# Is it true that religion was debunked by science and then they backtracked their beliefs?



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

Is it true that religion was debunked by science and then they backtracked their beliefs? like when science debunked with evolution? This should be the final nail in the coffin for religion


----------



## incel194012940 (May 16, 2022)

no
science is the new religion


----------



## LMSMaxxer (May 16, 2022)

Religion will always exist for people to cope with their after death thoughts.


----------



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

Modern ethics (coddling, positive reinforcement, anti bigotry, anti bullying) replaced religion


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

lol no. Science isn't close to "debunking" religion when they can't answer questions like "how did life start" and "how did the universe start".

muh primordial soup brah


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

Crusile said:


> Modern ethics (coddling, positive reinforcement, anti bigotry, anti bullying) replaced religion


No it didn't. Religion supported all of that stuff.

What really "replaced religion" is people wanting to be sinful without being shamed for it. People wanted to partake in homosexual intercourse, having kids out of wedlock, sex before marriage, tattoos, etc and religion didn't condone it so they changed their beliefs to a materialist one.


----------



## incel194012940 (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> No it didn't. Religion supported all of that stuff.
> 
> What really "replaced religion" is people wanting to be sinful without being shamed for it. People wanted to partake in homosexual intercourse, having kids out of wedlock, sex before marriage, tattoos, etc and religion didn't condone it so they changed their beliefs to a materialist one.


LGBTQIA+ Positive​


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

incel194012940 said:


> LGBTQIA+ Positive​


I have neck tattoos and lost my virginity to a guy out of desperation want to have premarital sex. I'm not religious.


----------



## Lygodactylus (May 16, 2022)

Crusile said:


> Is it true that religion was debunked by science and then they backtracked their beliefs? like when science debunked with evolution? This should be the final nail in the coffin for religion


Women like men who respect them


----------



## brucel (May 16, 2022)

incel194012940 said:


> LGBTQIA+ Positive​


IQ test came back negative, God is good.


----------



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

incel194012940 said:


> no
> science is the new religion


who cares ? Science debunked traditional religion. Traditional religion is dying


----------



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> lol no. Science isn't close to "debunking" religion when they can't answer questions like "how did life start" and "how did the universe start".
> 
> muh primordial soup brah


idiot, religion gives useless answers like (embarrassingly) obviously made up stories. Science gives answers like, its impossible to determine and doesnt matter.


----------



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> No it didn't. Religion supported all of that stuff.
> 
> What really "replaced religion" is people wanting to be sinful without being shamed for it. People wanted to partake in homosexual intercourse, having kids out of wedlock, sex before marriage, tattoos, etc and religion didn't condone it so they changed their beliefs to a materialist one.


everyone became religious because science was yet to debunk religion and now its just the residue of pre science believers latching onto religion


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

Crusile said:


> everyone became religious because science was yet to debunk religion and now its just the residue of pre science believers latching onto religion


Not true at all. Normies don't look into science and theories. They just follow what their peers are doing. Corporations pushed degeneracy because it makes more money and people flocked to it because nobody (including lazy american parents) was pushing proper values to stop them from acting on their sins.

Science hasn't discovered anything in science that would lead to less religion since ~1920 when they came up with the big bang theory (which a Christian priest found). So why is it that every boomer is still religious?

Evolution has been around since the mid 1800s but yet we only started to fall to degeneracy after mass media and global corporations arose who clearly profit off it.


Crusile said:


> idiot, religion gives useless answers like (embarrassingly) obviously made up stories. Science gives answers like, its impossible to determine and doesnt matter.


No it doesn't. Sounds like redditor cope. The stories aren't made up and there's stories and evidence from other civilizations at the same timeframe that lots of things happened.

Scientists have also confirmed that there's 0 way that the universe and life could've arisen from a materialist framework, which is why they came up with theories like the multiverse, which is basically the same thing as God but replacing morality with randomness.


----------



## NeedToSucceed (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> lol no. Science isn't close to "debunking" religion when they can't answer questions like "how did life start" and "how did the universe start".
> 
> muh primordial soup brah


"ermm actually, there was a BIG BANG! and thats how the universe started... sure theres no reason as to how and why it happened, just trust the science!"


this is how atheists sound lmao


----------



## Tom Jones (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> lol no. Science isn't close to "debunking" religion when they can't answer questions like "how did life start" and "how did the universe start".
> 
> muh primordial soup brah



Just because we dont know, and science doesnt have all the answers, does not mean you should assume that supernatural and divine forces orchestrated the creation of anything. There is no credible evidence to suggest that there exist something "supernatural". The natural is all we know of. Probably because that is all there is to this universe


----------



## Tom Jones (May 16, 2022)

Crusile said:


> Is it true that religion was debunked by science and then they backtracked their beliefs? like when science debunked with evolution? This should be the final nail in the coffin for religion



And yeah, alot of moderate religious people just pick and choose what they like, but there are a tiny inority that believe the earth is 6000 years old or some nonsense that they read and interpreted as written. But most chrisitans at least believe in evolution, believe the advancement in technology brought on by scientific inquiry. Yet when it comes to believing in something invisible, omnipotent is our lord, all intellectual capacity and reasoning is discarded


----------



## Hombremacho (May 16, 2022)

Believers will never cease to be the majority, what will come down is institutionalized religion. I speak of west


----------



## isis_Bleach (May 16, 2022)

reality is beyond your understanding


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> Just because we dont know, and science doesnt have all the answers, does not mean you should assume that supernatural and divine forces orchestrated the creation of anything. There is no credible evidence to suggest that there exist something "supernatural". The natural is all we know of. Probably because that is all there is to this universe


It's impossible to solve it in a materialist framework (aka modern science). Science only examines this universe and has no ground on anything before it. Therefore it's a purely philosophical question and a matter of your own values whether you believe in God or multiverse/etc.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

NeedToSucceed said:


> "ermm actually, there was a BIG BANG! and thats how the universe started... sure theres no reason as to how and why it happened, just trust the science!"
> 
> 
> this is how atheists sound lmao


For there to be a big bang, there has to be a banger. Seculars believe in the multiverse (all powerful self-created system capable of creating universes) while religious people believe in God (all powerful self-created system capable of creating universes). The difference is that one is autistically and randomly generating universes with random properties while the other fine tunes them. Both are completely plausible but it's a matter of your own values that decides which you personally choose to believe in.


----------



## Tom Jones (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> For there to be a big bang, there has to be a banger. Seculars believe in the multiverse (all powerful self-created system capable of creating universes) while religious people believe in God (all powerful self-created system capable of creating universes). The difference is that one is autistically and randomly generating universes with random properties while the other fine tunes them. Both are completely plausible but it's a matter of your own values that decides which you personally choose to believe in.


Wouldnt say that they are both plausible. A "God" is implausible with the current understanding of our universe. Granted there is yet much to be discovered, but after several hundred years of scientific research, there is nothing to even remotely suggest the presence of any divinity


----------



## Ken (May 16, 2022)

Evolution is a lie.

Natural selection is legit


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> Wouldnt say that they are both plausible. A "God" is implausible with the current understanding of our universe. Granted there is yet much to be discovered, but after several hundred years of scientific research, there is nothing to even remotely suggest the presence of any divinity


How is multiverse, artificial insemination, simulation theory, etc any more plausible than God? I love how you put God in quotation marks to try and sound intellectual when you have done 0 research and just regurgitate typical leftist talking points to continue their degeneracy without consequences.

You make a critical mistake of using the universe's laws to try and figure out what caused the universe to come to exist. It makes no sense at all.

How does consciousness, objective morality, fine-tuning, the bible's values still holding to be true today, etc not suggest a presence of divinity?


----------



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

NeedToSucceed said:


> "ermm actually, there was a BIG BANG! and thats how the universe started... sure theres no reason as to how and why it happened, just trust the science!"
> 
> 
> this is how atheists sound lmao


its called being logical and believing in the more probable answer. No religious person would bet on their religion being correct, they believe in it for fun


----------



## Crusile (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Not true at all. Normies don't look into science and theories. They just follow what their peers are doing. Corporations pushed degeneracy because it makes more money and people flocked to it because nobody (including lazy american parents) was pushing proper values to stop them from acting on their sins.
> 
> Science hasn't discovered anything in science that would lead to less religion since ~1920 when they came up with the big bang theory (which a Christian priest found). So why is it that every boomer is still religious?
> 
> ...


dude dna sampling was invented in like 1990 and it took some time for evolution and other science to be fully proven.
Religion being debunked = people realizing theres a provable scientific explanation of how the earth came to be and how evolution works. in 1950 the science didnt exist


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

Crusile said:


> dude dna sampling was invented in like 1990 and it took some time for evolution and other science to be fully proven.
> Religion being debunked = people realizing theres a provable scientific explanation of how the earth came to be and how evolution works. in 1950 the science didnt exist


The science of evolution has existed since the 1850s. Nazis literally used it as the backbone for their ideology.

Also, evolution isn't "fully proven". That's only something that someone who has no scientific background would say. Nothing in science can be proven without enough evidence.

Nobody can name a single scientific explanation of how the earth came to be and how evolution works that wasn't theorized pre 1920s. Also, you do realize that people still believe in a higher power, right? It's just hidden under the guise of generic "spirituality" by feminist foids who want the benefits of God without having to suppress their urges to ride Chad's cock without fear of sin.

This is a reddit-tier argument.


----------



## Adamsmith12345 (May 16, 2022)

You can choose to all abstract ideals such as religion, science, racism, anti-racism, etc. They are all sacred spooks floating in the air around humans. It really doesn't even matter what others think of science and religion, free your own ego and disregard all of these ideas to benefit yourself.


----------



## Tom Jones (May 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> How is multiverse, artificial insemination, simulation theory, etc any more plausible than God? I love how you put God in quotation marks to try and sound intellectual when you have done 0 research and just regurgitate typical leftist talking points to continue their degeneracy without consequences.
> 
> You make a critical mistake of using the universe's laws to try and figure out what caused the universe to come to exist. It makes no sense at all.
> 
> How does consciousness, objective morality, fine-tuning, the bible's values still holding to be true today, etc not suggest a presence of divinity?


I have done plenty of research. I have a scientific background. Maybe some leftist faggot says the same. But I approach all my work in a materialistic way, because that is all we know of. 

I am a determinist. Objective morality does not exist. Fine tuning, lol. 
The Bible’s values hold true. Bitch if we administered the sick, perverted Shit on people they did when they didn’t cherry pick. You would be on Death Row.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 16, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> I have done plenty of research. I have a scientific background. Maybe some leftist faggot says the same. But I approach all my work in a materialistic way, because that is all we know of.


So how can you use the laws of matter in this universe to try and prove what happened before it? Makes 0 sense.


Tom Jones said:


> I am a determinist. Objective morality does not exist. Fine tuning, lol.
> The Bible’s values hold true. Bitch if we administered the sick, perverted Shit on people they did when they didn’t cherry pick. You would be on Death Row.


Objective morality does exist. Everyone knows what's right and wrong and every society has had the same morals. When people did bad things, they knew it was bad. You basically see the same morals across every civilization across the world and if you use reason, everyone will come to the same moral values.

Why are you lol-ing at fine tuning? There's like a 1/1,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ chance that our laws of physics aligned in a way that the universe doesn't implode, much less host life. That's why scientists had to conjure up the multiverse theory and other bullshit theories that are essentially the same thing as God to explain it.


----------



## Tom Jones (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> So how can you use the laws of matter in this universe to try and prove what happened before it? Makes 0 sense.
> 
> Objective morality does exist. Everyone knows what's right and wrong and every society has had the same morals. When people did bad things, they knew it was bad. You basically see the same morals across every civilization across the world and if you use reason, everyone will come to the same moral values.
> 
> Why are you lol-ing at fine tuning? There's like a 1/1,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ chance that our laws of physics aligned in a way that the universe doesn't implode, much less host life. That's why scientists had to conjure up the multiverse theory and other bullshit theories that are essentially the same thing as God to explain it.


There are hypotesies to the origin of the universe. They agree upon the age of this universe. But I find the oscillating universe theory interesting. 

We were fortunate to inhabit a planet that is reasonably fairly placed. 

And no, what you think is right,
Others think is wrong. We are slaves to our biology. Free will does not exist. And the only good Commie is one that is dead


----------



## Patient A (May 17, 2022)

Too much science is a bad religion
Too much religion bad


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

Legit, they get debunked 24/7 and just change the story lmao


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> lol no. Science isn't close to "debunking" religion when they can't answer questions like "how did life start" and "how did the universe start".
> 
> muh primordial soup brah


The problem with this narrative is people are debunking specific testable propositions made by existing religions 

They don't claim to know the mysteries of the universe


----------



## eduardkoopman (May 17, 2022)

Crusile said:


> Is it true that religion was debunked by science and then they backtracked their beliefs?


No, in general. because religion people 9at the top) are stubborn. And the purpose of religion is coping, not truth



incel194012940 said:


> science is the new religion


legit point.
a good part of current research. Is heavily influenced by "political" or "social" believes.
entering, where they just look to confirm their beleives about society, people, and so on.

Some science fields, are luckily less manipulated.
but pshychology, social, gender, balblabla research stduies; ARE FUCKED. Rune by a bunch of feminazis


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> There are hypotesies to the origin of the universe. They agree upon the age of this universe. But I find the oscillating universe theory interesting.
> 
> We were fortunate to inhabit a planet that is reasonably fairly placed.
> 
> ...


We clearly have free-will. The Libet studies were clearly flawed and neuroscientists don't even cite it anymore.

You sound like someone who took 1 science class at a low-class liberal college and think you know shit when you have done 0 research.


----------



## Redsoldier (May 17, 2022)

The only religion the masses should follow is that of the CCP


----------



## Tom Jones (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> We clearly have free-will. The Libet studies were clearly flawed and neuroscientists don't even cite it anymore.
> 
> You sound like someone who took 1 science class at a low-class liberal college and think you know shit when you have done 0 research.


Yes that study was flawed but there have been newer studies, that suggests no free will.

And no I was properly trained in biochem and neurobiology.

Also I would say the consensus among neuroscientist is some form of deterministic view of the universe, ie no free will


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> Yes that study was flawed but there have been newer studies, that suggests no free will.
> 
> And no I was properly trained in biochem and neurobiology


Every single study that provides evidence for no free will has another study that provides evidence for it. It's even close to "proven". You're just a typical mindless atheist who thinks you know shit when you don't.

Properly trained in them but you don't even know what you're talking about lmfao . Explain consciousness and split brain functionality to me if you're properly trained from a materialist framework.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> The problem with this narrative is people are debunking specific testable propositions made by existing religions


Such as what?


Harold O'brien said:


> They don't claim to know the mysteries of the universe


But if it's scientifically impossible to figure out the mysteries of the universe from a materialist viewpoint, then how can you make a claim that science has overtaken religion?


----------



## Tom Jones (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Every single study that provides evidence for no free will has another study that provides evidence for it. It's even close to "proven". You're just a typical mindless atheist who thinks you know shit when you don't.
> 
> Properly trained in them but you don't even know what you're talking about lmfao . Explain consciousness and split brain functionality to me if you're properly trained from a materialist framework.



I have not seen any studies that nearly proves free will. 

I know what I'm talking about. I did not learn anything about us having a free will. I learned that the cognition is a result of electrochemistry in the brain. 

Funnt thing I heard about split brains (people with Corpus Callosum cut) is, that each half develops its own "personality". One half might believe in god but the other wont. Not exactly free


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> I have not seen any studies that nearly proves free will.


Tons of them. Even the Libet studies proved free will in one of the experiments.


Tom Jones said:


> I know what I'm talking about. I did not learn anything about us having a free will. I learned that the cognition is a result of electrochemistry in the brain.


Ok? That's the most vague answer ever. Electrochemistry somehow manages to turn a completely physical object into a sentient being. Wow bro, religion debunked .


Tom Jones said:


> Funnt thing I heard about split brains (people with Corpus Callosum cut) is, that each half develops its own "personality". One half might believe in god but the other wont. Not exactly free


Not true at all. They don't have 2 separate personalities, they still function exactly the same with slight changes to their overall personality and both sides of the brain were still able to interact with each other in ways that shouldn't be possible from a neuroscience standpoint.


----------



## Tom Jones (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Tons of them. Even the Libet studies proved free will in one of the experiments.
> 
> Ok? That's the most vague answer ever. Electrochemistry somehow manages to turn a completely physical object into a sentient being. Wow bro, religion debunked .
> 
> Not true at all. They don't have 2 separate personalities, they still function exactly the same with slight changes to their overall personality and both sides of the brain were still able to interact with each other in ways that shouldn't be possible from a neuroscience standpoint.



Yes i know its vague because cognition and consciousness is far from understood. The current understanding is that there is nothing but physical matter that governs the brain. 

No I know they don't get two different personalities as such (hence I "personality". But their hemispheres won't always agree. 

What if someone suffers a stroke or other brain damage. They might lose their capacity to remember certain things, they might be unable to recognize any face or cant find the right words. So it is absolutely clear that the brain plays an instrumental part in cognition. Where does the undiscovered entity (soul if you will), that gives us free will fit into this? Or even disorders such as OCD, anxiety or depression. If you have free will those should be an easy fix, no


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Tom Jones said:


> Yes i know its vague because cognition and consciousness is far from understood. The current understanding is that there is nothing but physical matter that governs the brain.


You say this so authoritatively when you admit it's far from understood and no one can even begin to explain consciousness from a material standpoint. Typical reddit-tier atheist.


Tom Jones said:


> No I know they don't get two different personalities as such (hence I "personality". But their hemispheres won't always agree.
> 
> What if someone suffers a stroke or other brain damage. They might lose their capacity to remember certain things, they might be unable to recognize any face or cant find the right words. So it is absolutely clear that the brain plays an instrumental part in cognition. Where does the undiscovered entity (soul if you will), that gives us free will fit into this? Or even disorders such as OCD, anxiety or depression. If you have free will those should be an easy fix, no


Memory and physical computation /= consciousness. Even people who are asleep, under anesthesia, vegetative state, etc still have some level of consciousness, just not memory.

OCD, anxiety, and depression are first-world zoomer "disorders". Weak teenagers with 0 willpower who need to rely on medicine instead of training themselves to stop it. Same with ADHD. Just lazy parents who let their kids do whatever they want unchecked and then expect them to be quiet and behaved in school. They're learned "disorders" and are fully curable, JFL at using that as an argument against free will.


----------



## Tom Jones (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> You say this so authoritatively when you admit it's far from understood and no one can even begin to explain consciousness from a material standpoint. Typical reddit-tier atheist.
> 
> Memory and physical computation /= consciousness. Even people who are asleep, under anesthesia, vegetative state, etc still have some level of consciousness, just not memory.
> 
> OCD, anxiety, and depression are first-world zoomer "disorders". Weak teenagers with 0 willpower who need to rely on medicine instead of training themselves to stop it. Same with ADHD. Just lazy parents who let their kids do whatever they want unchecked and then expect them to be quiet and behaved in school. They're learned "disorders" and are fully curable, JFL at using that as an argument against free will.



No there is no full explanation to it, but as technology advances we can scan brains and see what happens under various circumstances. 
I'm no reddit tier atheist. I am open minded to any evidence that proves me wrong. But I have never seen any of the sort.

I would disagree with that being lack of "willpower". Many mental disorders are caused by various brain structure differences, which often can be cured, yes. 

An example could be people which have a high density of 5HT2A receptors in various parts of the brain, are much more prone to anxiety and panic disorders. You don't just think a panic attack away.

Never mind tho. We will disagree.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Such as what?
> 
> But if it's scientifically impossible to figure out the mysteries of the universe from a materialist viewpoint, then how can you make a claim that science has overtaken religion?


earth 6000 years old, humans and animals came into existence as is, huge flood of the earth, moon emits light, etc

I'm not talking about anything overtaking anything. just pointing out that mocking organised religions is entirely justified


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> earth 6000 years old, humans and animals came into existence as is, huge flood of the earth, moon emits light, etc
> 
> I'm not talking about anything overtaking anything. just pointing out that mocking organised religions is entirely justified


The bible never said any of that. Those are redditor atheist talking points that are entirely inaccurate.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> The bible never said any of that. Those are redditor atheist talking points that are entirely inaccurate.


yes it does retard

lmfao at getting outwitted by redditors


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> yes it does retard
> 
> lmfao at getting outwitted by redditors


No it doesn't. Cite any of the lines that say the Earth is 6000 years old. I will wait.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> No it doesn't. Cite any of the lines that say the Earth is 6000 years old. I will wait.


it isn't explicitly stated but it is implied with the timeline, denying this is pure cope

and it's not the only mistake


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> it isn't explicitly stated but it is implied with the timeline, denying this is pure cope
> 
> and it's not the only mistake


The timeline has gaps. You've clearly never read the bible and are just regurgitating false reddit talking points.

What other mistakes are there and list the lines they are told in (without taking it out of context).


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 17, 2022)

No. Science has debunked a literal interpretation of the Bible (i assume this is what you mean when you say religion) but religion itself has not been debunked, nor probably will it ever will.

All roads and questions lead back to God anyway, most of todays materialistic thinking are in literal denial of reality on par with literal bible bashers


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> The timeline has gaps. You've clearly never read the bible and are just regurgitating false reddit talking points.
> 
> What other mistakes are there and list the lines they are told in (without taking it out of context).


so they just left gaps billion of years long and don't address it. LOL. seems legit


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> so they just left gaps billion of years long and don't address it. LOL. seems legit


There's no billion year gaps. Cite them. You're making shit up.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> There's no billion year gaps. Cite them. You're making shit up.


exactly! so the earth is only a few thousand years old according to the bible. you cannot have it both ways


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> exactly! so the earth is only a few thousand years according to the bible. you cannot have it both ways


No, there's no billion year gaps in the bible if we take the scientific age of the earth into account. Where tf did you get this from?


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> No, there's no billion year gaps in the bible if we take the scientific age of the earth into account. Where tf did you get this from?











Biblical literalist chronology - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





it seems pretty continuous from 4000bc. but then how can the earth be 4.5 billions years old

the order of magnitude is clearly *way off. *this is not a reconcilable error


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> Biblical literalist chronology - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not continuous at all. The bible never says that it's 6000 years old. It was retarded bible autists who tried to come up with that estimate before modern science. It bears no ground today where bible scholars can come up with alternative lineages that fit with scientific discoveries.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 17, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> It's not continuous at all. The bible never says that it's 6000 years old. It was retarded bible autists who tried to come up with that estimate before modern science. It bears no ground today where bible scholars can come up with alternative lineages that fit with scientific discoveries.


These retarded Bible autists you speak of are Issac Newton, Martin Luther and an archbishop btw. The chronology is derived from established events that are dated and then using ages and numbers given in the Bible to work backeards. And it's not like it's a few hundred or thousands years off, it's billions of years off lmfao.


This is the clear interpretation to anyone without an agenda. Modern Bible scholars reject it out of necessity because otherwise their devotion and/or job is a joke


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 17, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> These retarded Bible autists you speak of are Issac Newton, Martin Luther and an archbishop btw. The chronology is derived from established events that are dated and then using ages and numbers given in the Bible. It's not like it's a few hundred or thousands years off, it's billion of years off lmfao.


No they're not. It was James Ussher, a random bishop. Learn your history before you spew retarded shit like this. The bible clearly has room in the lineage. Using an estimate made hundreds of years ago as "evidence" doesn't mean shit.


Harold O'brien said:


> This is the clear interpretation to anyone without an agenda. Modern Bible scholars reject it out of necessity because otherwise their devotion and/or job is a joke


No, they reject it because the bible wasn't meant to calculate the age of the Earth and there's room in the lineage to account for it.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> No they're not. It was James Ussher, a random bishop. Learn your history before you spew retarded shit like this. The bible clearly has room in the lineage. Using an estimate made hundreds of years ago as "evidence" doesn't mean shit.
> 
> No, they reject it because the bible wasn't meant to calculate the age of the Earth and there's room in the lineage to account for it.


That random bishop was effectively the head of the church of Ireland. And Isaac Newton and Martin luther arrived at similar estimates because like I said it's the obvious conclusion to anyone without an agenda living in the modern era.

You are coping extremely hard here.

Let's not forget about other clear errors in the Bible like the great flood or the tower of Babel (btfod by geology and linguistics). It's evident to any unbiased person that this shit was all just made up by someone with the knowledge and understanding of humanity 2000 years ago with no supernatural input lol

But muh Reddit. If redditors believe something it must be incorrect and I must oppose it, am I right


----------



## Deleted member 18603 (May 18, 2022)

nah, the ancients were more in tune with God 

see musica universalis, string theory is but a modern convolution


----------



## looksmaxxed (May 18, 2022)

you can't debunk the unproveable nature of muh god muh unknowable afterlife which is at the core of most religions, you can only show that is very likely to be man made concepts because of how stupid and childish it sounds

in terms of cosmology, the presense of a supreme being/intelligent programmer is superfluous, the universe functions spontaneously without any input. there is no meaning or purpose to life, those are egocentric concepts that don't exist outside the human brain.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> That random bishop was effectively the head of the church of Ireland. And Isaac Newton and Martin luther arrived at similar estimates because like I said it's the obvious conclusion to anyone without an agenda living in the modern era.
> 
> You are coping extremely hard here.
> 
> ...


Ok? He was a random bishop with no other scientific accomplishments and was the person known for it. Isaac Newton and Luther simply suggested it but had no science to base off it. It's a terrible argument to make.

There's no geological records that disprove the flood and linguistics and the tower of Babel are fully compatible. There's 0 chance it was "made up" by some ancient retard living in a straw house when its values still manage to hold true today.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Ok? He was a random bishop with no other scientific accomplishments and was the person known for it. Isaac Newton and Luther simply suggested it but had no science to base off it. It's a terrible argument to make.
> 
> There's no geological records that disprove the flood and linguistics and the tower of Babel are fully compatible. There's 0 chance it was "made up" by some ancient retard living in a straw house when its values still manage to hold true today.


no, he was head of the church of Ireland.

no, these are not suggestions. they are the results of reading the bible and performing arithmetic using numbers we are given with a few estimations. the fact these three (all religious btw) independently came up with estimates within a 100 years of each other says it all. and you are still not addressing that the earth is 4.5 billions years old while these estimations are all around 6000 years old! (orders of magnitude off)

yes there are. and no these events are not compatible with modern geology or linguistics

the reality is that literal interpretations of the bible are in direct contradiction with modern science. christians can only cope with contrived interpretations that are clearly not intended from the author(s)

it seems you are a brainwashed retard so no further replies from me


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> no, he was head of the church of Ireland.
> 
> no, these are not suggestions. they are the results of reading the bible and performing arithmetic using numbers we are given with a few estimations. the fact these three (all religious btw) independently came up with estimates within a 100 years of each other says it all. and you are still not addressing that the earth is 4.5 billions years old while these estimations are all around 6000 years old! (so many order of magnitude off)
> 
> ...


Ok? Head of the church of Ireland in an irrelevant timeframe with no scientific discoveries doesn't mean shit. He's still a random bishop.

They aren't 6000 years old. That estimate was made without any scientific knowledge purely from the book alone and tons of gaps were estimated by them. The timeframe we have now is completely compatible with the bible's timeframe if we account for the gaps with our scientific age of the Earth.

They are completely compatible. They've found tons of erosion that could've indicated a catastrophic flood in the area. Linguistics is completely compatible with the tower of babel. That's another bullshit redditor talking point that's incorrect.

They aren't in direct contraindication. There's nothing in the bible that science proves wrong. You're just a typical Atheist redditor using the same talking points that have been debunked time and time again.


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> lol no. Science isn't close to "debunking" religion when they can't answer questions like "how did life start" and "how did the universe start".
> 
> muh primordial soup brah


Please tell me that you're joking. Religions are a bunch of tales.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> Please tell me that you're joking. Religions are a bunch of tales.


Sure dude. "muh bible was made up brah" when every single value in there completely holds up today and you can see how society is falling apart without them. Surely it was primitive people living in straw houses who just made it all up bro .


----------



## JamesHowlett (May 18, 2022)

The problem with both camps is usually them thinking they have all the answers. However, science does have most of the answers and has debunked a lot of religious views.

At the end of the day, you can’t prove or disprove god and no one knows how the universe began so everyone needs to stop pretending like they do.


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Scientists have also confirmed that there's 0 way that the universe and life could've arisen from a materialist framework, which is why they came up with theories like the multiverse, which is basically the same thing as God but replacing morality with randomness.


What? No.

The multiverse is a hypothesis not a theory. Look up the distinction between the two.
Except the MWI, in a multiverse the common thing between different universes would be mathematics, whereas the common between the entirety of this universe are both math and physics.

But like I said, it's nothing more than a hypothesis. Hard to test in form of a theory

Till then you guys keep coping with tales.


----------



## Anchor_Ship (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Sure dude. "muh bible was made up brah" when every single value in there completely holds up today and you can see how society is falling apart without them. Surely it was primitive people living in straw houses who just made it all up bro .


God has foreseen everything that is happening in this modern world it’s all going to lead up to a bubble pop and everyone will be judged. Whether we are alive for it or not is the question


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> What? No.
> 
> The multiverse is a hypothesis not a theory. Look up the distinction between the two.
> Except the MWI, in a multiverse the common thing between different universes would be mathematics, whereas the common between the entirety of this universe are both math and physics.
> ...



JFL typical reddit-tier response pointing out semantics. I'm not calling it a hypothesis when everyone refers to it as a theory. Multiverse has no more scientific standing than God or any other hypothesis.

It's not a tale lmfao. Believing the universe, life, and consciousness all came about through random undirected processes is the real tale.


----------



## Deleted member 18603 (May 18, 2022)

there's no physical realm, only the digital, said the computer


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> JFL typical reddit-tier response pointing out semantics. I'm not calling it a hypothesis when everyone refers to it as a theory. Multiverse has no more scientific standing than God or any other hypothesis.
> 
> It's not a tale lmfao. Believing the universe, life, and consciousness all came about through random undirected processes is the real tale.


It's not semantics, you just typed whatevah, you need indications for a hypothesis, where's the indications that Santa exists


> In scientific reasoning, *a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done.* *A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence*: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.


God is a tale. Just like Santa. If you believe it all came from a God where did your God come from? Why stop at tale no1.


----------



## Deleted member 18603 (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> It's not semantics, you just typed whatevah, you need indications for a hypothesis, where's the indications that Santa exists
> 
> God is a tale. Just like Santa. If you believe it all came from a God where did your God come from? Why stop at tale no1.



if all humans came from humans, then where did humans came from


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

wizard master said:


> if all humans came from humans, then where did humans came from


Assuming you went to school








An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens


Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species




www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## Deleted member 18603 (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> Assuming you went to school
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this leads to more questions... and, surprise you didn't answer it


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

wizard master said:


> this leads to more questions... and, surprise you didn't answer it


Go search what came before that. You know they evolved. Monkeys, walking fish and single celled organisms. I'm not your teacher buddy.

Do you believe god made them from mud in a day or two? Lmao.

EditL @wizard master the sea.


----------



## Deleted member 18603 (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> Go search what came before that. You know they evolved. Monkeys, walking fish and single celled organisms. I'm not your teacher buddy.
> 
> Do you believe god made them from mud in a day or two? Lmao.



where did the walking fish came from


----------



## mafiaboy (May 18, 2022)

Crusile said:


> Is it true that religion was debunked by science and then they backtracked their beliefs? like when science debunked with evolution? This should be the final nail in the coffin for religion


religion is not a scientific hypothesis according to science therefore its not worth spending time on it


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> It's not semantics, you just typed whatevah, you need indications for a hypothesis, where's the indications that Santa exists
> 
> God is a tale. Just like Santa. If you believe it all came from a God where did your God come from? Why stop at tale no1.


God is all powerful and had always existed.

I love how you use the most cliché rebuttal ever but your entire multiverse "hypothesis" stands on the exact same logic - that it has always existed and is all powerful. Or let me guess, is there a never ending chain of multiverse "machines" that create each other?


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> _God is all powerful and had always existed._
> 
> I love how you use the most cliché rebuttal ever but your entire multiverse "hypothesis" stands on the exact same logic - that it has always existed and is all powerful. Or let me guess, is there a never ending chain of multiverse "machines" that create each other?


_The Universe always existed in different forms._ I'm not using the multiverse at all. I corrected your wrong description of it.

Keep coping


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> _The Universe always existed in different forms._ I'm not using the multiverse at all. I corrected your wrong description of it.
> 
> Keep coping


Ok? The universe by all calculations had a beginning which is the current accepted scientific consensus. You can create and twist your hypotheses all you want to avoid God. muh multiverse brah. muh expansion brah.


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Ok? The universe by all calculations had a beginning which is the current accepted scientific consensus. You can create and twist your hypotheses all you want to avoid God. muh multiverse brah. muh expansion brah.


No.

The universe _as we know it_ began ~13.8 bn years ago. I have made no hypotheses, you mentioned the multiverse concept not me, which isn't to replace any god, because no serious modern scientist believes in gods.

There's no proof or even indication that god exists. Get over it.

And to answer your Q @Crusile yes it is.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> No.
> 
> The universe _as we know it_ began ~13.8 bn years ago. I have made no hypotheses, you mentioned the multiverse concept not me, which isn't to replace any god, because no serious modern scientist believes in gods.
> 
> There's no proof or even indication that god exists. Get over it.


"as we know it". Ok? What came before that?

Of course scientists don't believe in God. They're fucking autistic scientists whose entire profession is to evaluate things on nothing but what their textbook says.

"cAn u pROvIDe a rePUTaBLe sOUrCE fOr thAT ?"

Of course there's indication. No scientific explanation for consciousness. No scientific explanation for the origin of life. No scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It's not even that it's not understood fully, they can't even come up with a sensible explanation for any of them.

muh primordial soup and muh multiverse brah

I love how you say "get over it" as if you've provided any level of proof. Typical depressed skinny fat teenager who browsed r/atheism once so he can have an excuse to his parents to avoid going to church so he can coom instead. Your arguments are shit and provide no proof, just generic redditor talking points that anyone educated can debunk.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> No.
> 
> The universe _as we know it_ began ~13.8 bn years ago. I have made no hypotheses, you mentioned the multiverse concept not me, which isn't to replace any god, because no serious modern scientist believes in gods.
> 
> ...


don't bother this guy is retarded brainwashed christian


----------



## Hipcel (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> "as we know it". Ok? What came before that?
> 
> Of course scientists don't believe in God. They're fucking autistic scientists whose entire profession is to evaluate things on nothing but what their textbook says.
> 
> ...


That's not an indication. Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean it points out to gods. JFL what dumb logic is that?

People didn't understand how thunderlightings came to be so they thought a Greek god sent them. You're the teen here not me.

You have no proof or indications that god exists. We know that universe does. Keep coping with that tale though.

I'll listen to @Harold O'brien's advice and stop wasting my time. Over for talecopecels


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Hipcel said:


> That's not an indication. Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean it points out to gods. JFL what dumb logic is that?


I didn't say that. I said that the certain thing is *IMPOSSIBLE* with the laws of our universe.


Hipcel said:


> People didn't understand how thunderlightings came to be so they thought a Greek god sent them. You're the teen here not me.


That's a terrible argument. There's no possible way to explain any of those things through a material viewpoint using any of the known properties of science.

I'm not a teen, I have a degree in science lmfao. You sound like a depressed skinnyfat teenager who browses r/atheism and uses their exact same shitty talking points. Either that or a typical neckbeard loaded up on antidepressants.


Hipcel said:


> You have no proof or indications that god exists. We know that universe does. Keep coping with that tale though.


I literally just listed all the indications of it. Of course there's no tangible proof. Any reasonable person can make the assumption that God exists based on the evidence. All the alternative explanations are cringe af. muh multiverse . muh universe in another form .

"muh we know the universe exists". Okay, so what created the Universe? Fucking retarded take bro. All this back and forth for you to say nothing but "keep coping". Just proves you have 0 clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Deleted member 19551 (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> "as we know it". Ok? What came before that?
> 
> Of course scientists don't believe in God. They're fucking autistic scientists whose entire profession is to evaluate things on nothing but what their textbook says.
> 
> ...


The scientific method as we know it is literally at its infancy. Your entire logic is = "muh science didn't uncover all the secrets of existentialism and the universes and the origin of life in 2 thousand years (25 grandmas dying back to back), therefore it's useless, wrong and God is the answer!!"

What can be asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence. No one knows much about what happened before the big bang, but there's no reason to believe it was a deliberate, sentient agency with any form of volition


Your arguments are all from futility lol


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

GypsyEyes said:


> The scientific method as we know it is literally at its infancy. Your entire logic is = "muh science didn't uncover all the secrets of existentialism and the universes and the origin of life in 2 thousand years (25 grandmas dying back to back), therefore it's useless, wrong and God is the answer!!"


That's not the point. We have a vast understanding of what's possible or not in the universe. We've examined millions of light years of the universe and have seen the exact same laws of physics applied everywhere. But yet when it comes to things like consciousness, origin of the universe, and life, we're completely stumped. How does matter turn into conscious life? How does the Universe come to existence. How does self replicating DNA arise from matter? Nobody can even begin to explain it with any kind of credibility and there's tons of science that goes AGAINST all of the main "explanations" for them.


GypsyEyes said:


> What can be asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence. No one knows much about what happened before the big bang, but there's no reason to believe it was a deliberate, sentient agency with any form of volition


Of course we do. Scientists have found that the universe's properties are finely tuned and extremely volatile. Changing any property would result in the universe imploding on itself or some other kind of tragedy. There's always "muh we just got lucky to have a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that it would happen brah" argument but any man of reason would say that's a terrible argument. That's why scientists use the multiverse hypothesis because it can account for the fine-tuning of the universe. It's basically just God but without admitting it - an all powerful process that has always existed but instead of deliberate creation it's randomness.


GypsyEyes said:


> Your arguments are all from futility lol


They're not arguments from futility. It's from pure reason. muh God of the gaps brah .


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

@LooksOverAll

let's assume your arguments for the existence of God are logically sound (they are not)

all you have done is proven there is some kind of supernatural force. there is no connection to the Christian God here


----------



## Deleted member 19551 (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> That's not the point. We have a vast understanding of what's possible or not in the universe. We've examined millions of light years of the universe and have seen the exact same laws of physics applied everywhere. But yet when it comes to things like consciousness, origin of the universe, and life, we're completely stumped. How does matter turn into conscious life? How does the Universe come to existence. How does self replicating DNA arise from matter? Nobody can even begin to explain it with any kind of credibility and there's tons of science that goes AGAINST all of the main "explanations" for them.
> 
> Of course we do. Scientists have found that the universe's properties are finely tuned and extremely volatile. Changing any property would result in the universe imploding on itself or some other kind of tragedy. There's always "muh we just got lucky to have a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that it would happen brah" argument but any man of reason would say that's a terrible argument. That's why scientists use the multiverse hypothesis because it can account for the fine-tuning of the universe. It's basically just God but without admitting it - an all powerful process that has always existed but instead of deliberate creation it's randomness.
> 
> They're not arguments from futility. It's from pure reason. muh God of the gaps brah .


All these words and yet 0 evidence for a deliberate intelligent sentient creator. Saying life is extremely rare and not fully understood in 20 different ways =/= they're arguments in favor of God


But when it comes to consciousness we're stumped? Yeah, how's that relevant to the aforementioned "the laws of physics are consistent everywhere"? Are you saying consciousness breaks the laws of physics?


----------



## Deleted member 19551 (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> @LooksOverAll
> 
> let's assume your arguments for the existence of God are logically sound (they are not)
> 
> all you have done is proven there is some kind of supernatural force. there is no connection to the Christian God


There's no connection to a sentient God or creator, period lol. Literally all of his paragraphs = "we don't know how why or where therefore this and that!!!"


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

GypsyEyes said:


> There's no connection to a sentient God or creator, period lol. Literally all of his paragraphs = "we don't know how why or where therefore this and that!!!"


he poorly explained the cosmological argument iirc


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

GypsyEyes said:


> All these words and yet 0 evidence for a deliberate intelligent sentient creator. Saying life is extremely rare and not fully understood in 20 different ways =/= they're arguments in favor of God


It's only reasonable to assume there's was a deliberate creator. The suggested alternative is the multiverse which is just randomness and still has the same exact criticisms as God aka where did it come from, who created it, how does it generate energy, etc. Take your pick.


GypsyEyes said:


> But when it comes to consciousness we're stumped? Yeah, how's that relevant to the aforementioned "the laws of physics are consistent everywhere"? Are you saying consciousness breaks the laws of physics?


Yes, consciousness includes free will. Chemicals are governed by the laws of physics. Unless we're somehow conscious sentient beings who in reality have all of our decisions made by the concrete laws of physics, which is implausible.

And yeah, we're absolutely stumped. I love how atheists say "muh God has already been disproven brah " but when it comes to explaining consciousness, it's:

"muh electrical impulses come together and create consciousness brah. some scientists even believe that all electrical devices have a form of consciousness brah "


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> @LooksOverAll
> 
> let's assume your arguments for the existence of God are logically sound (they are not)
> 
> all you have done is proven there is some kind of supernatural force. there is no connection to the Christian God here


I love how you say "(they are not)" as if you have any standing to say that and are not just using the same atheist talking points from reddit. You've wrote nothing of value aside from overused red herrings in the Bible that every 14 year old atheist knows.

I never said anything about a Christian God you fucking retard. You can't find out which God it is from a scientific standpoint. You can however use the morals and values of the Bible and see that they are still infallible today.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

GypsyEyes said:


> There's no connection to a sentient God or creator, period lol. Literally all of his paragraphs = "we don't know how why or where therefore this and that!!!"


None of my paragraphs have said that. All of my paragraphs have explained why it's logical to come to the conclusion of a sentient creator and not randomness governed by the laws of physics.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> he poorly explained the cosmological argument iirc


JFL "poorly explained". Typical Twitter lefty atheist who uses witty remarks to disguise the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. And no, I haven't even used any of the main cosmological arguments.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> I love how you say "(they are not)" as if you have any standing to say that and are not just using the same atheist talking points from reddit. You've wrote nothing of value aside from overused red herrings in the Bible that every 14 year old atheist knows.
> 
> I never said anything about a Christian God you fucking retard. You can't find out which God it is from a scientific standpoint. You can however use the morals and values of the Bible and see that they are still infallible today.


I'm not an atheist lol 

every point I've given has held more value than the 20,000+ posts you have on this site combined. and please stop using reddit as an insult, it's genuinely cringe that's the most creative you can get 

then why are you defending clear errors in the bible that are acknowledged by everyone but the most hardcore bible fuckers


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> JFL "poorly explained". Typical Twitter lefty atheist who uses witty remarks to disguise the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. And no, I haven't even used any of the main cosmological arguments.


"cosmological arguments" - there is just the one, retard

and you were definitely alluding to it with the universe needing a beginning


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> I'm not an atheist lol


Then what are you? A Christian in denial who claims "spirituality" so you can convince yourself you won't be punished for sin while still receiving the benefits of religion?


Harold O'brien said:


> every point I've given has held more value than the 20,000+ posts you have on this site combined. and please stop using reddit as an insult, it's genuinely cringe that's the most creative you can get


No they haven't. You've provided nothing of value aside from the same talking points in the Bible that every atheist brings up.


Harold O'brien said:


> then why are you defending clear errors in the bible that are acknowledged by everyone but the most hardcore bible fuckers


They aren't errors for the 50th time. Bible scholars have already provided tons of explanations for them (gaps to account for geological timeframe in lineage, evidence for floods, etc). You keep on ignoring all my points and then making witty remarks like a typical teenager who went on r/atheism once. You have 0 value to provide. Just the fact that you try to use my post count (which is completely off btw, I really trust your arguments when you can't even read a number) proves that you have 0 arguments past the obvious ones uninformed redditors bring up.


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> "cosmological arguments" - there is just the one, retard
> 
> and you were definitely alluding to it with the universe needing a beginning


No there isn't. There's many arguments like the non-contingent cause, self sufficiency, kalam, etc... retard. I didn't use any of them.

No I wasn't. I was simply making a rebuttal to his argument about the Universe being in a different form. Keep barking about shit you don't know.


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> No there isn't. There's many arguments like the non-contingent cause, self sufficiency, kalam, etc... retard. I didn't use any of them.
> 
> No I wasn't. I was simply making a rebuttal to his argument about the Universe being in a different form. Keep barking about shit you don't know.


these are just variations of the same argument

using the cosmological argument yeah lol


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> these are just variations of the same argument


Variations of the same argument? It's like saying a lawyer is just making variations of the same constitution . It's literally just a bunch of completely separate arguments under the same general topic.


----------



## Deleted member 18603 (May 18, 2022)

where's the smug cunt and his walking fish @Hipcel

did it evolve?


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> Variations of the same argument? It's like saying a lawyer is just making variations of the same constitution . It's literally just a bunch of completely separate arguments under the same general topic.


one of the worst analogies I've ever heard ngl

they all argue that the universe needs a cause. it's the same argument


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> one of the worst analogies I've ever heard ngl


You just say shit like this without elaborating. Keep on replying to my posts with nothing but ad hominem and witty remarks just proving how uninformed you are lmfao. I had a sliver of hope that I would actually have a challenge but you just used the same generic arguments on the first page of google on Vice.com lmfao.


Harold O'brien said:


> they all argue that the universe needs a cause. it's the same argument


Okay? All the the amendments in the constitution argue about what freedoms a person should have. That's retard-tier logic . Constitution is all the same thing brah .


----------



## Harold O'brien (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> You just say shit like this without elaborating. Keep on replying to my posts just proving how retarded you are lmfao. I had a sliver of hope that I would actually have a challenge but you just used the same generic arguments on the first page of google on Vice.com lmfao.
> 
> Okay? All the the amendments in the constitution argue about what freedoms a person should have. That's retard-tier logic . Constitution is all the same thing brah .


I don't need to elaborate. it's clear to anyone it's a terrible analogy lmao. writing more for the sake of it is low iq and a waste of time

another terrible analogy, this is not your strong suit. there is only one cosmological argument but it has many variations. the general premise is always the same


----------



## Umbra (May 18, 2022)

Gnosticism mogs both, imagine if its true , everything you want to do and can imagine is possible.

Its like creative mode


----------



## LooksOverAll (May 18, 2022)

Harold O'brien said:


> I don't need to elaborate. it's clear to anyone it's a terrible analogy lmao. writing more for the sake of it is low iq and a waste of time


It's not a terrible analogy at all. Keep on posting ad hominem and dismissing things because you have no rebuttal.


Harold O'brien said:


> another terrible analogy, this is not your strong suit. there is only one cosmological argument but it has many variations. the general premise is always the same


Nope, it's a great analogy. There isn't "one cosmological argument with many variations". It's a topic with multiple different points underneath it. None of them are variations. They are just more and more arguments under the same general topic of cosmology. Again, you have 0 clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Lygodactylus (May 18, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> The timeline has gaps. You've clearly never read the bible and are just regurgitating false reddit talking points.
> 
> What other mistakes are there and list the lines they are told in (without taking it out of context).


I miss your VIP Avi frame


----------



## Danish_Retard (May 19, 2022)

Average IQ on this forum is sub 70 
@Harold O'brien @Hipcel why do you even bother? He'll never think critically about his beliefs because that would take all the meaning away from getting raped by the priest as little.


----------



## Deleted member 15338 (May 19, 2022)

Danish_Retard said:


> Average IQ on this forum is sub 70
> @Harold O'brien @Hipcel why do you even bother? He'll never think critically about his beliefs because that would take all the meaning away from getting raped by the priest as little.


Okay former IT cuck


----------



## Deleted member 15338 (May 19, 2022)

Danish_Retard said:


> Average IQ on this forum is sub 70
> @Harold O'brien @Hipcel why do you even bother? He'll never think critically about his beliefs because that would take all the meaning away from getting raped by the priest as little.


Btw not being religious is an extremly faggy trait

Saying this as an atheist


----------



## teriyaki chicken (Jun 16, 2022)

LooksOverAll said:


> It's not a terrible analogy at all. Keep on posting ad hominem and dismissing things because you have no rebuttal.
> 
> Nope, it's a great analogy. There isn't "one cosmological argument with many variations". It's a topic with multiple different points underneath it. None of them are variations. They are just more and more arguments under the same general topic of cosmology. Again, you have 0 clue what you're talking about.


unironically made me reconsider religion with what you said here (as a whole)


----------

