim, in this case god.
>>937837
>There's a source that it came from, it's very simple to see, I don't know why you're pretending not to see it
Tell me something about this source. Any property or characteristic. Sentience, perhaps, or the mechanism by which it creates explosions.
>>937837
The big bang is not an explosion idiot.
>>937827
We can use the method of induction. We know from our telescopes that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards, this means that the universe must have been smaller and smaller the farther back you go. The smallest thing we know is a singularity. Thus, God must have been a maker of singularities. In our universe, collapsing stars make singularities. Via analogy, God must be like a star in some way. Made of Hydrogen, maybe.
>>937843
>>937842
K. You're now asking me to explain God...I thought we went over this...
![1459393393896[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Kp43aDK.jpg "1459393393896[1].jpg")
>>937580
Atheism is the belief that there is no reason to believe in a God figure.
It isn't the belief that this or that physics theory is true.
Stop confusing atheism and science, they aren't necessarily related.
>>937846
I was just addressing his post
>>937850
I'm not asking you to explain God. You said the source was obvious to see. If you can see it, you can tell me something about it.
>>937843
>denial is impossible because otherwise I have the burden of proof on me for my beliefs
Amazing how you christfags not only are willing to sacrifice reason and logic to keep your beliefs intact, you even violate the English language for it.
>>937859
I never said the source was obvious to see. It might have seemed like I was saying that, but what I meant was it's clear to see that whatever thing you made up as an example had to have had a source
>>937851
This. Most of real scientists all agree that God is a possibility at least. Meanwhile atheist just hate something and denying that it exist in the same time. Heavy case of double thinking here.
>>937873
You're going a little overboard m8. You see what I'm saying but you're trying to stick me to some arbitrary rule of logic to somehow "win." If that's not what you're doing can you explain to me what your original point was?
>>937851
They are heavily related though
Claiming otherwise is a lie unless you're very ignorant
>>937878
There's quite a big difference between
>Acknowledging a possibility
>Not acknowledging a possibility
And there are atheists in both camps
>>937878
>Most of real scientists all agree that God is a possibility at least.
Most scientists agree that God's non existence can't be proven yet, or at all, but we can safely assume it.
In a similar way we are assuming that matter and reality exist, and that the laws of logic and math are correct.
Can't scientifically prove math, but you have to assume it to progress with science.
>>937878
Those scientist are retarded like anyone that thinks Yahweh is real.
>>937877
God is just a being who has the special property of not needing to have been created, right? So it could be just an explosion has the special property of not needing to have been created. It doesn't violate the laws of our universe because it was outside of our universe.
>>937888
How they are related there is no such thing as scientific theory of atheism. Science doesn't study God in any way except as human idea in psychology and such.
>>937890
Holy shit, USA is fucked in the head.
>Implying religion explains where shit comes from
>god made shit
Yeah and where does god came from?
>its magic lol
Nice explanation faggot. Im not even atheist but face it, we can't know some stuff, universe may exist just because or not, we dont know, we shouldnt even be thinking about that desu just take life as you perceive it.
>>937898
Atheists don't use science to disprove God....
Are you seriously trying to tell me this right now?
>>937904
Notice the christian retard has yet to explain what his sky jew even is.
Do you stupid christian fucks even read the bible at all?
>>937907
Sorry, I meant
*try to disprove God
>>937892
> laws of logic and math are correct
They are correct on descriptive level. You can't scientifically prove that apple is a fruit because such statement is definitional one. Math is just another language in that sense. It is just a tool that allows you to express very complex ideas.
there are a lot of things no one can understand you don't have to
>>937908
When did I say I was Christian?
Why are you so angry?
Why can't we just talk about the theological theory of God?
Calm down lad
>>937910
That would be true.
Even Dawkin's arguments against God are all sophistic, he uses science to argue against things like evolution not being able to produce a wide variety of viable species.
>>937907
Can you name what scientific experiment disprove existence of God? You can't do this because there are none. To put this simple, you literally can't use science to disprove God.
>>937904
>Sure m8, whatever makes sense to you I guess
But the thing is, for me it would be pointless to call such an explosion God. After all, it's nothing like the God I hear people talk about.
And since there is as much evidence (hardly any) for the explosion as for alternative accounts (a bubble, a simulation, Brahma) I can't truly say that I believe that God created the universe. Does this not make sense?
>>937912
1. You cant scientifically prove math, because science presupposes math, and this would be circular logic.
2. Science presupposes math, and requires it to be "true".
Thus we need to assume that math is true, and roll with it.
Reality, time, logic, etc are also assumed by science, and thus cant be proven by science.
And depending on what exactly we are talking about, the lack of a God is also assumed by science, and thus it can't be explained by science.
Else any problem could be explained with christian space magic LOL.
>>937916
Okay, but you know that lots of atheists try to use science to try to disprove God
Citing one person who doesn't do that doesn't mean that other people don't do that
>>937918
You can definitely disprove specific definitions that involve testable claims, like the "gawd made the animals we see around us" shit, which is thoroughly debunked by the fact of evolution.
>>937918
Just say and if there is a God let him strike me down with lightning and if nothing happens its meabs Yahweh doesnt exist fucking retard.
>>937931
>fact of evolution
>fact
You knows it's called the theory of evolution right? Are you purposefully lying?
>>937937
>I tried explaining the source of that metaphorical explosion would be God, but you chose to ignore that and stick to your explosion non-God
They're the same. The explosion should be God to *you*, because it meets all the parameters of *your* conception of a God, but *I* just can't call it God.
Why are you rejecting the explosion as a potential God? You've laid out two requirements
>creating the universe
>itself uncaused
And it meets both of them. What is missing? Sentience?
>>937942
No its a fact we have all the evidence in fossils, and embryos to prove it braindead retard. The very nature of DNA makes evolution a fact idiot.
>>937580
>How does 0+0=1?
0 = -1 + 1
Or: antimatter and matter. Dark energy and energy.
>>937942
A scientific theory is generally considered to be fact until it's either disproven or new evidence changes it.
>>937942
A fact is a layman's term for things that present company accepts to be true.
A scientific theory is a rigorously tested explanation that, for all intents and purposes, the scientific community accepts to be true.
So yes, he used the word correctly.
>>937925
Science presupposes math in the same sense in what it presupposes all natural languages. It isn't the same way it presupposes existence of space, matter, time and things like this. You literally can't presupposes math to be right as a whole. Science uses different maths for different things. Geometry can be Euclidean or any other, for example. Math is descriptive tool on which science relies for it to express ideas. It isn't an axiomatic hypothesis in that sense that you can choose any kind of math for new theory but can't made theory that change concept of time without changing entire science.
>>937942
Evolution is a fact. Species that exist now did not exist x time in the past, and species that existed x time in the past do not exist now.
The theory part explains how it happened.
>>937931
God made animals with help of evolution.
>>937801
Bravo!
>>937944
K, I don't even believe you're trying to have an honest conversation at this point
Who believes that the entity of an everlasting God (a common agreed upon characteristic of God, I would expect you to be aware of this when talking about the concept of God) is an explosion? Did God last for a fraction of a second and then cease to exist? Is that what you're trying to say?>>937950
Nope. Nice talking to you. Good bye
>>937937
Atheists more rely on scientism as unscientific idea that only science could answer questions. Real science isn't interested in disproving God.
>>937961
God is completely superfluous to evolution, and it happens just fine without his involvement. Including by humans, who have been shaping the species around them for thousands of years now.
>>937954
But I don't accept it to be true
Am I not present company?
>>937959
If evolution is a fact then how all of humans aren't evolved in something new already?
>>937967
God has already been disproven you are just completely retarded.3059
>>937961
Why do the religious books have to lie about him actually making anything, if evolution does all the work?
>>937972
troll
>>937974
> God has already been disproven
Could you show definitive prove against God?
>>937967
>Real science isn't interested in disproving God
True, but biased modern science is
>>937972
Humans ARE something new.
>>937971
You are, that's why you disputed its status as a fact.
>>937977
If evolution is real modern humans should evolve in new species sooner or later. I don't see x-men and can scientifically conclude that evolution is a myth.
>>937987
what a genius
>>937972
See a retard that doesnt understand evolution its very big environmental changes to causes mutations that led to lobe finned fish becoming amphibians or an amphibian becoming tge first reptile. Humans wont change much at all we will simply get taller and our legs will become more adept at pure ground movement and lose its monkey look entirely.
>>937979
And here we see the anti-God arguer turn to defending God's possibilities only when it suits his purpose
Whatever dude, you're being disingenuous. You and I both know it
>>937984
Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. There are billions of species and zero observed evolution acts that aren't historical speculations. Seems really fishy. You can observe gravity. But all of evolution was happened in the past?
>>937981
The existence of other religious text debunks the legitimacy of the bible.
>>937987
Takes half a million years to become a new species shit for brains.
>>937985
Then it isn't a fact by your guys' definition...
I just disproved evolution using the guidelines you set up...I'm done, I'm actually going to go to bed, I have to be up early and you guys can't even stick to your own arguments
Good night
>>937998
>Seems really fishy
Thank you for confirming you really are a stupid fuck.
>>937996
I'm not. Look, God doesn't have to be an explosion. Maybe you have an issue with explosions. It could be something else, like a string. String theory, right?
No, you don't like a mindless God. What would you prefer? A God that's something like a soul? A man's soul, writ large? God must be sentient, doesn't he? He must be like us in some way, doesn't he?
But why? What reason do you have to suspect these things?
>>938003
what are you a bird
>>938003
>>937999
Disproving God is giant logical leap from disproving The Holy Bible.
>>937580
Why is everyone replying to this shit thread?
Can you people take these somewhere more appropriate
>>938000
> Takes half a million years to become a new species
There are millions of species on the planet. You can did the math and see that should be a new one every year. Where are those new species?
>>938015
My god you are retarded, get it in your head that Yahweh is not real nor Jesus its all a lie that jews made up.
>>938015
One step at a time. At the very least one can being by disproving the Biblical God. That's no small feat.
>>937958
Math and science are complex ideas, I am aware.
Some ideas of science presuppose some ideas of math.
However in general science does presuppose math, and since it does, it can't be used to prove it.
Thus math cant be proven, yet has to be assumed.
>>937981
I also can't prove that you are not a faggot or that there isnt a purple dog that talks and farts flowers in another planet but we dont all believe those things right?
>WAIT I do believe you are a faggot
>>938020
For hominids fucktard, other animals take less time or longer.
>>938015
If you've disproved major religious texts, it seems like a giant logical leap to still believe in an omnipotent god.
>>938016
How is it a shit thread?
>>938022
What about other Gods? Like Allah.
>>938030
OP is literally asking to be redpilled on atheism,
cant at least one board on 4chan have higher standards of posting.
>>937998
> zero observed evolution acts
Words to google in combination with evolution: fruit fly, bacteria, dog, fox, banana
>>938028
I can't believe that with so many species we need to wait thousands years for 'evolution' to create at least one.
>>938033
Not real either none of them are real, black tribes have been observed making up nonsense to explain anything meaning all religions are the imaginations of humans.
>>938033
Qu'ran says God made humans out of clay, so that's a no-go.
>>938039
Its the time it takes for the mutations to pile up into a new genome.
>>937999
No it doesn't
If Christianity were true then you should expect there to be other religious texts.
>>938041
Evolution happens over generations, not years. So with bacterium you're likely to see it over decades as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years for mammals.
And also, what we call "species" is based on completely arbitrary lines in the sand for the interest of convenient categorization. Every single descendant of anything is "evolved" because they have a slightly different gene pattern.
>>938049
No if it were true then it would be the only sacres religious text unless you the moronic oh hurrr every other religion is Satan hurr explanation.So fuckibg stupid you are
>this shows up in my youtube feed
>multiple threads about the subject on /his/
Oh, you subtle fans you.
>>938049
>>938056
>No if it were true then it would be the only sacres religious text
That's entirely untrue
Christianity makes the claim that there are other religions
>>938048
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox
This is actually really fascinating and makes me wanna have a fox for a pet.
>>938059
Maybe learn some Christian theology if it confuses you so much
If you read the bible you'd find it discussing other religions quite often.
>>938061
Other false religions.
>>937886
>You see what I'm saying but you're trying to stick me to some arbitrary rule of logic to somehow "win."
No, to you, 'no' and 'yes' mean the same thing, which makes language itself completely impossible. You're so terrified of the burden of proof that you're even made language completely meaningless
>>938068
Yes
I never said it claims them to be true
Only that it says they exist
>>938066
Yes, other religions whose gods rekt the Christian god, too
>m-muh iron chariots
>>938075
Putting dick waving aside you've just admitted I was correct
>>938073
So all religions are irrational nonsense made by humans too ignorant of science to explain the world or just bored.
>>938076
Not the same anon, sorry to disappoint. It obviously discusses other gods, as it is basically itself a repurposed polytheistic religion, and it's not the first religion to exist either.
>>938078
Yes. Only Dawkins knows what is right and he warned us out danger of memes long ago.
>>938083
I dont read Dawkins you fucktard. Thats just how it seems when you see the big picture no wait you are retarded critical thought is an alien idea to you.
>>938078
I'm not interested in debating the veracity of other religious texts or even whether or not Christianity itself is true. My only point of contention is that the existence of other religions disproves Christianity. It doesn't. Christianity states that other religions exist (false or not). Therefore the existence of other religions is something you would expect to see if Christianity were true.
>>938078
you are missing the point of religion completely, how many religous people you know are ignorant idiots?
>>938080
Yes or no does Christianity claim other religions exist? I'm not interested in whether or not it says they're true
Just a simple yes or no
>>938093
Its just humans making up shit to entertain themselves you see this same behavior in every human culture and race.
>>938093
everyone's an ignorant idiot to some extent. Just ignorant to different things.
>>938096
Did I not just agree to this? There's plenty of pronouncements against other gods, no reason for those to exist if other religions didn't exist. Whether it claims religions exist is irrelevant.
>>938097
thanks for answering my question.
>>938099
that does not aswer my question, how many religious people in your life do you deem as stupid?
>>938093
> how many religous people you know are ignorant idiots?
Zero?
>>938100
>Whether it claims religions exist is irrelevant.
In the context of the quote I replied to it absolutely does.
That anon claimed that the existence of other religions disproves. The statement is incorrect because Christianity itself claims there are other religions.
>>938105
*disproves Christianity
>>938104
good for you, i was aiming at how silly it is to be this concerned about religion when you are clearly atheist (not you, but whoever was arguing above)
>God has properties X, Y, Z, Q and Omega
>I don't believe in God then
>So you believe everything came from NOTHING?
Why do theists always do this? Are you that retarded or are you merely incredibly dishonest? You first claim that God has all these properties and then backpedal to say that God's only property is that it is the uncaused cause of the universe's existence.
>>938105
Christianity claims to be the one true religion yet others exist debunking this horseshit.
>>938103
plenty but that doesn't say anything about religion as a whole
>>938110
X, Y, Z, Q and Omega are logical conclusion from that everything can't came from NOTHING.
>>938111
>yet others exist debunking this horseshit
Except Christianity says they exist
The non-existence of other religions is something incompatible with the Christian truth claim. Not the existence of them since Christianity is contingent upon them existing in this specific instance
>>938116
No they aren't.
>>938119
>then most of them already are false from the outset
fixed
>>938113
well no shit, but thats the only real personal problem you could have, because otherwise this "atheismXreligion" is stupid.
>>938119
It depends
The two largest monotheisms (Islam and Christianity) both claim that other religions exist, Zoroastrianism's explination iirc was that God had made people follow other beliefs and conversion was actually against God's will, Judaism is the same as Islam and Christinaity in this regard. Now there are various pagan religions which tend to say that other polytheistic religions were all just the same one with the local names being different OR they were henotheistic (i.e these gods exist in addition to ours, but we just worship our gods)
What the existence of these varying contradicting beliefs does prove is that at the very least only one is possibly correct or all are incorrect. The mere existence of other religion does not, however, disprove them in and of itself since they generally also claim them to exist
>>938132
I didn't claim that a specific one is false, just that most of them are in so far as contradictions exist. Which ones specifically may be indeterminable given the falsification-free claims or rationalizations involved with every one of them.
>>938135
Ahh well I'd agree to this then generally
Although certain philosophers and so on that make philosophical arguments would argue that you could disprove polytheistic religions.
i.e if you subscribe to Aquinas' Five Ways (not to bring them up for debate specifically just as an example) then part of the conclusion being that monotheism is necessary would disprove various paganisms.
And you could generally disprove classical pagan religions if only because some make the claim that their gods are physical beings that live in the worls (akin to the Olympians on Mt. Olympus)
>>938117
God aint real deal with it.
>>938140
Have you read anything I've posted? I never claimed God was real or that Christianity was true. All I've said is that the existence of other religions isn't the deathblow to Christianity like you believe.
>>938139
It wasn't Mt. Olympus it was magical Olympus in parallel dimension.
>>938147
I've actually seen pagans that argue similarly to this ("it's allegorical" essentially). The biggest rebuttal to this claim would be that to the proginators of the religion it was very much true that the gods were physical beings who lived on the mountain in Greece.
>>938150
>The biggest rebuttal to this claim
Same goes for early monotheists.
>>938155
I wouldn't know about Islam (only because I've never read any early Islamic theology), but Zoroastrians afaik never claimed God was in the world or physical. In early Christianity you can find a big split (people saying all early Christians thought the texts were written allegorical are wrong, but it's wrong to claim the opposite). Among the Early Church Fathers of Christianity you can find a split between some who believed various texts (like Genesis) were written with an allegorical intention, and some who didn't. However either interpretation was never something they were required to believe specifically in regards to their specific church (Donatist, Pre-Schism orthodox, Coptic, etc.) so that could be a slight toss up. I'd actually be interested in reading things written by pre-Christian Jews on the matter, if any such writings exist. It could be interesting. Neoplatonists have always held to a classical theistic view (Aquinas Five Ways for instance would be compatible with Neoplatonism). Monotheists generally make very different claims about the nature of divinity than polytheists, although their are the exceptions on both sides (afaik Hindus don't think the gods live on earth somewhere).
>>938155
Which suddenly showed up on the borders of Egypt after their monotheistic pharaoh croked it, and a people who had dual gods(feminin and masculine aspects) suddenly became monotheistic too.
