Explain what make you change your mind about faith, and how you fell for the college New Atheism meme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OumNAWWSoI
>>79026352
I.changed my mind because I am a gullible, shallow moron who changes my beliefs to impress people, like a vapid celebrity making a fashion statement.
>>79026538
He's not even the best Hitchens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XHv7IQCg-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwuk6NoMv8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEJ_dtN0QO8
>>79027778
What happened to your post m8?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1fuOP9yiww
>>79026352
I fell for the New Atheism meme. I read Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
Then I just woke up one day.
I'm still not religious, but I'm sad that religion is declining because of the rise of degeneracy.
I never fault people for believing in God or praying.
>>79029000
>I never fault people for believing in God or praying.
Because everytime the church is in a position of power things get better, right?
>>79029145
>>79029000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8iCylc7x2g
Dont understand how you can go from atheist to believer of that sort of non sense desu
>>79029378
>>79026352
Studying Superstring theory.
>>79029540
You can do it for the idea of the usefulness of christianity as a moral focal point to stop things like cultural relativism, or to have a set of values that people internalize so you don't need the government to enforce them for instance.
>>79029951
Explain the relevance.
>>79030305
But actually believing adam eve, noah, the resurrection?
>>79026352
I'm still agnostic on the god thing since I've only been thinking about this since the refugee crisis. But I'm culturally christian and it's because I realised "universal values" are just a meme.
In hindsight atheism is sold as the abandonment of faith and the acceptance of science. But practically a lot of the stupid people who would have been kept productive by the religion thing just turn into idiots worshipping at their shrine of marxism getting sermons from professors instead of priests. So also I figured if I'm nominally Christian and successful, stuff will click with these and stop giving insane leftism a bigger base.
And at the end of the day, also just realising le ebul christianity was always just a bad meme
>>79029631
Sorry I'll do it for him
>>79026352
Was raised an "atheist" (was really just never told about religion) and I don't quite understand the concept of god. It makes absolutely no sense to me and believe me, I've tried to understand it.
I do think it gives a unique sense of community though, and there is definitely beauty behind religion. I visited a Catholic church on a visit to Philadelphia with a friend and it was an interesting experience. Very beautiful architecture and amazing atmosphere.
>>79026352
Never was atheist. Mainly because when I think about it it seems to me that becoming atheistic would leave me with no reason to care about anything.
>>79029145
>People praying means that the church is in a position of power
>Literally what
>>79030914
What don't you understand about the concept of God? The Trinity (3 persons, 1 God thing)?
>>79030305
>>79030914
You want a starting place for Christianity in practice, try Matthew 6.
>>79026352
>Explain what make you change your mind about faith
When I saw there was nothing to replace it with in society. Which gave rise to far leftism and communism.
Still can't genuinely believe in theism but support Christianity and it's symbolism.
PS: remove kebab.
>>79030442
Many people do not like the idea that they live an ultimately meaningless existence and would rather believe that there is some kind of high power/existence we cannot fully understand. Especially when there's this fascinating ancient collection of writings describing such a thing.
>>79031565
>Many people do not like the idea that they live an ultimately meaningless existence
I realize I just speak for myself, but I find it more fascinating and motivating to find answers in that case. Which is why I love science.
However, I don't rule out a higher power or plane of existence, because I don't know if there is or not. I just currently reject the notion of it due to lack of evidence.
The idea of it though, that there could be other dimensions or universes, absolutely fascinates me. Which is why I am always open to it should evidence ever be presented.
>>79026352
The Bible is Judaized ancient Mediterranean, and Persian wisdom. The Bible re-writes ancient history to put Jews at the center of civilization. Belief in the bible makes one into a slave to the Jew. Christianity was promoted to topple the Roman Empire after Jews were butthurt about their rebellion getting crushed. (((Christians))) care more about the fate of Israel, and the Jews than their own children.
>>79031164
I don't quite understand what god IS. I've read the entire bible and from the beginning, it just seems to assume the reader knows what god is supposed to be. From what I do understand, god is an omnipotent being which is sometimes a whole to some people (Protestants) and sometimes a trinity (Catholics) to others. In which case, why worship three beings if you're only supposed to worship one according to the ten commandments?
Not only that, I don't understand why an omnipotent god would allow evil to occur. Why not just fix the problem? God seems like kind of an asshole throughout the entire Old Testament. To me, it seems incredibly unreasonable to eternally punish the human race for the misdoings of two people.
>>79030318
There is none. Christfag zombies like to play 2 smart 4 U.
>>79029631
Germany will be majority non-white before America because of your current immigration policies
Enjoy that
Talking to an atheist is like talking to an anarchist, for all the same reasons and arguments. Just replace God with Government and you get a direct parallel.
If you ultimately think everything Christianity believes and practices is as close to correct as anyone has come, but have a hard time accepting the supernatural aspects, that's the same leap of faith everyone has. Eventually you come to that point no matter what you interrupt the world around you to be, unless you're just apathetic about finding any truth. I don't have a piece of paper I can point to and show people "this is the right answer", that's not how this one works, it's ultimately a choice. And given the choices, it's by far the best and most reasonable option in my opinion.
>>79031332
But I already give to charity and I never brag about it. I don't understand why people need to have an incentive in the form of a reward from god in order to give to the needy. For me, the reward for giving to charity is intrinsic to the act. Just makes me feel good as a person knowing that I helped a person out.
>>79032451
And anyone who argues Christian societies, historically, haven't been the most prosperous is a fucking liar.
>>79032272
>Trinity
>Problem of Evil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzNEG1GB-k
Even atheists don't find this convincing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0_pTSAzYZA
>>79032946
Heh. Matt Dillahunty.
This is a good one for people to understand too because it gets mis-used a lot, especially by Christians who would rather knee-jerk react to the statement "God is Dead" without understanding the context enough to prove their own point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_0Uz4WZIU
>>79026352
You should look at trends for your religion, m8.
It's not looking good.
>>79026352
Seriously, why the fuck should anyone care?
I never understood that about this board. I'm atheist. Big deal. Some people think there's some bullshit magic at work, I don't. Is that a reason to fight? No one would even care if both the "Ur going to hell you degenerate scum" and "le meme magic man fairy tales lel all I need is my own intelligence" would shut the fuck up about it.
>>79026352
I became spiritual 5 years ago due to growing up, now I follow KEK, as I believe it is the most personally rewarding religious experience.
Praise KEK
>>79026352
Fell for the meme similarly to >>79029000
I always took religious teachings/lore with a grain of salt. (Different times, language evolution, context interpretation etc.) Some good and bad in everything, right? Atheism helped me cast away the "God" I was taught. And in that freedom (Bless this Land) I was enabled the opportunity to effectively learn spirituality on my own terms. I think some people would still call me an atheist because of how I would define god; using a simile to equate the universe with a CPU or some other machination of man. Sagan might say I'm just seeing patterns in my boiling water. But I accept that ignorance with an eagerness to be proven wrong. As a man who values science, I hold faith in that ignorance. Could we define god as 'an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance' sure if you want to be a smarmy dick about it. Some people will cling desperately to the tales of yore out of fear or ignorance. Whether right or wrong, they do. We don't feel atoms bond, but they do. And though you may not feel "his" presence, in this moment you feel mine. We are of god. God surrounds us, and binds us. Luminous beings we are, not this crude matter. You must feel god around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere.
>>79029000
>>79029000
>>79029000
Nice trips
>>79033349
>rare flag, at least I think so, cool
Arguments about politics and religion are the most passion fueled ones you'll ever have. You don't have to binge on them if you don't want to, but it matters because it touches so many aspects of life.
>>79026352
Ex-atheist? You were just a hormonal shithead who wanted to rebel against his parents.
If you had good cognitive abilities and analyzed the empirical evidence for God, you'd realize that he is in the same category as pixies, genies, and fairies.
In other words, he most likely doesn't exist.
>>79026352
The basic fact that God is real.
And even if He wasn't, you'd still be far better of just pretending.
>>79034338
>coming to a different conclusion
>thinking for yourself
wew lad, must be pixies or something.
At least Muslims kill their apostates, Atheists just snark theirs to boredom.
>>79035300
>thinks killing is the superior option
Spoken like a true religionfag.
>>79035947
I bet that made you feel very enlightened.
>>79026352
>how you fell for the college New Atheism meme.
Literally watching edgy atheist youtube videos nonstop since when I was 16
>Explain what make you change your mind about faith,
Always had a off feeling about being a New Atheist. Realised only a few years ago that I was being exactly as dogmatic as I thought all religious people were
If anyone wants to come to Christ, reply to this post
>>79035300
If someone believed in Santa, wouldn't you give them shit? There is as much proof for Santa as there is Christianity.
Imagine!
>>79036577
>>79026352
fuck
>>79036700
a world without religion
>>79036582
>>79036845
Religion isn't about proof, it's about having faith in a set of moral principles which guide your life
There only a few epistemological claims that need faith in order for those moral principles to gain absolute legitimacy
Stanta is not nearly as comprehensive so as to act as a religious leader
I have nothing wrong atheists, but being anti-theist is a whole different ideology. You've let it slip you don't trust any religions in your country at all, I don't know where the fuck you're getting this high and mighty attitude from.
You don't make any counter arguments to my logic, just dismiss it as conjecture. You're the equivalent of a liberal who thinks everyone is just spreading conspiracies on the right wing.
If you want to argue that what I say is conjecture, without providing logical counter arguments at all, I don't see a reason why I should care about your opinion. Anti-theism has never been a majority. I am telling you what will happen if it does. You call it conjecture. Then you accuse me of hating atheism, which I never said I did. This whole fucking time you just put things in my mouth, or talk shit like you know better, when you don't even know what caused the crusades, yet you have no problem throwing it around as a crime of religion, despite it being motivated by belligerence on behalf of Islamic peoples conquering the lands of the Christian Europeans.
The tyranny of the majority is an existing fact. Maybe a stretch for you to imagine, but wasn't for Alexis De Tocqueville who wrote 1100+ page book on Democracy in America, in which he predicted most of the social issues we're having today, 200 years ago. His book is highly respected and encouraged reading for anyone getting into politics.
The tyranny of the majority is a real and constant threat, all it takes is some extremism. That is what we are potentially facing in the near future, and why I support Trump and the alt-right, to STOP tyrannical liberalism. And I will continue to take the side of liberty over tyrannical majorities that want to restrict freedoms unjustly. If there was a major christian majority, that gave them the ability to ignore the minority group, they would start enforcing all kinds of christian laws. If anti theists got it, they would enforce anti-theist laws. If tolerant atheists have it, they will not care, but all it takes is some belligerence from the opposition to start converting atheists into anti-theists. This is not complicated political science.
A religious guy said that my faith was false. After getting over the butthurt associated with it, I thought about what he said, and realized he was right.
Henceforth I was an atheist.
>>79037032
And there's literally no reason to strictly adhere to the rules made up by ancient Palestinians.
There are some basic morals that people follow because of our genetics, and then the rest is cultural, some individual. No need for this story or the pageantry.
>>79037031
It's easy if you try!
>>79037252
There is a need, because without it all you have is individualism: comprising of """rational""" egoism, hedonism and utilitarianism
There are no cohesive morals in a society which doesn't value any form of cultural collectivism
All we're left is: "just do what you fell like and/ or think is right"
I used to be the type of atheist, but over time I pretty much went off all this militant atheist stuff after realising how ironic it was that I lambasted religious people for spreading their religion, while trying to do the exact same thing.
Then after a while I realised that there was no way to prove nor disprove the existence of God, and I became agnostic. Finally, last Wednesday I was feeling really pessimistic about the chances for Brexit, so I decided that I may as well try a prayer, and after witnessing the storms in major Remain areas, the sun on the day after, and the surprise win for Leave, I've made my mind up to become Anglican. It may be a stupid reason, but to me it's as good a reason as any.
>fell for the meme
This implies that I was born believing in God and someone had to convince me he wasn't real.
My parents never told me about God or took me to church. By the time I was an adult, there was just no reason to believe that some dude was killed and raised from the dead or turned water into wine, or that death is just a temporary transition into paradise, or any of the other many unsubstantiated and totally extraordinary claims made by religion.
It didn't hurt that there were more than one religion, all claiming completely different and completely contradictory things.
It didn't hurt that there were old dead religions, and knowing that people used to sincerely believe in those and were completely wrong.
The list goes on and on but at its core, it's quite simple. Stories that contain magic, monsters, demons, fairies, and things like that are always fake... oh, except for this one. Yea, no.
>>79037538
>There are no cohesive morals in a society which doesn't value any form of cultural collectivism
Interesting, all the collectivists I've met have been non-religious, certainly not christian.
>comprising of """rational""" egoism, hedonism and utilitarianism
Bullshit, people have morals that aren't self centered.
>All we're left is: "just do what you fell like and/ or think is right"
And? It works out pretty well.
>>79037716
Your scepticism is not a rebuttal, seƱor anon
Just because something can be wrong, doesn't mean it is
You're just trying to ridicule what doesn't appeal to common sense
>(see argument from ridicule)
Religious people are so cucked that they literally devote their lives to ancient tales of desert niggers and goat herders which they believe because they can FEEEEL it and they KNOOOOW it's true!
Pathetic retards.
>>79037861
>Bullshit, people have morals that aren't self centered.
Non-religious/ non-spiritual Westerners?
Give examples
>And? It works out pretty well.
There's too much volatility and difference of opinion in that. The laws in our countries for example are largely a residual remnant from our culturally collectivist Christian past
The only reason the perspective on those laws is not violently splintering apart, is because Christianity has been replaced with different ideologies (largely social and classical liberal views on the law)
But, with cultural (not social) liberalism, this threatens to change
>>79038153
>inb4 fat man hat memes
>>79038257
What he said is called an ad hominem anon
>>79038243
Do you not know any people? Almost everyone I know has a set of moral guidelines that they follow which is "Don't be a dick, be nice" and almost none of them are religious.
There really isn't much difference of opinion, almost everyone I know gets "don't be a dick". It's also policed by the majority of people who will punish people for being dicks.
Societies worked fine before christianity and without Christianity.
>>79037892
The question was why I fell for the atheist meme, not "how do you know God isn't real"? I'm saying I didn't fall for anything because I was never under the impression that God was real in the first place.
Furthermore, I'm not arguing that God isn't real. He could be real. You could be God, for all I know. I don't have access to all the secrets of the universe.
BUT I don't go around believing EVERYTHING I can't confirm as false is true. If that were the case, I'd believe in all sorts of ridiculous shit.
You can't confirm that there's no such thing as NBA fairies, little invisible creatures that fly around basketball courts in the NBA and help certain player's shots go in.
So tell me, anon? Why did you fall for that stupid meme that NBA fairies don't exist? Do you think it makes you smarter and more superior to not believe in NBA fairies?
>>79038243
>give examples
Top kek. Give examples of Christians with morals.
You'll see how futile and retarded this exercise is, for both sides.
>>79038449
>he thinks a valid argument becaomes an ad hominem if you add insults
Wew
>>79038613
Let's not forget that the majority of African Americans identify as Christian, yet most of them, particularly the men, are violent thieves who deteriorate society.
>>79038613
Before Christianity there were pagan religions in Europe
A culturally atheistic *and* irreligious Europe/ West is a very recent development:
About around the time Nietzsche said "God has been killed by the people who stopped believing in Him"
On your other point, do you really think everyone considers "not being a dick" in virtually the same way, and in nearly all moral questions? Intuitively, just like what?
Why?
>>79038833
>xd dae le KEKS
>a valid argument
10/10 made me have thoughts
>>79038833
You really need to start attacking the arguments, and leave whomever is making those arguments out of the question
It doesn't matter who says the argument
>>79038909
Exactly, whether someone is a christian or not is not what determines if they're moral.
>>79038939
>On your other point, do you really think everyone considers "not being a dick" in virtually the same way, and in nearly all moral questions? Intuitively, just like what?
>Why?
Do you have autism? People generally learn how to coexist with eachother when they interact. Don't be selfish or confrontational basically. It's really not hard.
Le Atheist Hat meme completely destroyed atheism.
Memes are crazy powerful.
>>79039026
>>79039002
Both of you are idiots and missing his point.
>they literally devote their lives to ancient tales of desert niggers and goat herders which they believe because they can FEEEEL it and they KNOOOOW it's true!
That is a perfectly valid point against cuckstianity.
>>79038650
>BUT I don't go around believing EVERYTHING I can't confirm as false is true.
So why do you go around believing everything that could be true as false?
Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence
You can only say I don't know, and that's all
Here is a question of faith, not evidence (when you can't in any way confirm its truth or falsity)
>>79026352
the fact the private school i went to pretty much hated anyone that wasn't southern baptist like themselves, we were even told to attempt "converting" other christians
that in itself fucked my head up
then i remember being a little kid and hearing that one story soemthing like this
>*jesus hits bong*
>bruh i need you to go kill your kid
but lord i..
>JUST DO IT FAGGOT, DONT YOU BELIEVE IN ME?
>sets up kid on sacrificial rock
>ties him down
>grabs knife
>kid starts to cry
>SHIIIIT NIGGA I WAS JUST KIDDING
>here go kill this goat instead
>teacher: god works in mysterious ways :^)
i got detention that day for making the class laugh with the only remark i could have thought "god is a dick"
and also for the remark "why is god so vain?" when told we were made in his image.
and thats pretty much when i lost faith when i was like 10
>>79039123
>Don't be selfish
Not a Western contemporary value
>or confrontational
Exclusively a Western contemporary value
Also, you'd more than this thumb role to establish the ethics and moral direction of a whole country
People really need to understand what an ad hominem is.
"You're a nigger," is not an ad hominem. That's just an insult. No argument was made.
"You argument is wrong because you're a nigger." That is an ad hominem. An argument was made and the premise for that argument was some characteristic of the opposing speaker.
An ad hominem requires some attempt to rebutt the argument being made, which can make it a subtle difference.
If you say, "2 + 2 = 5" and I say, "2 + 2 = 4, you fat kike." There's no ad hominem. I rebutted your argument and then insulted you.
If you say, "2 + 2 = 5" and I say, "There's no way a fat kike like this understands math and therefore 2 + 2 can't possibly = 5", I did an ad hominem.
>>79039208
Nope. It's just mockery
>>79039208
LITERALLY a strawman
>>79039449
>Not a Western contemporary value
Yes it is. You clearly don't have friends or go out. People don't like selfish people, it's basic group behavior.
If god exists and can do anything can he create a rock he cannot lift?
>>79036582
Are you fucking retarded? Santa Claus was a real human. You fucking imbecile
>>79039585
No a scarecrow is literally a strawman, he had a good argument.
>>79039783
Right and so was jesus, but neither were magic. Take your meds buddy, calm down.
>>79039596
I'm not a Westerner so I notice the difference in individualism between the cultural blocks
You have lower standards for selfish (greedy, hedonistic, and self-indulgent) behaviour
>>79039561
You may feel that it's mocking, and it very well may be, but my argument still stand even if it hurts your feelings. That kind of belief is irrational and idiotic and if you devote your life to such beliefs you are cucked on a level that can't even be achieved by sucking Ahmed's cum out of your daughter's asshole.
>>79039585
>a fucking swede
kek
>>79026352
Reporting in.
I'm still practically an atheist, but I believe in determinism and the fact that no one really has control over anything, the universe just does what it does when it wants to, and we all live in an unbreakable chain of events.
I feel the same way about this than for example Christians feel about their god doing things you cannot affect.
I am just scared of the fact that nobody really knows for sure what happens after we die. I want to believe, but it's hard to make me convince myself.
>>79039862
>Religious people literally devote their lives to ancient tales of desert niggers and goat herders which they believe because they can FEEEEL it and they KNOOOOW it's true!
Religious people do X because they """"believe"""" Y is true
Therefore Y is not true
>>79026352
How can an atheist become religious? Where did you get the proof for your belief suddenly?
>>79027137
Same, currently I believe in astrology bc gf is
>>79039265
belief
bJĖliĖf/Submit
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
Taking the barest, unamended definition, "an acceptance that something exists or is true", you have a positive acknowledgement of something's existence. It leads you to have confidence in the idea that "X is real" or "X exists".
It's one thing to recognize that something COULD exist and quite another to believe it DOES.
I recognize the possibility of a Godlike force in the universe. In fact, when you start from that barest of premises, I don't even view it as terribly unlikely. That deistic "first cause", "force of nature" is so removed from human comprehension that it would be pedestrian to scoff at it as though there were some frame of reference by which to accept or deny it.
But once the stories start getting more specific... human beings having interacted with said God, said God having certain rules for human beings, and certain expectations and demands, then I begin to have some rational basis upon which to compare my experience with the worldly realm to the claims being made by the religious and have a reasonable skepticism.
And more to the point, in the face of my skepticism, there's nothing but assertions of faith and trust and on and on, the kind of things that swindlers and snakeoil salesmen would say.
>>79040074
Therefore you need proof for Y pajeet
>>79040086
You don't really prove faith, you gain it through personal experiences
Proving faith is like taking the wetness out of water
>>79029540
You realise science is just meming, When 90 percent of the mass to make gravity equation balance is undetcleble.
But beyond that, science is based on the unrational belief that because we can't perceive things all at once, things like 'time' and 'cause and effect' exist.
Or just realise the Big Bang can't explain creation.
>>79040018
>the universe just does what it does when it wants to
The universe doesn't "want". It's not a conscious entity. To want implies desire which hasn't been demonstrated to be a property of the universe we live in.
Psychedelics.
Take the final pill, anons.
>>79039842
I never said anything about magic fuck tard. The statement you made previously made 0 fucking sense. Clarify it. Dumb nigger baby
>>79040279
"You gain faith through personal experiences" sounds supiciously like "the thing you believe is proved to you through various personal experiences".
So I suppose the question is what personal experiences did you have that confirmed, in your mind, that God was real? After all, you claim to have been an atheist, and it follows to reason you were an atheist in the first place precisely because you had an expectation of evidence.
SOME evidence must have presented itself to form the basis of your faith, no?
>>79040279
True that, I understand religious people changing their faith because they have one to begin with but it seems rather odd when a rational person suddenly accepts the paranormal.
Let's assume Satan offers you something like pic related.
I will remind you of jesus first offering, incase you have forgotten it: In my name you can move mountains.
Go ahead and move the mountain, I'll be here waiting to see who you conclude is the liar.
>>79040455
Already did, really cemented my beliefs as a Pantheist.
>>79040467
When I say "believe in christianity or Santa" I don;t mean their existence as historical figures, I mean them being magic.
Want me to explain it more for you?
>>79040279
>You don't really prove faith, you gain it through personal experiences
You can literally make up any stupid thing to believe in and use this to defend it.
I believe in dragons because personal experiences.
Got anything that's a bit more objective than your own mind that has fooled itself into believing something for no good reason and that proves it only to you and can't be verified by anybody else?
>>79039862
>You may feel that it's mocking, and it very well may be, but my argument still stand even if it hurts your feelings.
You never made an argument.
>That kind of belief is irrational and idiotic
Why? because "desert niggers"? Well if your entire argument against X boils down to " lolniggers" then the "argument" you've made is actually a textbook ad hominem fallacy.
Just like broken clocks even niggers can be right.
>>79033624
good post. you are a highly valuabble anon.
>>79040157
>It's one thing to recognize that something COULD exist and quite another to believe it DOES.
Likewise: It's one thing to recognize that something COULD exist and quite another to believe it DOESN'T.
>But once the stories start getting more specific... human beings having interacted with said God, said God having certain rules for human beings, and certain expectations and demands, then I begin to have some rational basis upon which to compare my experience with the worldly realm to the claims being made by the religious and have a reasonable skepticism.
Why is an interventionist God less possible than a deistic one?
>And more to the point, in the face of my skepticism, there's nothing but assertions of faith and trust and on and on,
Your belief in scepticism is just as faithful as my own in God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Philosophical_skepticism
>the kind of things that swindlers and snakeoil salesmen would say.
Perhaps, but it's irrelevant whom said what, but what is said
>>79040572
I mean, if Satan offers you a kawaii succubus, I think it may be safe to begin seriously considering the possibility that more of the religious claims are true, and you might want to avoid making a deal with Satan if it is.
I am still an atheist but my value system is based on Catholicism minus the faith part. I see the societal benefit of a doctrine of values but I simply cant believe in a god as faith in that which has no evidence goes against my scientific background.
>>79040572
Well Satan's not exactly offering us loli-succubuses either is he?
>>79040211
Y is a faith-based belief, it by definition requires no proof, and may even be unprovable (unprovably false or true)
>>79035947
>T. Literal fedora
12:26
>Not that I didn't want to believe, but my brain was getting in the way
Christcucks everyone.
>>79026352
When I realized that death can't have purpose unless life has purpose and that the cosmos is just a bunch of data being used to give body to the energetic life of the multiverse.
Paganism truly is a beautiful thing. I can't believe I let abrahamic religions push me away from happiness for so long.
>>79040740
>Just like broken clocks even niggers can be right.
That's a great argument and reason to believe in the supernatural and a holy father who is omnipotent and omnicient. Because even though everything points toward those things being incorrect, MAYBE they are true. Better believe!
>>79040722
If his belief in dragons is useful then why shouldn't believe in them?
>>79040926
>Y is a faith-based belief, it by definition requires no proof
You are living a lie and you shut your eyes from the truth.
>>79040491
>Evidence
Not the kind of evidence you'd find legitimate (scientifically and laboratorily testable and replicable evidence)
It's more or less the same kind of conjecture that physicists use to """""prove""""" the existence of a hypothetical force (Dark Energy) or (Dark) matter
>>79041009
Is that supposed to be an argument?
>>79041151
Why do you believe this?
>>79041087
He can believe in whatever he wants as long as he doesn't insist on getting any benefits just for having this belief or insist to have it tought in schools or intervene in other peoples' affairs in any way.
>>79040926
This could be used to justify belief in literally anything including my example, Santa.
I became an atheist at around 12, as I grew up, I stopped being edgy, so I went back to religion.
>>79041334
If such a belief is useful why shouldn't it be taught in schools exactly?
>>79040536
>Para-normal: Something "beside" the "normal"
Depends on what you define as normal
If you define it as typically occurring, if doesn't necessarily mean only it exists
If you define it as all that is physical, then you'd be wrong because the mind exists
>rational/ reason
Reason is just a sex of axioms and logical rules, the functionality of which is taken purely for granted
>>79026352
I'm Christian athiest
>Hate abortion
>celebrate religious holidays
>Don't like gays or transgender people
>Vote Republican
>I don't get bothered by any of that in god we trust or one nation under god stuff
Atheists can be way more annoying that Christians
So I share Christian views, and values, but I just don't believe in afterlife. Anyone else like this?
>>79041533
>a set* of
kek
14:30
>Abolition of slavery came to the western world because of christianity
15:00
>Compassion is a western idea
This guy is seriously fucked in his head.
>>79041516
First demonstrate in what way it could be useful and then argue why one belief should be tought over thousands of others.
Also, if a belief isn't proof-based, what is there to teach? Lore?
>>79040764
Except it's reasonable to accept that something doesn't exist when you've never seen evidence that it does. That's different than KNOWING something doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence. Belief is much more temporary than knowledge, much easier to turn around. I'll go ahead and believe that unicorns don't exist but I'll believe they do the second I see one.
So yes, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but an absence of evidence certainly forms a poor basis upon which to accept the existence of the thing which lacks evidence. By contrast, evidence of a thing forms a very good basis upon which to accept its existence.
I didn't say an interventionist God is less POSSIBLE than a deistic one. What I said was that I have more relevant experience upon which to base my skepticism of an interventionist God than a deistic one. A deistic God, by its very nature, does less things to try my incredulity. A deistic God is harder to falsify or verify. Moreover, an interventionist God mythos begins to get into specific stories that have to be accepted in order to accept the existence of the God. Interventionist Gods tempt Ockam's razor by requiring extra arguments to be made to explain the various things they do and say.
"Your belief in skepticism".
I believe in skepticism because my experience with it provides me with evidence that it exists. Skepticism, of course, is not some external thing which requires evidence. Belief in skepticism is on the same level as belief in faith. I believe faith exists. The thing upon which the people place their faith is another matter.
I don't have faith that God doesn't exist because it's not a positive belief at all. I don't require evidence that something doesn't exist. This is the way a rational mind is conditioned to think.
>>79040722
>You can literally make up any stupid thing to believe in and use this to defend it.
Why would it be stupid? I find it self-evident. As self-evident and as necessary as the axioms we use in everyday life
>I believe in dragons because personal experiences.
Good for you, as long as you also come to believe in God and your belief in dragons is not incompatible with it
>Got anything that's a bit more objective than your own mind that has fooled itself into believing something for no good reason and that proves it only to you and can't be verified by anybody else?
A lot of people would say they have verified my conclusion (God's existence) through their own experiences
It depends on what your standard for evidence is
>>79040706
What does magic have to do with you believing in the teachings of jesus? You trolling mongloid. If youre not trolling then thats just sad.
>>79026352
The trans and gay rights movement. Just because I wasn't religious doesn't mean I'm supposed to accept degeneracy. I have to ally with those that oppose the bastardization of mankind.
>>79042037
>Except it's reasonable to accept that something doesn't exist when you've never seen evidence that it does.
Not in any way shape or form
There is the Argument from Ignorance (Absence of Evidence =! Evidence of Absence) that I've already said, and the fact that you yourself may not currently have the knowledge, the tools nor any other necessary epistemological tool to finding God
[1]
>>79042140
I think it's safe to say that "I've verified it through my own subjective experiences" is a pretty weal standard of evidence if you want to demonstrate your findings to others.
>>79042434
Not believing in something isn't an argument, m8. I'm not arguing that God doesn't exists. I've never done that. I'm telling you why I don't believe God exists = lack of evidence.
That is a perfectly valid reason to not believe in something. That is the reason you don't believe in all the things you don't believe in.
>>79042452
>weak standards
That depends on whether or not knowledge/ evidence standards are in any way commensurable (Google it)
>>79041679
In what way what could be useful exactly?
Christianity or dragons?
I don't have to prove that belief in dragons is useful as the only reason we're talking about them is as a hypothetical example that you brought up. If I can accept that there is a hypothetical man who has faith in dragons for the sake of argument, you can do the same and accept the idea that the hypothetical man has faith in dragons for a hypothetically useful reason.
Unlike hypothetical dragons though the usefulness of Christianity on the other hand is self-evident. It is the basis for our entire civilization.
>>79042583
> if you want to demonstrate your findings to others.
>>79042574
I understand now. You're using the cheeky "I don't believe X" vs "I believe X is false"
Then all you are saying is a personal, purely subjective, and indemonstrably correct attitude
>>79042811
Others may agree with your demonstration, it doesn't mean that the standards of evidence/ knowledge of those who don't were demonstrably weaker
That's because we don't have a "neutral"/ absolute "third"-party to compare each insight to
Each knowledge-system is self-contained
>>79040794
>you might want to avoid making a deal with Satan
Why? Is jesus truthful? If this is the case, you may want to take his word and move a mountain, if he lies he is not to be trusted.
If Satan however offers you a loli demonette and he gives it to you, he is trustworthy.
>>79032185
How dare you disrespect the dear Mesiah, the Rebbe! Delete this post NOW!!!!
>>79042037
>By contrast, evidence of a thing forms a very good basis upon which to accept its existence.
>but an absence of evidence certainly forms a poor basis upon which to accept the existence of something
Yes, in 99% of the cases. But when it comes to the starting point of reason and knowledge you literally need to do this (hence why it is a starting point)
I hold God as one of those axiomatic points of reason
[2]
>>79042832
First of all, I never claimed to be doing anything other than explaining why I don't believe in God, which is what the OP called for. Read my first post if you doubt this. You're the one who made the assumption that I was arguing against the existence of God, something I repeatedly said I was not doing.
Second of all, God is what we call an unfalsiable, unverifiable claim at its core. These are very fun because you literally CANNOT PROVE THEY EXIST and you CANNOT PROVE THEY DON'T exist.
Usually, claims of this nature require special rules. "Substance X changes location when people look at it.", "Object Y is invisible under light." But God is, by its nature, beyond and outside of human comprehension.
So frankly, there's very little point in giving such a thing consideration to begin with. This entity, which starts from a deistic foundation, is irrelevant. However, once the claims are made regarding God's various interventions, a person can weigh them by the same criteria they use to weigh claims of Santa Clause flying around in a reindeer or vampires lurking in the graveyard. Most of these supernatural claims could be true, but most sensible people regard them as not being true simply because there's a lack of evidence. Again, they could be true, but I'm not going to accept that they ARE true. I'll accept they COULD be. I won't accept they ARE. One involves a concession to ignorance, the other involves a refusal to assert, either for one's self or others.
Why you haven't converted to Orthodoxism yet /pol/?
>About how romanian nationalism was destroyed by communism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knwQLNtwSAM
>There was no holocaust on here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_lBuhAou_Y
>About legionaries martyrs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMmdlwvLJwQ
>Arsenie Boca's life and miracles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp9S6k318o
>Orthodox priests attacking faggots on LGBT march.
http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/socant/parada-gay-din-chisinau-s-a-lasat-cu-violenta-preotii-s-au-batut-cu-politistii-si-crestinii-au-dat-cu-oua-in-participanti.html
>Patriarch Ilia of Georgia, stigmatized by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.
http://www.cuvantul-ortodox.ro/recomandari/2016/03/31/patriarhul-ilia-al-georgiei-stigmatizat-de-comisia-europeana-impotriva-rasismului-si-intolerantei-pentru-atitudinea-sa-fata-de-homosexualitate/
>>79043060
In this situation, your demonstration amounts to, "I was convinced by a personal experience." Your own character is the argument here. Might work on your kids and people who adore you, but I don't see how it could be anything but a weak demonstration for anyone else.
>>79043628
You lied in your explanations, though.
The reason for the behaviour of people, including your "disbelief" and the torment both psychological and many times physical to which people are subject if they start believing is because you were all kicked from paradise by none other than Satan, which is the name of God.
Whatever you answer, is almost 155% guaranteed to be roleplay.
>>79042037
>I have more relevant experience upon which to base my skepticism of an interventionist God than a deistic one.
Relevant, from your personal experience
>A deistic God, by its very nature, does less things to try my incredulity.
This is a personal stance, it doesn't affect the argument (deism vs theism)
>Interventionist Gods tempt Ockam's razor by requiring extra arguments to be made to explain the various things they do and say.
And yet pic related believed in my God, not a theistic God
[3]
>>79043883
>not in a *deistic God
sorry
>>79043516
Well that pretty much explains that. But if you have some axiomatic reasoning for the existence of God, it can only possibly lead you to the barest deistic first cause. Anything you suppose beyond that point is pure conjecture.
Obviously there's nothing axiomatic about Jesus or Mohammed.
>>79043878
wot
>>79043516
If you don't like that, I have some more rationalist arguments here for the philosophers (autists) >>79043516
For everyone else, I'd appeal to tradition and the need for societal stability
>>79043883
You keep responding to me as if I've made a single argument against the existence of God. This conversation is therefore extremely one-sided.
YES, everything I'm talking about is my personal stance. That's what the thread OP was asking for.
NO, I'm not making an argument against the existence of God. If anything, I'm making an argument for having a personal stance according to an absence of compelling evidence. And yes, I recognize that the compulsion of the evidence, or lack thereof, is subjective.
AGAIN, I'm not making an argument against the existence of God. That's clearly the argument you're trying to have, so maybe you should have it with someone who's actually making a relevant claim.
>>79044026
You are completely correct, but bearing in mind what I say here >>79044173
Some conjecture is completely needed for the preservation (and return) of an essential part of our societies' culture: Our historical religion
This is a lot more important than staying a sceptic (which in and of itself is self-refuting - see link here >>79040764)
>>79026352
New atheism is a meme to whitewash atheism, which is the essence of cultural marxism.
>>79044353
I have to read this >>79043628 before I can get a better picture of how you think
Gimmie a sec
Anyone else study the origins of the Bible and how the Roman Catholics decided what went in the Bible?
Muslims cannot bear to admit there were once many differing copies and versions of the Koran.
>>79026352
yeah i was and edgy fedora fag too, i became christian so ican kiss some muslim feet, fuck atheism
>>79042434
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, but absence of evidence is also not evidence of existence.
It doesn't help that most people think of cheistianity when it comes to deity, and that the bible is so fucked up that it makes people repulsed by the idea.
>>79044666
>666
As if I really believe it matters
I don't get how atheism is a meme now. I mean I understand the jidf probably started the campaign to make atheism seem degenerate to protect their jew ways but come on guys don't let shit blind you into believing in some fake ass shit. god isn't real, basic quantum mechanics created us. everyone stop being stupid don't let the jews force you into believing that science is bad when in a world of lies and corruption science is always definite and was here before us and will be here after you, don't let the jews turn you into mindless fale idol worshipping slaves.
>>79044736
>but absence of evidence is also not evidence of existence.
This doesn't say anything about anything
>>79044961
It's pretty simple.
It is both reasonable to believe or disbelieve in a situation when there is no evidence to support either side. It isn't until there is definitive proof to support one side that it becomes unreasonable to hold the wrong stance.
>>79044449
Does religion provide an incredibly powerful tool to homogenize people along ideological lines? Absolutely. I would never refute that.
Do I agree with every aspect of the Christian ideology? No.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not its true, but whether it's a positive force in society is an entirely different argument. It's fairly comprehensive, so I do think there are good elements, but I also think there are bad elements.
One of my major problems with religion, which is more clearly demonstrated by Islam than by Christianity, is its immutability and the fact that its endorsed ideologies aren't subject to critical debate.
>>79029145
As a matter of fact it does
>>79043628
>>79044353
>Most of these 'supernatural' claims could be true, but most sensible people regard them as not being true* simply because there's a lack of evidence.
It's not sensible at all to conclude an indemonstrable aspect of reality one way (atheism) or another (theism)
Thankfully, theism doesn't reduce purely or mainly to being sensible (rationalism)
>Again, they could be true, but I'm not going to accept that they ARE true. I'll accept they COULD be. I won't accept they ARE.
If you truly want to be "sensible" and rational you should, exactly just the same, never accept that they AREN'T
>One involves a concession to ignorance, the other involves a refusal to assert
There is exactly as much ignorance in concluding something doesn't exist for lack of evidence
[1]
>>79040572
You should really read your bible , we dont get power to do that jesus says this to his 12 Disciples who he gave power to.
>>79045146
Reasonable to believe in a situation that has no supporting evidence?
> Reasonable to believe someone is guilty without evidence
> Burden of proof? whats that?
>>79045329
I should say that the various interpretations of a religious text are indeed subject to debate. What was meant by this or that? Questions of translation. Questions of semantics. Examining how words were used when the text was written to have a "better" understanding of what was meant by this line or that.
But at the end of the day, it's impossible to be conclusive about what was meant. You can only interpret it. Sure, some interpretations make more sense than others, but that doesn't mean any one interpretation is more true than another.
Christianity in my opinion is merely just a lifestyle choice. I've attended Church for at least 15 years of my adult life, mostly around evangelicals, Pentecostals and Baptists.
It's really just a moral and social construct. Everyone I saw there was completely fake. Besides the one or two complete whackjobs
My main concern with this is while it's good to have a social circle where you can share your beliefs, just like /pol/, it's harmful to stay ignorant about other's beliefs. In a community like that you have to censor yourself in order to not be an outcast, just so that you can align with what is interpreted by your denomination from a book.
In the end Christians are just like Atheists; they choose to believe 1 out of 2567 gods while we choose none.
>>79045807
Matthew 10:1
>And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
>>79045329
Agreed, this is a different argument
>One of my major problems with religion, which is more clearly demonstrated by Islam than by Christianity, is its immutability and the fact that its endorsed ideologies aren't subject to critical debate.
Some things should NEVER be up for debate, however critical that debate
But Christianity (even its most conservative branch Orthodoxy) has (VERY) long since accepted the use of science for technologies and Greco-Roman principles of government - aka classical liberalism (through the Renaissance)
New Atheists are literally beating a DEAD horse, in trying to further "progressivize" it
STOP now before we have no culture anymore
>>79045736
But I don't really accept that they aren't true.
Two claims:
God is real.
God isn't real.
I don't accept that God is real.
I don't accept that God isn't real.
But, for me, the fact that I don't accept God is real is enough for me. I accept that God MIGHT be real. I don't accept that he IS.
>>79045965
Of course, interpret what you want (as long as you consider that interpretation as getting closer to properly understanding God)
If you consider all interpretations equal and you're doing that just for the sake of """""debate"""" it's stupid and a waste of time
Atheists believe that
>God must leave empirical evidence in order to exist
this is an absurd assumption seeing as though God is non physical.
Im an agnostic, leaning towards belief.
>>79046109
I'm not a big fan of culture. That is to say, I recognize that culture exists and that I subscribe to it, but I'd never wish to be beholden to it. I don't wish to be beholden to any limitations set forth by any given culture or ideology.
I'm perfectly willing to accept moral ideas that happen to be in line with a particular culture, but I can just as easily reject moral ideas that are in line with that same culture if they strike me as being rationally unsound. And this holds true for any given culture.
>>79046244
Come on now. I use to say that all the time
You might "de jure" consider yourself a weak atheist, but we all function as de facto strong atheists in everyday life
We live our life as if we knew God didn't exist when we're atheists regardless of this strong/weak distinction
>>79046321
I consider all interpretations to be equally conjectured. Of course some will make more sense to me than others, but I don't claim to have some higher claim to ABSOLUTE understanding than anyone else.
And this should make you happy, because the interpretations that make the most sense to me often point to meanings which are irreconcilable to my own point of view.
>>79046588
>I don't wish to be beholden to any limitations by any [given culture or] ideology.
You are already 100% beholden to cultural liberalist ideology (Google it): Which is limiting you, through your attitude, of ever being truly part of a culture
Never think you can ever escape holding to baseless principles as if they were valid and justifiable. It's the way the mind works and can only work
With axioms and epistemological baseless systems of thought
>>79046614
Sure. I live my life as though God didn't exist because I don't see any reason to live my life as though he did.
As a small example, if I believed that God existed, I might feel guilty when I have thoughts that are considered "immoral" by Christian teachings. After all, I wouldn't want God to judge me negatively.
But since I don't believe that God is true, I'm not worried about God hearing my thoughts, and therefore I'm not worried about God judging me in any way.
But this doesn't mean that I make some positive assertion that God isn't real, or that I pretend to be able to support such an assertion with evidence.
And before you suggest that my willingness to think immoral thoughts in the absence of a telephatic God is evidence that I'd be better off with a belief in God, you should know that immoral thoughts are where my "transgressions" end. That's because many of the things which are considered "immoral" by the decree of God also happen to be immoral by simple application of the golden rule.
I really don't need to believe I'm being watched or held accountable by a divine force to have an aversion to doing things that I would find aversive if done by others.
>>79046588
As for reason, it's impossible to derive any moral principles purely through reason
An essential part of morality is 100% completely irrational
I genuinely believe the knowledge of God is built into each human being and no proof is necessary
You just need to let go all the bullshit and have an epiphany
>>79047028
I don't think I can completely escape from holding baseless principles, but I can do my best to examine my principles rationally.
I certainly don't think I'm infallible and I'm aware that my personal viewpoints are subjective and according to my personal experience.
But then again, I think that's the best I'm going to get. Even if I were religious, it'd have to be because I read a given text and interpreted it in a way that made sense to me. That would still be regulated by my subjectivity.
I just consider my own rational faculties to be a better standard upon which to base my thinking than someone else's, or worse by some unexplained principle handed down by some external source which I have no evident reason to believe in (IE: Father Bill told me God wants this and it must be true if God wants it).
>>79026352
Changed from atheist to agnostic, which is about the same shit in practical effect.
Essentially, religion doesn't affect my life choices because ultimately the hypothesis of a god is one no one can answer with facts and reason. I don't affirm gods don't exist because it's not something I could prove, but I don't attribute things to the supernatural because I couldn't prove that either.
>>79047144
>Sure. I live my life as though God didn't exist (is a true statement) because I don't see any reason to live my life as though he did.
This is a different argument. There are plenty of of reasons for living your life as though He did. Religion being a sense of community, of continuity after death, of peace and stability, etc.
A completely different discussion to whether of not there are reasons for God existing/ not existing
>As a small example, if I believed that God existed, I might feel guilty when I have thoughts that are considered "immoral" by Christian teachings. After all, I wouldn't want God to judge me negatively.
>But since I don't believe that God is true, I'm not worried about God hearing my thoughts, and therefore I'm not worried about God judging me in any way.
There are pros and cons to both theistic and atheistic stances on God
It depends which outweigh which
>But this doesn't mean that I make some positive assertion that God isn't real, or that I pretend to be able to support such an assertion with evidence.
No, but, by living your life this way, you're pretending that God doesn't exist
>And before you suggest that my willingness to think immoral thoughts in the absence of a telephatic God is evidence that I'd be better off with a belief in God, you should know that immoral thoughts are where my "transgressions" end. That's because many of the things which are considered "immoral" by the decree of God also happen to be immoral by simple application of the golden rule.
"Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." And how can we know we are the proper judges of morality for absolutely everyone?
>I really don't need to believe I'm being watched or held accountable by a divine force to have an aversion to doing things that I would find aversive if done by others.
Some people may not hold your same definitions for "aversive"
>>79047241
Whichever part of morality is 100% completely irrational is of no interest to me.
I think my own sense of morality can best be boiled down to the golden rule.
This does make me a bit morally ambivalent, I must confess, but it's never lead me astray. I treat people as I would like to be treated (with respect according to their principles) and I don't violate other people's autonomy whenever I can help it.
Why do you think I'm a liberal who enjoys hanging out on /pol/? Because I'm not emotional when it comes to hearing opposing views, and I like to consider them carefully.
Why do you think I'm careful to not overstate any of my beliefs? Because I'm aware that I could be convinced that I'm wrong if the opposing argument was good enough.
>>79047580
Show me how you derive morality through reason
>>79040366
>Or just realise the Big Bang can't explain creation.
I understand the desire to know things but I don't understand the willingness to settle for the first thing to give an explanation.
>>79047908
>There are reasons to justify actions using extremely unlikely possibilities that are one if many propositions
>There are reasons for ilogical reasoning
You can have all of those "good sides" without religion. The problem is marxism inherently subverts society and tries to destroy those traditional social units (including religious ones).
>>79047908
Those reasons are good for others, not for me.
My sense of community is fulfilled by my family and circle of friends. That's more than sufficient for a sense of community, and, besides, a sense of community could be derived among atheists.
Continuity after death is another obvious reason why people would go in for religion. Hell, it's a reason I might go for in religion. But that, of course, is wishful thinking. I try not to believe things are true simply because I wish they were. This applies to far more than just religion.
Peace and stability? Most religions make that promise. Islam makes that promise. I know plenty of stable and peaceful theists. I know plenty of unstable and violent theists. I'm unconvinced by the promise and unconvinced it makes much of a difference.
Anyhow, we seem to be getting lost in the weeds. I promise you that it doesn't bother me if God doesn't exist. Does it bother you if Mohammed wasn't his prophet? Many Muslims would argue that you should be bothered if Islam isn't true, but of course you don't care.
And by saying I'm pretending he doesn't exist, I think you're being a bit biased. I could just as easily say you're pretending he does. I don't see what revelation this would provide either of us with.
As for the imperfection of the golden rule, no argument here. But I don't believe perfect morality is obtainable. I just do my best to not fuck others over.
>>79047981
You sound more like a libertarian
>I treat people as I would like to be treated (with respect according to their principles)
Explain how you are balancing these
>and I don't violate other people's autonomy whenever I can help it.
Sometimes people's autonomy needs to be violated
>Why do you think I'm a liberal who enjoys hanging out on /pol/? Because I'm not emotional when it comes to hearing opposing views, and I like to consider them carefully.
Fair enough
>Why do you think I'm careful to not overstate any of my beliefs? Because I'm aware that I could be convinced that I'm wrong if the opposing argument was good enough.
Do you have a standard of "good" strong enough so as to assert yourself? ie. Do you really believe what you're saying?
>>79048413
>There are reasons to justify actions using extremely unlikely possibilities that are one of many propositions
What are you specifically talking about when you say "unlikely"?
>>illogical reasoning
Oxymoron
>You can have all of those "good sides" without religion. The problem is marxism inherently subverts society and tries to destroy those traditional social units (including religious ones).
Cultural marxism has not effect if we have a conservative culture. And Western Christianity used to be both conservative and our culture
>>79048940
>*no
>>79048204
I don't know whether morality can be derived purely from reason so much as it can be justified reasonably.
What this debate will inevitably boil down to is objectivity vs subjectivity. How can I say that, objectively, it's better to not be a hypocrite? Of course I can't make that claim objectively, only subjectively.
The thing is, theists tend to say, "Well the only way a person can be objectively moral is by listening to what God has to say. Since God is basically THE absolute, his moral decrees are objectively true."
Problem is, I have to first believe that God exists and that his decrees are objectively true. I have to believe this according to my own subjective faculties. I can't objectively know if God is true or if what he's saying is true so my subcription to that notion is inherently subjective. Just as I could believe that the Christian God is legit, I could also believe that the Muslim God is legit. It's all according to my subjective, rational faculties.
Therefore my subjective moral basis is more of a hodgepodge. It's too various and comprehensive to account for every single factor that contributes to my moral outlook, but suffice it to say that it doesn't come from a single uniform source. It's derived from my personal desires and expectations and my personal interpretations of the world I live in. Imperfect? Absolutely. But for the third time, I don't see how a perfect morality is even possible, and you seem to be making that case with everything you say.
>>79032618
The Bubonic plague prefers a live host to a dead one. That doesn't necessarily make presence of plague a leading indicator for the health of the organism.
>>79048603
I'm balancing them on a case by case basis. I mean, really, do you conjure up some bible verse every time you're posed with a moral decision?
Plenty of bible verses coincide with beliefs that I hold, the golden rule just being one obvious example. That doesn't mean the bible must inform my response to every moral dilemma.
Sometimes people's autonomy must be violated, but I tend to think that this is only true when they have first violated the autonomy of another.
I can't think of any morally valid reason why I should violate the autonomy of say, a hermit who never interacts with anyone.
>>79048592
>But that, of course, is wishful thinking.
Not demonstrably wishful thinking
>I try not to believe things are true simply because I wish they were. This applies to far more than just religion.
You may do so, and indeed you must if you want to retain your humanity and not simply turn into a mindless automaton (simply because you believe you are so)
A machine which should only compute and heartedly hope for nothing and be nothing but a bloody thinking machine
>Peace and stability? Most religions make that promise. Islam makes that promise. I know plenty of stable and peaceful theists. I know plenty of unstable and violent theists. I'm unconvinced by the promise and unconvinced it makes much of a difference.
I'm mostly referring to inner and mental peace and stability, not necessarily inter- and intranational peace
>And by saying I'm pretending he doesn't exist, I think you're being a bit biased. I could just as easily say you're pretending he does. I don't see what revelation this would provide either of us with.
We're both pretending, as none of us, by any chance, can prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis (one way OR another)
>As for the imperfection of the golden rule, no argument here. But I don't believe perfect morality is obtainable. I just do my best to not fuck others over.
It's better in my opinion to convert them to your cause and homogenise our perceptions of morality
God isn't real.
>>79049548
>I'm balancing them on a case by case basis. I mean, really, do you conjure up some bible verse every time you're posed with a moral decision?
Kind of :^)
>Plenty of bible verses coincide with beliefs that I hold, the golden rule just being one obvious example. That doesn't mean the bible must inform my response to every moral dilemma.
There is no way to derive morality through reason. But only through (legitimate) authority
>I can't think of any morally valid reason why I should violate the autonomy of say, a hermit who never interacts with anyone.
Only if that hermit is posing a danger to himself: his mental and/or physical health, and to his life (if he credibly threatens to kill himself)
>>79034338
Christians are a cultural ally against degeneracy. And it's a better ideological body than what modernity provided us.
If it's real or not, it's almost the least important part. What it matters are the sociological implication that it brings.
I would prefer having a christian nation than having lgbtq NG+3, feminists, muslim immigrants and degenerate media.
As long as the Christian society don't stand to hard on science progress path.
>>79036577
I started reading the bible yesterday, it felt nice. But I won't give up my philosophy readings. At least I have a moral guide on how to live.
I used to be an agnostic on the fence about everything, then i saw the power of kek. I witnessed historic gets in the name of kek, PRAISE KEK!
>>79049842
Well it's demonstrably wishful thinking if I think something is true simply because I want it to be true. That doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means that my reasons for believing it's true are, at least in my opinion, weak.
As far as inner and mental peace, no one or even any religion has a monopoly on this. Inner and mental peace can be obtained through many exercises.
More or less agreed. The word "pretend" has some obvious connotations, but in the sense you described, it's obviously true for both of us.
I think it would be ideal to convert everyone to my cause and homogenize our perceptions of morality. I don't think that's possible, but I think that civil discourse is the most moral, albeit possibly ineffective, way of doing that. It sure beats killing anyone who disagrees with me until the only people remaining are those who agree.
>>79036582
Better Christian ideology than degeneracy, lgbtq NG+5 and feminism. I stand with Christ.
>>79050360
>I would prefer having a christian nation
Islam 2.0
Does the Bible say anything about suicide? I can't get a straight answer.
>>79026352
Prior to being an atheist, I had looked into and considered myself a deist. I went away from Christianity, but I still held onto the idea of God, so I saw deism as a sort of compromise(there is a God, but he does not interact with the universe or with us). I regret that alongside the atheism because when I lost my Christianity, I also lost the strict morals I had put on myself that came from it, and I fell into a degeneracy.
I never really was much into the New Atheism, it was really just simple atheism, though I did take a look at Hitchens, Dawkins, and watched a few Atheist Youtubers.
However, more recently in December, I felt something in me that wanted a religion. When I found a book about Ancient Greece, I had considered paganism, but I quickly dropped that. One week in May was turning very shitty, and I was afraid that even worse things would occur, so I decided to pray that the week would get better. That same day and the next day were the best days of that week, and one of the best of the month. I was definitely convinced that there was a higher power at that point; I just needed to find out who.
I also decided to read the Bible again every day when I wake up, and now I'm in the middle of Genesis. Similarly to >>79037650, I also prayed for the Brexit a few times, and with all the shit that happened(including a storm that happened where I lived alongside the London storms), and the triumph of Leave, it reinforced my faith.
When I come back from a vacation I'll be taking soon, I intend to start looking around churches in town so I can start making it up for the past two-three years. I'm coming home.
>>79050557
Yeah, because America in the fifties were literally Mohammed.
>>79050617
>I also prayed for the Brexit a few times, and with all the shit that happened(including a storm that happened where I lived alongside the London storms), and the triumph of Leave, it reinforced my faith.
You're delusional
>>79050738
America has never been a christian nation.
>>79050318
The only way to ascertain whether authority is (legitimate) is through reason. Reason, in one form or another, is how we ascertain anything.
Here I completely disagree. If the hermit wants to kill himself, I don't believe I have the right to take that decision away from him. It's his life, his body, and he should have the right to decide.
What I CAN and WOULD do is try to convince him that it's better to be alive, that he may not be considering all the factors. I can try to influence his decision but I don't believe in employing force to rob him of his autonomy. For all I know, he may have a perfectly legitimate reason to want to be dead.
Meme magic made me realized kek was the one true god.
>>79050801
To be honest, I really don't care. I decided to pray for it, and thought I could use it as a test. When they were fulfilled, My conviction felt re-asserted, so now I'm going along with it.
>>79050851
Christianity was institutionalized. It was a mainstream part of cultural life. People prayed. People at least tried.
Thats good enough for me.
Why the fuck would anyone, on this day an age, seeing what modernity brought us, with the decay of tradition and identity, would stand up against christian religion?
Anything to combat the degeneracy and help bring up national identity is good for me.
>>79051097
>pray in something that had a possibility of happening and it happens, musta been god.
You're still delusional.
>>79051097
Is really better than having nothing in your heart. I'm still an atheist, but I'm reading the bible, and I feel that it is interesting enough to give up to faith than to live floating in an ocean of nothingness.
If it's delusion, at least it's a very comfortable one, if you stick with it.
It's a spiritual cleansing from the mainstream garbage we fill our souls with. I prefer that anyday.
>>79051163
It was popular then. Saying America was a Christian nation is false, and absurd.
LGBT and degeneracy would be here with or without religion's influence, siding with a side just as ignorant and hostile about a majority of issues *protestants* doesn't help in any way.
>>79049256
>What this debate will inevitably boil down to is objectivity vs subjectivity. How can I say that, objectively, it's """better""" to not be a hypocrite? Of course I can't make that claim objectively, only subjectively.
Depends on what (AND WHY/ what are the reasons for why) you consider better
You can make the claim rationally (rationally justify it) but you'll eventually boil down to personal inclinations, and valuations
>I have to believe this according to my own subjective faculties.
You don't have to believe it according to any faculties. You simply have to believe it
You'll always be a subject whatever you do anyway
>I can't objectively know if God is true or if what he's saying is true so my subcription to that notion is inherently subjective.
Same can be said that: I can't objectively know if God is false or if what he's saying is false so my subscription to that notion is inherently subjective.
>Just as I could believe that the Christian God is legit, I could also believe that the Muslim God is legit.
Depends on whether or not you have an attachment to your nation's (and the continent's) historical religion
>It's all according to my subjective, rational faculties.
Subjective and rational are two different things
>Imperfect? Absolutely. But for the third time, I don't see how a perfect morality is even possible, and you seem to be making that case with everything you say.
I myself don't believe there can be a perfect morality outside God's. By ourselves we can have no morality, and with God we can only attain an imperfect adherence to it
>>79051177
I can see your point, but I still feel thankful for the Brexit. Maybe when things come across that the odds are slim for, I can really test it. Until then, I'll still believe.
>>79051177
When Spain lost to Croatia, my dad was talking about he knew Spain wasn't going to win the cup.
Then Spain lost to Italy and he was so proud that he had called it. It was annoying but I didn't say anything.
>>79051348
>Is really better than having nothing in your heart.
There is plenty in my heart.
Delusion is a bad thing.
>>79045957
It's reasonably to believe, but unreasonable to convict.
Courts are supposed to confirm that criminals are guilty before convicting them. The judge has every right to set someone free that he feels is guilty if there is no evidence that leads to a sound conclusion.
>>79051447
Your dad must be God.
>>79051362
No it's not. Is the same as saying that todays America is liberal.
It's institutions are all liberal. Media promote leftism values all around. Hollywood do it, colleges do it.
All national narratives now are interpreted in the lights of racism, sexims and other fuckisms.
To me, this says that, this ideology raised to the top, and it influences all of the life of the nation. Even the army.
Hence, in the early days, Christianity claimed the top, and it influenced a better life for all nation compared to what we have today.
America was not an religious government, or a theocracy, but it WAS a Christian nation.
Anyone saying otherwise, is a liberal faggot, trying to defend the actual order of things.
I eager for the return of christian morality to destroy all that faggotry.
>>79050439
Best of luck, hue friend
>>79051688
No it's not saying the same thing as America is liberal, that is a political agenda.
Church and state have non-permeable barriers in American government. It is not and never was a Christian nation.
It never held Christian morality or ideology either.
>>79029000
entirely this.
unbeliever but I've been publicly saying I'm a Catholic for a while. At some point, I'll go thru the motions once again to have a sense of connection and purpose to western civilisation.
Being an atheist is tormenting and aids in the decivilisation of the west.
>>79051425
>Same can be said that: I can't objectively know if God is false or if what he's saying is false so my subscription to that notion is inherently subjective.
Yes, I agree. This is what I'm saying. Everything I think is subjective, so I repudiate the common theistic assertion that objectivity is alternatively possible and consequently superior.
>I myself don't believe there can be a perfect morality outside God's.
Let's say you could codify 'God's Law' into a list.
So you have this list of God's laws and you say it's perfectly moral.
But I have another list, which is mostly similar but different in some respects.
Then I call that list, 'God's Law' as well.
Which do you subscribe to?
I'm not explaining this perfectly but I think you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying. You subjectively believe that one list comes from God and the other doesn't. In actuality, you can't confirm that either came from God. You have absolutely no objective way of knowing which, if any, came from God. So your belief in that set of rules is just as subjective as my belief in my set of rules except that you feel as though yours are more legitimate because they may have come from God.
In other words, the only difference between our rules is your belief in their origins, which are NOT objective. If your rules are only verified by a subjective belief, how are they anymore perfect than another set of rules which is also merely verified by a subjective belief?
>>79029631
>tfw that picture is all the truth though
lmao stay mad ahmed
>ex atheist
nice meme
>>79050486
>Well it's demonstrably wishful thinking if I think something is true simply because I want it to be true. That doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means that my reasons for believing it's true are, at least in my opinion, weak.
Wishful thinking cannot be applied for something there cannot be any evidence for OR against to begin with.
It's irrelevant to begin with, because absolutely no evidence can be produced in the first place
>As far as inner and mental peace, no one or even any religion has a monopoly on this. Inner and mental peace can be obtained through many exercises.
True, but it's the cumulative pros of Christianity that make it indispensable
Such as like it being our nations' and this continent's historical religion
>but I think that civil discourse is the most moral, albeit possibly ineffective, way of doing that. It sure beats killing anyone who disagrees with me until the only people remaining are those who agree.
Sure, but you can drop using reason (or scienceā¢) when debating the existence of God. Civil we ought to remain only in the sense of not affecting the *physical* autonomy of the person involved in your debate
Their feelings have absolutely no constitutional protections. But they should be free to leave the conversation at any time
>>79026352
I changed when I realized Earth couldn't be more than 10,000 years old. Noah's Flood carved out the grand canyon too.
>>79026352
I had an addiction problem. Help me break the cycle. Spirituality really does cure a lot of internal problems.
>>79052251
>Everything I think is subjective
You believe this is objectively or subjectively true?
I always believed in God but wasn't religious. I recently started attending church to be closer to God and learn life lessons from the sermons. The community aspect is great. I want to raise my future kids around good people and the church seems like a great option.
Because I realised Dinosaurs are just a meme
>>79053274
Amen brother praise GOD. The LORD JESUS has shown us time and time again that GREAT LIAR has put FAKE BONES. They aren't even bones. They're stones! They are probably natural formations THE DEVIL twisted into LIES.
>>79052857
It probably is the billions years old science tells us.
>>79052251
>God's Law argument
You don't understand that I (nor anyone else) am not supposed to *verify* which one is God's set of moral principles
Faith and religion don't work like that. One you put your faith in Christianity, it IS God's law
The same way if I put my faith in you, you can never fail me (even though you factually could). And I would fully believe it
>>79053274
>.dinosaur is just a meme word
Origins of the Word Dinosaur
Sir Richard Owen
What is the origin of the word dinosaur? I ask many people this question and surprisingly most people don't know. One of those little known dinosaur facts is that the word dinosaur is a relatively new word in the English language.
The word dinosaur literally means "terrible, powerful, wondrous lizards." The word became popular after biologist and paleontologist, Sir Richard Owen coined the term "Dinosauria" in 1841. The word dinosaur derives from two greek words (deinos) "terrible, powerful, wondrous" + (sauros) "lizard".
So what would a person prior to 1841 call a giant, powerful, wondrous lizard if they saw one? The answer to that question is really quite obvious especially if we look back into the historical record for evidence of giant, powerful, wondrous lizards. Can you Guess?
>>79052745
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.
Wishful thinking can occur for anything. I could wishfully think that the Earth is a sphere. I'd likely be right! I could wishfully think that the Earth is a flat disk! I'd likely be wrong! But whether I'm right or wrong in either conviction is irrelevant as far as whether or not I'm wishfully thinking.
The only criteria for thinking to be wishful thinking is if I'm thinking it merely because I want it to be true. It doesn't matter if the thing is unfalsifiable or unverifiable because wishful thinking describes merely the motivations for my conclusion, which, in this case, are a desire for the conclusion to be true.
As for everything else you said, I agree entirely. I think the debate over the existence of God is completely moot. It can't be proven or disproven either way.
The only debate that is relevant is whether or not we base our policies and actions on religious beliefs or not. I think that religion on its own is not enough. A policy should be demonstrably positive for society REGARDLESS of whether or not it's espoused by the bible. Let's assume that the bible is totally awesome and there's nothing in it that sucks. Great, but that changes nothing. You have to demonstrate that the bible is totally awesome and all its advice is good in its own right, not simply "Because the Bible said so."
It may seem to be an irrelevant distinction if you do believe that the bible is 100% awesome and right about everything, but I don't accept the infallibility of any text. I want a sound rational reason for everything, and if it happens to coincide with the bible, the more the better. But if not, fuck the bible.
>>79053056
I think I have no access to objective truth.
>>79053557
That seems terribly reckless as a moral system.
>>79050985
>The only way to ascertain whether authority is (legitimate) is through reason. Reason, in one form or another, is how we ascertain anything.
Not moral legitimacy
>Here I completely disagree. If the hermit wants to kill himself, I don't believe I have the right to take that decision away from him. It's his life, his body, and he should have the right to decide.
Well I don't believe it's his life and his body. I believe they're more of a loan from God
>What I CAN and WOULD do is try to convince him that it's better to be alive, that he may not be considering all the factors. I can try to influence his decision but I don't believe in employing force to rob him of his autonomy.
>For all I know, he may have a perfectly legitimate reason to want to be dead.
No such thing
>>79053832
Is this factually correct?
>>79053909
Worked for millennia :^|
>>79053411
If you are serious you really need a diffrent theory on the matter
If Einstein was so smart how come he's dead?
Christians: 1
Atheists: 0
>>79053941
How else would you ascertain whether an authority is legitimate? Faith? Your feelings? Come on.
The rest is just our fundamental difference of perspective. We're obviously going to have irreconcilable differences since you think we were created by a unitary sentient being for some higher purpose.
>>79053439
LINEAGE OF ADAM does not permit this.
CREATION OF WORLD. Read Genesis. It is no more than 10,000 at best. Christian Research has shown Gravity has been slowly decreasing. If you reverse this you find gravity would be to much by ~10,000 years ago.
So Earth can NOT BE MORE than 10,000. CHRIST MADE EARTH IN 6 DAYS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. SCIENCE IS A DEVILS LIE. YOU NEED TO SEEK GOD AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS FOR YOUR FALSE BELIEF. NO UNIVERSE OR WORLD COULD LAST BILLIONS OF YEARS.
If Earth is BILLIONS of years. How are there STILL NATURAL RESOURCES??? Would not Humans have USED IT ALL BY NOW? Why would modern machines just now arise? Billions of years for humans to make them. L0L
There is only one truth, GOD made EARTH in a few days and then ADAM AND EVE SINNED. Their SIN is OUR BURDEN. IT IS BECAUSE OF THEIR SIN WE HAVE DEVIL LIES AND FAKE """SCIENCE""" THAT RUINS OUR KIDS. LOOK at what WE ACHIEVED BEFORE PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE BECAME COMMON. UP until 1950s our SCHOOLS TAUGHT GOD as common fact and it IS TRUTH. Now we have stagnated mechanics BECAUSE SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT IS A DEVILS LIE.
>>79029145
Truu
>>79054080
>Is this factually correct?
I don't know :^)
>Worked for millenia
So did shitting in chamber pots and tossing them into the street. Just because something "worked" doesn't mean it's the best.
I'm still and atheist. Always have been, always will be
>>79054360
>I don't know :^)
Then why don't you assert the negation of that sentence instead ;^)
>So did shitting in chamber pots and tossing them into the street. Just because something "worked" doesn't mean it's the best.
It's the same way moral legitimacy is asserted today :^|
We haven't suddenly all evolved into individualist moral-creating ubermenschen you know
Most of us just follow the ideologies we've been culturally immersed in (Americanism/ Western ideologies and perceptions: hedonism, consumerism, egocentrism, the cult of celebrities, and so many other culturally-specific things)
