Do christians unironically believe in God, or are they just in for the fellowship?
I do only know one christian. She's a party girl from outside Kristiansand (in the bible belt), and she doesn't believe in anything. She's a christian because when she's done partying, she wants to move back and have kids. All the activities are through the church and the only thing non-christian kids can do is to sniff glue.
>>55495843
Most American Christians only believe in God because of child abuse.
>>55495843
Your choices at the moment are
>supreme being created the universe and all life
or
>some big explosion created the universe and all life
the hardcore ones really believe it, mormons evangelicals or guys that converted in prison.
I found myself wondering this a lot. Are they really that stupid? Do they do it to fit in? I really don't know, but I think they do unironically believe in it.
>>55496009
more like
>God did it (apply this to any and everything)
or
>We don't know but evidence suggests that the universe began at a small point and expanded from there to where it is today and continues to expand.
>>55496500
THE BIBLE SAYS SO FAGGOT
>>55495843
Very few people seriously believe believe in God, after all what do christians even sacrifice by being christian anyway.
lots of atheists do and act exactly like christians and vice versa.
>>55496500
>evidence suggests that the universe began at a small point and expanded from there
How does this discard God?
>>55496009
>Big explosion created the universe and all life without purpose
or
>God made big explosion which created the universe and all life with purpose
I understand why the second is more appealing.
>>55496592
depends on your version of god.
Plus, the point he's making is evidence vs no evidence.
>>55496559
Ideally you sacrifice much to be a Christian. Fasting, prayer, concentration on the heavenly eternal kingdom than Satan's temporary kingdom of materialism.
Not saying most do.
>>55495843
I like that these threads can exist.
>>55496500
If you really believen this, you havent looked at any creationist theory. Not only do they point out serious probles for evolutionaire, they propose viable creationist scientific theories that fit the evidence better.
Look up creation conference speakers on YouTube, or user wazooloo
>>55496009
Well there's actual evidence for said explosion and zero for the supreme being so
>>55496632
No, the point he is making is God vs no God, and what he said doesn't discard God
>>55496634
>you sacrifice much
For my yoke is easy and my burden is light
>>55496661
nope, he is definitely making the point of evidence vs no evidence see>>55496658
and how he says the word evidence in >>55496500
>>55496679
You don't understand or you don't want to understand?
>>55496634
yeah thats my point, never met a christian that went to church, or prayed except when they wanted a new car.
>>55495843
lel
so after shes taken 50 cocks
shes gonna come back and get
a virgin, middle class christian
beta faggot to pay for her life
sounds about right
>>55496693
the guy literally says the word Evidence, I'm sorry if you can't deduce what he is trying to say.
Just because you're impaired, doesn't mean people who do things you can't are "weird".
>>55496739
Fine, you don't want to understand
>>55496675
>>55496661
To be intellectually honest, as christians usually aren't, the big bang theory doesn't discard the Harry Potter, either.
However, your version of god discards all the other versions, such as allah, juju at the bottom of the lake, zoroaster, buddha, mazda ahuru, etc.
>>55496856
i fail to see what you want me to understand, the guys opinion is clear cut, if you want to start a separate on topic discussion feel free.
but the guy clearly states that the primary difference is evidence vs no evidence.
if you want to talk about god vs no god i don't mind, the point that would counter what you want to say is simply that yes it does not rule out God, but then which god or gods and then you could say almost anything could exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
>>55496856
cont.
the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1] Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong
>>55496856
He's right, you're wrong.
Understandings based on physical evidence and reasoned logic as opposed to discarding the scientific method and god of the gaping left right and center.
>>55496916
>filename
>>55495843
You disappoint me, Norway. Plz don't become another S(weed)en. Take notes from your fellow countrymen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01qiEmrZTKw
