Opinions on god and religion in general.
How can people still believe in god, when nearly everything the Bible says is scientifically disproved? I mean this "story" originated like 2000 years ago, when human beings walked on a flat earth while wondering what this big shiny thing in the sky is.
>anything but agnosticism
>>76405232
And you believe in science, when science textbooks are rewritten each years?
At least European Christians don't take the Bible in a literal way, but fedoras are so blind they literally believe everything that is written down in a science book.
>>76405661
They get rewritten because they are researching, not because they wanna fool us.
>>76405661
You debase yourself by offering strawman and insult as argument. We don't take them for fact and that's partially why they are rewritten so often. Its about a method of deduction rather than facts, and religion is a grave exposition to ones lack of reasoning and deductive skills.
When was the existence of god disproved? It hasn't been
>>76405466
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most atheists are agnostics in a much greater magnitute than theists.
>>76405661
Nice fedora meme you spaghetti-nigger
>>76406772
There are thousands of gods who have not had their existence dis-proven, your point is moot.
>>76406772
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Far as I'm concerned, all the evidence points to God not existing, at least no Abrahamic one, so I'll continue to disbelieve until evidence to the contrary.
>>76406772
Do you have a minute to hear about proving a negative?
>>76406987
? no it isn't
>>76406569
>European Christians don't take the Bible in a literal way
Only SOME burgers take the Bible literally.
It's about morals and philosophy, not about chemistry and astronomy.
> nearly everything the Bible says is scientifically disproved
The same about Aristotle or Plato, they have been scientifically disproved, but we still read them because of the non-material truth they said.
>>76407021
The claim is that god doesn't exist or that those things in the Bible didn't happen.
>>76406894
>Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.
depends on your definition of them
in my book it's:
>atheism
there is no god
>agnosticism
it's impossible to know if there is a god
that way agnosticism actually means something more than a doubt
>>76407335
No. The claim is that God exists and the Bible is real and thus we should base our society upon it. There's no evidence for that claim, and thus no reason to do so.
>>76407447
You people are divisive. You should really ally yourself with atheism because you essentially are one. This "I'm an agnostic" thing that's cropped up recently is based on misinformation. There are agnostic atheists (the VAST majority), and there are gnostic atheists.
>>76407512
For something that is so old and ingrained in society then the claim is actually why not to base society on it.
>>76407688
>You should really ally yourself with atheism because you essentially are one.
well how about no
>>76407938
The beneficial aspects of our Judeo-Christian society definitely should stay though not for religious reasons but for pragmatic reasons. The obsolete aspects should be replaced, as they slowly have been.
>>76405466
>I KNOW that I cannot know
>>76408414
What's so confusing about it? You cannot prove or disprove any gods. A "vision" or "dream" is not proof of anything, mind you.
>>76408414
pretty simple desu
>>76406272
They get rewritten because they can never be right
They just may always be wrong
>>76405232
>Germany
speaking ill of islam
enjoy your reeducation camp, inshallah
>>76408679
But how?
>>76408643
>A "vision" or "dream" is not proof of anything, mind you.
Why?
>>76405232
I'm an atheist, but even so, it's obvious that large parts of the Bible are a metaphor.
>>76408765
i know that there is no proof for the existence of god
and there is no proof denying the existence of god
>>76409114
How?
More people would call themselves atheists if they hadn't made it into a movement and gone around acting like such insufferable faggots.
>>76409196
a god is by definition something that is beyond nature
so we (as a part of nature) can't observe anything that would prove or disprove his existence
>>76408643
A humpback whale created the earth and everything on it. You can't prove or disprove it, so it COULD happened like that right?
>>76409345
It doesn't make atheism (and all of its adjacent philosophies) any less absurd
>>76409431
>Appeal to ridicule
Of course it could. You can't disprove things by lack of evidence. That would be an argument from ignorance
>>76409431
it could
>>76409472
because falling for Jew lies and fairy tales makes so much more sense, right?
>>76409418
Does that mean that anything outside nature necessarily cannot exist?
>>76409641
Jews killed my Lord and Saviour
>>76409645
no
it means we just cannot observe it, even if it does exist
>>76409821
That's assuming only physical things exist and permeate reality
>>76409759
Do you people even have any arguments aside from le funny reddit fedora meme?
>>76410015
Ask and find out. Argue for something
>>76409967
>That's assuming only physical things exist
no.
i don't assume it, they can exist
i just claim that it's irrelevant, since we cannot observe things other than physical
>>76410092
Why are you a theist?
>>76409967
Even so, the argument is invalid. The possibility of a God is acknowledged by agnostics. This is obvious and is not a point of contention. What is contentious, however, is the existence of the Abrahamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter. In which case, you cannot provide proof of the veracity of the books that attest to the claims they present.
>b-but you can't know if the books are true or not because God could have entered realtiy
Of course God could have, but there is no proof. Instead, theistic people rely on the circular logic of claim --> faith --> acceptance --> claim and repeat.
>>76410092
If God exists then why is there islam?
>>76410183
We could observe them if not *only* physical things did exist
For example, our minds exist and can perceive things beyond the physical
>>76410412
Where is the contradiction?
>>76410263
To justify the possibility of true knowledge
>>76410427
>our minds exist and can perceive things beyond the physical
that's assuming it's not just chemistry
>>76410498
If God existed he would never let islam to brainwash humen.
>>76410326
So are you a deist as well as an agnostic?
>>76410622
Why would chemistry (your mind) assume anything?
If chemistry assumes it's chemistry why would it be right?
>>76410647
Why?
>>76410865
Why not?
>>76410610
Forgive me, I'm not a native speaker, could you clarify what you mean by that?
>>76405232
Science stemmed from Religion and was started because people asked why god made things work the way they do.
To say that science has disproved anything in the bible is stupid.
For example, the Big bang theory as you know it was theorized because people asked how exactly did Genesis happen, and it was used to justify the existence of god.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
>>76405232
op could you provide scientific proofs (not theories) that earth is round?
>>76410718
No. Deists acknowledge that a God does exist. They make this claim with 100% certainty, but then claim he does not interact with his creation. I am an agnostic, as I a god *may* exist, as in there exists the possibility of one. It cannot be truly known if this God exists, however, because as another anon said, such a God would not be accessible to us through any natural means.
>>76410817
if it's very advanced chemistry, why not?
creating a self aware computer is a popular topic nowadays, we can be something very similar
>>76410983
Because a God (my God at least) allows for fee will and human responsibility
>>76405232
Religion is an organized system of belief. It is not real, but the alerations it makes to the behavior the people that adhere to it have very real effects.
It is necessarily in competition with secular social constructs that also seek to modify human behavior. Ultimately, the worth of any belief system, religious or secular, is dependent on how effective it is at building and maintaining a human population ready and willing to defend it with lethal force.
In this, ISIS is winning, and Western Civilization is failing, hard. People are turning to religion because socialist have gained control of Westen Civilization and have declared that the human race must be exterminated for the greater good, so the only thing it now has to offer people is mass suicide.
>atheists shame Christians for believing the Bible
>Atheists still have no idea how the universe was crated
>>76411059
same as islamic logic
>he still believes theism = christianity
>he sitll believes christians take bible literally
>he still thinks the domain of religion and science intersect
>he still believes the science vs religion meme even thought majority of scientific breakthroughs were made by theists
>>76410986
There could not be true, absolute, and/ objective knowledge without God to vouch for it
>>76411118
The universe doesn't have had to have been created.
>>76411118
Atleast we're honest about how clueless about the universe we are, unlike you, dumb frogposter
>>76411026
>It cannot be truly known if this God exists, however, because as another anon said, such a God would not be accessible to us through any natural means.
Why should God be accessible through natural means?
>>76411276
>>76411317
>It came from nothing!
>>76405232
We created X to control Y
>>76411404
>Why should God be accessible through natural means?
he should not
and he can not
that's the whole point
>>76405232
>this is unironically what some atheists believe
You deserve to be cucked.
>>76411503
>(it always existed)
Besides, this is the claim deists make for god. Where exactly did god come from?
>>76405232
>How can people still believe in god, when nearly everything the Bible says is scientifically disproved? I mean this "story" originated like 2000 years ago, when human beings walked on a flat earth while wondering what this big shiny thing in the sky is.
The said thing is people actually believe this shit.
>>76411404
>>76411404
I never made the claim that a God should be accessible through human means, I simply stated that one isn't.
>>76411503
R A R E
A
R
E
>>76405232
Science in a nut shell.
>>76411503
Just because of your personal incredulity it doesn't mean its not correct. Read up on the theory you're criticizing.
>>76405232
I have no time for anyone that follows the three Abrahamic faiths. None of them should even exist.
>>76411039
But how would we know, if we are just chemistry, that we are just chemistry?
How could we know that we don't exist (and be correct), if we're just the brain and chemistry that makes us think
>he still hasn't conceived a strong desire for anuttara-samyak-sambodhi
>he believes there are multiple vehicles
>he either believes or disbelieves in things
>>76411152
On the surface
>>76405661
>And you believe in science, when science textbooks are rewritten each years?
That's not how any of this works.
2000years is merely the blink of an eye in galactic terms. it's barely 30 human generations, which is nothing. you infidels have my sympathy, but you will all burn anyway. especially the jews. kek wills it.
>>76411830
mein nigger
>>76411503
Scientists can't prove exactly how the universe formed, therefore what is says in my particular holy book must be correct.
>adherent logic
>>76411586
So why wouldn't He be accessible through super-natural means?
>>76405232
>taking the Bible's word verbatim
ohh, Yusuf, you are still the same
>>76411761
>>76411825
A series of hypotheses, tests, and examinations of what can be known. It is from this data that conclusions are drawn. These conclusions are based upon natural means, thus if there is a supernatural component to the brain that is not able to be seen, it is irrelevant as it objectively has no demonstrable effect on reality.
>>76411825
>How could we know that we don't exist (and be correct), if we're just the brain and chemistry that makes us think
we don't know
we can only assume that we function properly
an carry on with our lives
not much we can do about this topic
>>76411668
And I am now making the claim that by His very definition he should be accessible through supernatural means
>>76411977
do we have some?
>>76411797
>but I do of course have the time to say this
>>76412114
My apologies, I don't understand your phrasing.
>>76412211
>>76412114
Never mind I understand now. Sure, a supernatural entity can be accessed through a supernatural means. A supernatural means however cannot exist in a natural world, because if it could, then the supernatural entity too could exist in the natural world. Assuming the entity cannot exist but the means can, what is then needed is (1) proof of the means existence and (2) proof that the means is truly accessing a supernatural entity.
>>76412017
It's laughable that not even a citizen of the Vatican who should be among the very best in terms of theistic knowledge can argue with anything other than memes and fedoraposting.
>>76412025
So you don't believe the mind exists, because it's super-natural, and because you can never know anything that isn't natural
>>76412426
>not knowing it's the secret weapon of the Vatican
>>76405232
My problem with religion isn't the belief of a god. There's nothing wrong with believing maybe some entity or entities created the universe. The key word is maybe. My problem is these faggots "knowing" their specific religion and dogma is the one truth, and the thousands of other religions out there are all liars. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be to believe with such conviction your extremely specific religion you just happened to be born into is the truth is beyond me. Sometimes I feel like you have to be trolling to be so stupid, it is feminism level of intellectual dishonesty.
>>76412074
So why shouldn't we assume that God is real, as well as us
>>76412122
Prayer
>>76412658
because we can easily assume otherwise
we assume our existence because it's impractical not to do so
>>76412422
I'd much rather say He *permeates* the natural world, separate, as an entity, from it
>See: panentheism
He doesn't need to be a part of it
>>76412726
prayer is not that universal when we talk about a god as an idea and not specific abrahamic god
>>76412861
And you think I couldn't argue that it's impractical to assume God doesn't exist as well
>>76412457
The mind is not supernatural, as it is merely consciousnesses, a result of the brain. Of course at this time consciousness is not testable as it is not fully understood, but nor was the nature of the solar system 1000 years ago. Of course I do not equate the two, as consciousness is infinitely more complex. However, at the present moment we simply do not have the means to test consciousness, however this is not to say that such a means will come about at a later date.
>>76413029
So what's the problem?
>>76412910
That's all well and good, but again the claim is unsubstantiated.
>>76413107
The ones you choose to make.
>>76413032
it's definitely less impractical than assuming we don't exist
>>76413056
If it's the result of what's natural (which I imagine you define as "the physical world"), does it necessarily mean it's physical?
>>76413107
prayer is a different concept in every religion
as it assumes a personal god
>>76413144
Not with any *natural* evidence
>>76413325
and how could it be otherwise?
>>76408684
You clearly are moronic and need someone to tell you what to do. Science changes because new information comes in. What is currently taught is the current most working model for explaining all that we know and can demonstrate. It's an ever evolving plan that improves. Seriously, why can't you see this?
>>76413353
So why should one rather assume an impersonal god, than a personal One?
>>76405232
>a flat earth while wondering what this big shiny thing in the sky is
No one thought this. Especially not in the bible. Read Job 28 and tell me those guys thought the earth was flat and hur de hur light in the sky
>>76413325
I suppose it depends on what you define as physical. If by "physical" do you mean "material?" In which case no, as consciousness is most likely based in electricity, which is not material. It is however physical in the sense that it does exist and is view-able, then yes.
>>76413421
There can be no other evidence. Supernatural evidence is void as supernatural things do not exist in a natural world.
>>76411010
There are things called satellites orbiting AROUND the earth.
>>76413440
The mind is not physical, and yet it can be said to be natural (as it would come from the physical)
>>76405232
>implying you need the bible in order to believe in an omnipotent deity
Don't be so closed-minded, Germany.
>>76413489
Can science ever be right?
>>76407335
Lots of things in the Bible didn't happen.
It's been proven time and time again to have historical inaccuracies.
>>76413586
In what way is the mind physical? (and you're right, I don't mean material)
>>76413625
>There can be no other evidence.
Why?
>Supernatural evidence is void as supernatural things do not exist in a natural world.
Unless they (bits of supernatural evidence) permeate it
>>76413542
if i'm already only assuming that god exist in the first place, assuming such specific thing as human-like god is unsubstantiated
>>76413657
>The mind is not physical
again, assuming it's not just chemistry
>>76411010
There is no such thing as "scientific proof" that is removed from theories. For an idea to achieve the status of theory it has to be supported by a lot of scientific proof. Theories are the very best you can get, something can be proven but it is still a theory in the scientific community. Gravity, for instance, is still a theory.
>>76413757
Can you ever be right?
>>76413757
no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_bs-W_xON4
>>76413851
I just said it in that previous post. In that "physical" in this sense denotes its demonstrable existence.
>>76405466
Pick a side you indecisive faggot
>>76411009
Yeah, that's totally right. But science has nothing to do with religion anymore, even though it originated with the help of religion.
>>76413961
Well, if our God would have created us, it's not that much of a stretch to deduce that He in some sense resembles us
Does a (non-cucked) father not resemble his child?
>>76413961
The brain is actually a transformer for the etheral mind you dumb pshek, nothing to do with chemistry.
>>76413950
But you have already assented to the notion that supernatural entities cannot exist in a natural world. If you have not, my mistake. If natural and supernatural in your view are intertwined, such supernatural evidence must still be able to see some form of validation and verification. Seeing that such a piece of evidence may not be able to be verified through the scientific method, some other means must be created. Thus begs the question, however, what supernatural evidence do you have, and how do you yourself validate it as true?
What I don't get is why Christianity gets such a bad reputation nowadays especially here in the US. After the New Testament was written, Christianity evolved into a more loving, accepting religion that would take all walks of life into Heaven through accepting Christ.
Ever since I was fifteen I started fucking hating the pseudo-intellectual Atheists that will call Christianity evil and act as if it's a bad thing for modern day society just because they can't accept the fact that religion in general might actually be true.
So you have all these fucking neck beards running around spewing their Bill Maher quotes without knowing actual facts while disregarding the actual good and morality Christianity and religion in general has brought us. Then the actual good-hearted Christians who don't really care don't stand up to them with facts, just "I'll pray for you".
I just wish talking about religion would be as taboo as fucking your sister three times a day.
>>76414323
this* not thus, my mistake
>>76413961
>again, assuming it's not just chemistry
If I did assume that, it would just be chemistry calling itself chemistry. As if that would make it any true
>>76412426
I logged to upvote this
>>76413998
Possibly. But the Scientific Method can never arrive at "correct" conclusions, by its very definition
It's constantly fighting against itself, aiming to continuously falsify itself
The nature of reality is some fucked up shit. The more quantum field theory or molecular biology I study leaves me thinking that anything is possible. I choose to think there is something more after death because shit would kinda suck if not. I am all for this over populated world of mouth breather resource wasters believing in a peaceful interpretation of one of these christian denominations. As for me, I knew at an early age that these sandnigger books were bullshit.
>>76414270
but you're already using human-like god logic here
what if god is some kind of primal force we cannot imagine?
>>76414413
isn't that just self awareness?
They only true religion is Islam.
rest is lie or corrupted.
convert before it's too late
>>76414042
How does the mind exist, and how is it viewable?
>Protip: Neurons are not the mind
>>76414782
>Neurons are not the mind
why?
>>76414753
Kill yourself t*urkroach
>>76414753
That's why we all love the Islam so much.
>>76414753
you're wrong.
>>76414323
>Thus begs the question, however, what supernatural evidence do you have, and how do you yourself validate it as true?
Payer, but this is my faith. And in my faith (as in all faith), I'm not interested to validate that it is or not true
I just know it can be
>>76405232
you're missing the forest from the trees, this goes beyond mere fact-checking and originates from a time when order and a correct way to live within a growing society was badly needed, addressing contemporary problems
religion filled that void, it was very successful in doing so regardless of the fact that many regimes took advantage of it to control the masses for their benefit, however we all know how that turned out for them while religions remain
I believe it's a non-issue these days even though an individual's indoctrination isn't up to them but their parents for they are ultimately free to renounce it upon coming of age should they wish to do so
from a third party's perspective it is literally none of your business for anything you desire to impart onto others is authoritarian and as such intrinsically bad
ISLAM EXCLUDED, it is a totalitarian political ideology that must be contained/exterminated
>>76414782
It is view-able in the sense that it is the means through which we perceive reality, and thus we know it exists as our self-awareness is itself consciousness. Of course this is anecdotal evidence, but seeing as I'm not educated on tests done pertaining to the nature of consciousness that is the only evidence I can provide.
>>76414695
>what if god is some kind of primal force we cannot imagine?
Do you have reason to believe this?
>isn't that just self awareness?
In some sense it is. But if we're just chemistry, how could we know that what we believe (including the idea that we're chemistry) would be true?
Every discussion of religion and science is filled with people who know nothing about either topic.
Nothing in science says anything about a god. NOTHING. The Bible however has many depictions or stories that are easily disputable by science.
>>76414576
read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>>76414922
Because neurons are not thoughts, feelings and imagination (although they *may* map on to them in theory)
>See: The Hard Problem of Consciousness
>>76415306
>Do you have reason to believe this?
no
as you have no reason to believe otherwise
>But if we're just chemistry, how could we know that what we believe (including the idea that we're chemistry) would be true?
maybe advanced chemical mechanisms can observe and comprehend the nature?
>>76415062
Such "supernatural evidence" however is based on natural evidence, ie. whatever doctrines you adhere to. Such doctrines are based in ancient writings, and we've come full circle: you've placed unsubstantiated belief in a natural reality.
>>76415434
I'm just saying that's how Science is designed (the method)
It could be sometimes right (as you've just pointed out), but it would never know or say that
>>76406272
Actually they get rewritten cause the textbook companies just want to make more money. The idea that we are constantly find evidence that contradicts our initial findings is wrong. Newton's theory of gravitation held sway for at least 300-400 years and Einstein's work has lasted 100 years.
Stop believing memes you fucking dumbasses
>>76415480
but neurons are an important part of our brain
studying them can lead us to understanding how it functions
therefore it might be possible to reach the physical form of thoughts, feelings and imagination
>>76415112
>you're missing the forest from the trees
What OP says is that you look at each individual tree and discover it isn't a tree. Thus you don't have a forest, but a group of 'not trees' :^)
>>76415646
I know but same logic can be used to prove allah or other gods.You are only using it to prove your God.
>>76415604
>no
>as you have no reason to believe otherwise
So why do you believe what you believe, and not what I?
>maybe advanced chemical mechanisms can observe and comprehend the nature?
Maybe. But we could never know (if we were these de facto a-sentient mechanisms) that we were comprehending nature truthfully
>>76416006
>a-sentient
"de facto *mindless" is a better word
>>76415605
Unless the two realities (super- and natural) were (and had always been) intertwined
>>76415816
It might be possible to reach them. But it doesn't mean it *is* them
>>76415926
I could never prove God
>>76415646
>>76415816
you know, the shit you two are guessing and philosophizing about right now, Buddhist and eastern religions have the answer to that for thousands of years as well as and mystics and sages from all around the world
it's called spiritual enlightenment
it's overlooked because it sounds like new age crap and it can't be communicated by language, only experienced by yourself, which takes tons of practice of mindfulness and self awareness
>>76416205
But there is no proof of this but your proof of faith, based in (allegedly) supernatural reality, which itself takes an (alleged) supernatural act to even understand. The logic here is cyclical.
>>76407447
atheism
> Don't believe,
Gnostic atheism
>"I know there is no god,
Agnostics are the biggest cunts out of all of them I've encountered on the internet,
>>76416422
Literally, you can only try to convey an idea of it, and hope that it conveys enough of an idea that people you tell it to can "fall into" it and experience it themselves suddenly.
It is not something easily transmitted and exquisitely subtle.
>>76416006
>So why do you believe what you believe, and not what I?
i don't believe in any god, force or human like
i don't have a reason to believe
i can only admit that there's a possibility of him existing
>But we could never know (if we were these de facto a-sentient mechanisms) that we were comprehending nature truthfully
that's true, we cannot know it for sure
but openly denying the existence of ourselves would not lead us to anything
>>76416301
by observation we can assume it's them, as we assume the role of blood in our organism
>>76416848
>>76416509
> Don't believe
that's pretty much agnosticism
>>76416429
Not really. If there is a super-natural (non-physical) world as well, there would be super-natural evidence of it as well
If there wouldn't be a super-natural world, there could never be super-natural (or any sort) of evidence for it
I'm just assuming that, if there were a super-natural (non-physical) world, that it would be permeating the natural one
>>76416996
A = not
Theist = gods
Atheist is literally the word meaning of not believing. Like asexual.
>>76417200
it means "without god"
sounds like someone pretty sure about a lack of god
not believing, on the other hand, does not imply that you deny the existence of god
>>76416791
>>So why do you believe what you believe, and not what I?
>i don't believe in any god, force or human like
>i don't have a reason to believe
>i can only admit that there's a possibility of him existing
You didn't say why
>that's true, we cannot know it for sure
We could never know it at all
>but openly denying the existence of ourselves would not lead us to anything
It wouldn't matter anyway. (cf. Appeal to Consequences)
It doesn't affect whether it's true or not
>by observation we can assume it's them, as we assume the role of blood in our organism
Explain further. How does seeing (in theory) the physical correspondents of the mind mean that the mind is physical in its nature?
>>76417101
Alright then, if you say so. I had a good time talking, but I'll catch ya some other time. Later.
>>76405232
no wonder God has turned from Germany and letting them kill themselves. you shouldn't even post because you are no longer worthy. just a country of cowards. fuck Germany. I hate I studied the language. should have studied a man language like Russian or Poland. I have grown to love these guys. they will come running just to kick a moooslims ass. that's beautiful brah!
>>76417518
you have a god by believing. Whether that believe is true or not is irrelevant to the name
So you can be agnostic atheist to have that relevance but you can't be just agnostic.
>>76415020
hide your face and look down when talking to real men who protect their women. Germany is a country of cowards.
>>76417612
Take care bruv. Cheers for being civilised
>>76405232
The question of God is not necessarily one of faith - I would rather see the hypothesis of a universal creator entity proven in a lab, than a theologian's study. Do not presume books penned by men to be the infallible word of god - at best, they provide insight into our world around us, at worst, they lead us to ignorance.
>>76417951
>I don't believe you could ever prove a being such as God in the lab
Not the Christian God at least
>>76417551
>You didn't say why
yes, because i don't believe
>We could never know it at all
my point most of the time honestly
>It doesn't affect whether it's true or not
my point again
(at least we don't see the influence)
>How does seeing (in theory) the physical correspondents of the mind mean that the mind is physical in its nature?
we can then assume that our observation leads us to full comprehension of our mind
>>76417787
>So you can be agnostic atheist
and what if i'm not an atheist
>>76417951
>>76418238
Sorry, I meant to say this without green texting the first sentence
>>76417719
Hahaha you're beyond retarded. Now go out and shoot some cans or something.
>>76411636
God is not of the natural world, and is not constrained by our rules.
Kind of a cheap answer but it's what you're gonna get.
>>76418241
>>We could never know it at all
>my point most of the time honestly
That's not what I said. Read it again, I was talking about a specific scenario
>>It doesn't affect whether it's true or not
>my point again
Again, I was talking about the specific situation in which our minds were just our brains (/chemistry)
>>How does seeing (in theory) the physical correspondents of the mind mean that the mind is physical in its nature?
>we can then assume that our observation leads us to full comprehension of our mind
You can assume anything you want, I was asking how does it *mean* that the mind is physical?
Jezu Chryste... This thread again?
>>76418761
ok, again:
>We could never know it at all
and that's true
the whole point is that we cannot know if we really observe the nature in a proper way
like, never
but it's pointless to assume that we have it wrong, because we have to live our lives
>I was asking how does it *mean* that the mind is physical?
it doesn't
but that's how our understanding of nature works
anyway, goodnight
thanks for pleasant discussion
>>76420074
>it's pointless to assume that we have it wrong, because we have to live our lives
I already said it doesn't matter. It's an appeal to consequences
>it doesn't, but that's how our understanding of nature works
>the whole point is that we cannot know if we really observe the nature in a proper way
>like, never
Then it's pointless to follow "our understanding" (other people's understanding - i.e. the scientific consensus)
>>76420074
Good night to you too though mate
My problem with religion is the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Only one is correct, yes? Then how am I to know which one is?
