Do you believe in any god?

[Deleted member 685]

interpretations are not facts, the fact that it originated does not mean it is to be taken literary
you can as easily say there was a gap between first and second chapter of genesis if you want to be purely theoretical

Ok so you really are that stupid I guess, you can't even understand your own holy book? Maybe you should give this a read if you still can't understand this concept.

https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/age-of-earth.pdf

 

[Deleted member 685]

I think Youre overestimating the influence of young earth creationism. In Europe/Canada at least, most christians believe in evolution. In the US, more believe in creationism when compared to the US and Canada but at the same time there are plenty who believe in evolution. This “it’s holding back society” shit is major cope.

Yeah but that alone is because atheism rose up so much here. 34% of adults in the US still believe humans have always existed in their present form, I fail to grasp how that doesn't hold back society from progress

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Deleted member 6892]

Ok so you really are that stupid I guess, you can't even understand your own holy book? Maybe you should give this a read if you still can't understand this concept.

https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/age-of-earth.pdf

i you cant explain your argument yourself it holds 0 worth, i want to argue with a person not a conglomeration of sources
i am not reading a 300 pg book
there was a gap between first and second of genesis

 

[Deleted member 685]

Christianity advanced science if anything

It didn't, it's just that when science arised Christianity was still the usual thing so most old scientists happened to have also been Christian.

 

[Deleted member 6892]

Yeah but that alone is because atheism rose up so much here. 34% of adults in the US still believe humans have always existed in their present form, I fail to grasp how that doesn't hold back society from progress

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

an average person believing anything never drove society forward, science was driven forward by few men

 

[Warlow]

No that's literally not what I said I said there's millions of other planets with earth like conditions, obviously not exact same conditions down to the zeros but that doesn't mean anything. You still didn't understand what I said and fail to realize that even if the earth was unique it wouldn't prove the existance of a deity being behind it.

1. earth-like conditions? unless it's allowing for intelligent life to exist on a wide scale then it doesn't matter.

2. let's say earth is unique, that leaves two avenues of thought as to its creation: The big bang or the Creation from God, both were perfect in orchestrating our planet's sustainable conditions. The big bang sounds just as mad as God's creation, for that reason the idea of a deity being behind our existence should not be so far-fetched. At the end of the day, everything comes down to chance

 

[Deleted member 685]

i you cant explain your argument yourself it holds 0 worth, i want to argue with a person not a conglomeration of sources
i am not reading a 300 pg book
there was a gap between first and second of genesis

AKA you're retarded, scholars came to the conclusion of the age of the earth by looking at events in the bible. Your entire argument is just that it doesn't have to be taken literally, when literally the entire history of Christianity is known for actually believing alot of these things were literal. You're a fucking moron lmao. Suddenly the entire OT isn't literal anymore because it fits your belief better now that we have science?

 

[Deleted member 685]

an average person believing anything never drove society forward, science was driven forward by few men

I fail to see what you're trying to say. My point was religion never helped man get into science, it's just that most scientists were still religious at the time because well virtually everyone was religious at the time.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Yeah but that alone is because atheism rose up so much here. 34% of adults in the US still believe humans have always existed in their present form, I fail to grasp how that doesn't hold back society from progress

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

The scientific field in the US and pretty much everywhere in the western world operates outside the domain of religion, so any possible holding back Of progress in terms of that is basically impossible

As for society as a whole, the effects are small, as just over 1/3rd hold that belief, which means they have minimal political power since the other 2/3rds do not share the same view as them.

To say American society is held back to any significant degree because of 34% denying evolution is cope. There’s are much bigger things holding back American society, that is a non-issue.

Belief in evolution by Christians and atheism aren’t correlated.

 

[Deleted member 685]

1. earth-like conditions? unless it's allowing for intelligent life to exist on a wide scale then it doesn't matter.

2. let's say earth is unique, that leaves two avenues of thought as to its creation: The big bang or the Creation from God, both were perfect in orchestrating our planet's sustainable conditions. The big bang sounds just as mad as God's creation, for that reason the idea of a deity being behind our existence should not be so far-fetched. At the end of the day, everything comes down to chance

"1. earth-like conditions? unless it's allowing for intelligent life to exist on a wide scale then it doesn't matter."
Yeah? We already know of planets which could allow for that + it would still matter since it goes to show the instance of life occuring isn't unique to the earth alone.

"2. let's say earth is unique, that leaves two avenues of thought as to its creation: The big bang or the Creation from God, both were perfect in orchestrating our planet's sustainable conditions. The big bang sounds just as mad as God's creation, for that reason the idea of a deity being behind our existence should not be so far-fetched. At the end of the day, everything comes down to chance"
Instead we can actually observe why the big bang would be logical and we fail to see any signs of a God creating anything. The big bang doesn't sound mad at all, since we can actually observe things in the universe which point towards a big bang for example the expansion of the universe. I already explained you why the earth isn't unique, life is most likely alot more common across the universe than you think.

 

[Blackout.xl]

I fail to see what you're trying to say. My point was religion never helped man get into science, it's just that most scientists were still religious at the time because well virtually everyone was religious at the time.

The Catholic Church played an important role in the advancement of the sciences / arts. The islamic Middle East during its golden age was a hub for scientific advancement, such as substantial contributions towards the field of mathematics.

Religion certainly has been a motivator and factor in the advancement of science. It’s not just the people doing the science identifying as religious, when the schools they were brought up in and the people who educated them were given resources by religious institutions

 

[Deleted member 685]

The scientific field in the US and pretty much everywhere in the western world operates outside the domain of religion, so any possible holding back Of progress in terms of that is basically impossible

As for society as a whole, the effects are small, as just over 1/3rd hold that belief, which means they have minimal political power since the other 2/3rds do not share the same view as them.

To say American society is held back to any significant degree because of 34% denying evolution is cope. There’s are much bigger things holding back American society, that is a non-issue.

Belief in evolution by Christians and atheism aren’t correlated.

Nah it definetly does hold back society since the adults that hold these beliefs are also teaching them to kids which are essential to the future of our civilization. These same kids that get those creationist systems passed down at the kids that should provide for science etc in the future. I never said the scientific field isn't majority atheist, I said still having people pass down these invalid belief systems which have been proven to be bullocks is holding us back. And 1/3 is a huge amount when you realize how much evidence there is for things like evolution.

 

[Warlow]

"1. earth-like conditions? unless it's allowing for intelligent life to exist on a wide scale then it doesn't matter."
Yeah? We already know of planets which could allow for that + it would still matter since it goes to show the instance of life occuring isn't unique to the earth alone.

"2. let's say earth is unique, that leaves two avenues of thought as to its creation: The big bang or the Creation from God, both were perfect in orchestrating our planet's sustainable conditions. The big bang sounds just as mad as God's creation, for that reason the idea of a deity being behind our existence should not be so far-fetched. At the end of the day, everything comes down to chance"
Instead we can actually observe why the big bang would be logical and we fail to see any signs of a God creating anything. The big bang doesn't sound mad at all, since we can actually observe things in the universe which point towards a big bang for example the expansion of the universe. I already explained you why the earth isn't unique, life is most likely alot more common across the universe than you think.

Scientists still haven't found a planet that can sustain life to the degree earth did or has, so there's that. I guess you and I have a subjective interpretation of what is mad and this will go on endlessly at this point.

good talk

 

[Deleted member 685]

The Catholic Church played an important role in the advancement of the sciences / arts. The islamic Middle East during its golden age was a hub for scientific advancement, such as substantial contributions towards the field of mathematics.

Religion certainly has been a motivator and factor in the advancement of science. It’s not just the people doing the science identifying as religious, when the schools they were brought up in and the people who educated them were given resources by religious institutions

If anything religion has many times been overly conservative whenever scientific suggestions came up such as gravity. Again the catholic church was just most common among Europe just like Islam in the middle east. Mathematics is alot less controversial against the average christian belief system than evolution etc anyways. And you realize most schools etc were still religious at the time? So again this doesn't prove your point since religious schools were just the norm at the time, doesn't mean it was religion itself that made people wanna persue science.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Nah it definetly does hold back society since the adults that hold these beliefs are also teaching them to kids which are essential to the future of our civilization. These same kids that get those creationist systems passed down at the kids that should provide for science etc in the future. I never said the scientific field isn't majority atheist, I said still having people pass down these invalid belief systems which have been proven to be bullocks is holding us back. And 1/3 is a huge amount when you realize how much evidence there is for things like evolution.

These kids are going to school for 8-9 hours a day, something you’re ignoring.

The number has decreased along the years. The total number includes boomers and greatest gen. People from Gen X onward likely have even higher rates of belief in evolution, both for those who affiliate with religion and don’t.

So again, this trope of “it’s holding us back” is cope. The number to begin with is low and is rapidly decreasing, which means rapidly decreasing influence. Belief in evolution is standard among Christians at this point (outside of evangelicals)

No one said anything about science being majority athiest either jfl where did u get that from

 

[Blackout.xl]

If anything religion has many times been overly conservative whenever scientific suggestions came up such as gravity. Again the catholic church was just most common among Europe just like Islam in the middle east. Mathematics is alot less controversial against the average christian belief system than evolution etc anyways. And you realize most schools etc were still religious at the time? So again this doesn't prove your point since religious schools were just the norm at the time, doesn't mean it was religion itself that made people wanna persue science.

That doesn’t really matter and you’re arguing about semantics at this point. The Catholic Church and islam still provided the resources for education which allowed for the sciences to flourish due to the pursuit of knowledge and improvement being compatible with their religious doctrine, which goes against your point.

Your mathematics point doesn’t even make sense either. Most Christians (at least in the 1st world) believe in evolution. Which means it’s not controversial whatsoever when confronted with the average Christian’s belief system.

Religious schools even being there in the first place is because of the encouragement of education within these religions. Lol

 

[Deleted member 6892]

AKA you're retarded, scholars came to the conclusion of the age of the earth by looking at events in the bible. Your entire argument is just that it doesn't have to be taken literally, when literally the entire history of Christianity is known for actually believing alot of these things were literal. You're a fucking moron lmao. Suddenly the entire OT isn't literal anymore because it fits your belief better now that we have science?

I already said that the analysis is faulty. It does not account for a gap between first and second chapter of Genesis.

It didn't, it's just that when science arised Christianity was still the usual thing so most old scientists happened to have also been Christian.

For the history part, you obviously don’t know anything about history beyond preconceived atheist notions. Religion was the only force in advancing the cultural body of knowledge throughout history by preserving knowledge in the intellectually-apocalyptic post Roman Era by educating the various settlements and retaining text. Now, we can talk about Numa Pompillius and how much it drove the cultural development of Latins/Etruscans forward in relation to Romulus without which Romans would be brute italian tribals and their civilization wouldn’t exist at all but I would rather focus on Christianity for now. Christianity:

• Advanced discussion in objective philosophies by suppressing the undogmatic ones like Neoplatonism. True ideological egalitarianism would lead to sentimentalist stagnation. The intolerance of Christianity lead to Galileo through shifting gears of Aristotelian Schools and encouraged dissent that helped scientific englightment.
• Aristotelian ideals were actually abandoned and later on shift onto focus to understand God’s creation, this is an essential incentive for scientific exploration which wouldn’t exist in a world of the past without the strive towards heaven, considered futile and useless otherwise.
• A purely scientific institution would never have had the same power as the church and same effect on people’s minds due to it being cognitively unnatural and not being able to answer questions of being, cause, purpose, inwardness, hierarchy, and the goodness and badness of things. and as such wouldn’t be able to consistently enforce advancement through facilitation of discovery.
• Philosophy was actually relatively intellectually free within the Christian institutes of the Middle ages.

If anything religion has many times been overly conservative whenever scientific suggestions came up such as gravity. Again the catholic church was just most common among Europe just like Islam in the middle east. Mathematics is alot less controversial against the average christian belief system than evolution etc anyways. And you realize most schools etc were still religious at the time? So again this doesn't prove your point since religious schools were just the norm at the time, doesn't mean it was religion itself that made people wanna persue science.

This discussion would literally not exist without the incentive of Christianity. Also you are completely wrong considering the church actually encouraged gravity due to it being able to be used as a proof of God and popularized Newton’s theories, due to gravity becoming a metaphysical instrument of God and not a creation of pure impaction.
Also as I’ve said before Philosophy and Theology was separated within Christian Churches.
Yes, it was religion that drove people to pursue science. Islamic Golden Age was also quite clearly a product of Islam itself and not a coincidence within the religious beliefs, with Islamic elements driving sicence. Requity of five daily prayers drove muslims to create navigational machines.

“And it is He who ordained the stars for you that you may be guided thereby in the darkness of the land and the sea.” [TMQ 6:97]

These navigational instruments eventually lead to colonization which further lead to scientific advancement. The conquest driving arabic states during the Golden Age was theological as well and it spurred logistical advancements.

 

[Deleted member 685]

These kids are going to school for 8-9 hours a day, something you’re ignoring.

The number has decreased along the years. The total number includes boomers and greatest gen. People from Gen X onward likely have even higher rates of belief in evolution, both for those who affiliate with religion and don’t.

So again, this trope of “it’s holding us back” is cope. The number to begin with is low and is rapidly decreasing, which means rapidly decreasing influence. Belief in evolution is standard among Christians at this point (outside of evangelicals)

No one said anything about science being majority athiest either jfl where did u get that from

These kids are going to school for 8-9 hours a day, something you’re ignoring.
Irrelevant to the discussion, because many schools in the US are still known for being Christian or not purposely spreading the idea of evolution.

The number has decreased along the years. The total number includes boomers and greatest gen. People from Gen X onward likely have even higher rates of belief in evolution, both for those who affiliate with religion and don’t.
That doesn't go to prove religion isn't holding us back whatsoever, since you're not just somehow gonna get rid of boomers and greatest gen and my point wasn't to say it's holding humanity back on a major scale, rather that it's still a problem since adults obviously have a huge influx on kids that get ideas about the world passed down.

So again, this trope of “it’s holding us back” is cope. The number to begin with is low and is rapidly decreasing, which means rapidly decreasing influence. Belief in evolution is standard among Christians at this point (outside of evangelicals)
Instead you don't realize a great amount of military personel and government people are evangelicals and most likely have a great influence on the way the US is operating right now.

No one said anything about science being majority athiest either jfl where did u get that from
I didn't mean to say the majority of scientists are atheist let me correct myself, I stand corrected, rather that the general science approach is that of someone who ignores religious influence when doing research.

 

[Deleted member 685]

W

I already said that the analysis is faulty. It does not account for a gap between first and second chapter of Genesis.

For the history part, you obviously don’t know anything about history beyond preconceived atheist notions. Religion was the only force in advancing the cultural body of knowledge throughout history by preserving knowledge in the intellectually-apocalyptic post Roman Era by educating the various settlements and retaining text. Now, we can talk about Numa Pompillius and how much it drove the cultural development of Latins/Etruscans forward in relation to Romulus without which Romans would be brute italian tribals and their civilization wouldn’t exist at all but I would rather focus on Christianity for now. Christianity:

• Advanced discussion in objective philosophies by suppressing the undogmatic ones like Neoplatonism. True ideological egalitarianism would lead to sentimentalist stagnation. The intolerance of Christianity lead to Galileo through shifting gears of Aristotelian Schools and encouraged dissent that helped scientific englightment.
• Aristotelian ideals were actually abandoned and later on shift onto focus to understand God’s creation, this is an essential incentive for scientific exploration which wouldn’t exist in a world of the past without the strive towards heaven, considered futile and useless otherwise.
• A purely scientific institution would never have had the same power as the church and same effect on people’s minds due to it being cognitively unnatural and not being able to answer questions of being, cause, purpose, inwardness, hierarchy, and the goodness and badness of things. and as such wouldn’t be able to consistently enforce advancement through facilitation of discovery.
• Philosophy was actually relatively intellectually free within the Christian institutes of the Middle ages.

This discussion would literally not exist without the incentive of Christianity. Also you are completely wrong considering the church actually encouraged gravity due to it being able to be used as a proof of God and popularized Newton’s theories, due to gravity becoming a metaphysical instrument of God and not a creation of pure impaction.
Also as I’ve said before Philosophy and Theology was separated within Christian Churches.
Yes, it was religion that drove people to pursue science. Islamic Golden Age was also quite clearly a product of Islam itself and not a coincidence within the religious beliefs, with Islamic elements driving sicence. Requity of five daily prayers drove muslims to create navigational machines.

“And it is He who ordained the stars for you that you may be guided thereby in the darkness of the land and the sea.” [TMQ 6:97]

These navigational instruments eventually lead to colonization which further lead to scientific advancement. The conquest driving arabic states during the Golden Age was theological as well and it spurred logistical advancements.

Won't bother reading that gigantic wall of text

 

[Deleted member 6892]

W

Won't bother reading that gigantic wall of text

nigga you literally linked me an entire essay expecting me to read it
at least i write my own arguments

 

[Deleted member 685]

nigga you literally linked me an entire essay expecting me to read it
at least i write my own arguments

Because i thought it would show up as a summary, that's how I tried to link it

 

[Blackout.xl]

These kids are going to school for 8-9 hours a day, something you’re ignoring.
Irrelevant to the discussion, because many schools in the US are still known for being Christian or not purposely spreading the idea of evolution.

The number has decreased along the years. The total number includes boomers and greatest gen. People from Gen X onward likely have even higher rates of belief in evolution, both for those who affiliate with religion and don’t.
That doesn't go to prove religion isn't holding us back whatsoever, since you're not just somehow gonna get rid of boomers and greatest gen and my point wasn't to say it's holding humanity back on a major scale, rather that it's still a problem since adults obviously have a huge influx on kids that get ideas about the world passed down.

So again, this trope of “it’s holding us back” is cope. The number to begin with is low and is rapidly decreasing, which means rapidly decreasing influence. Belief in evolution is standard among Christians at this point (outside of evangelicals)
Instead you don't realize a great amount of military personel and government people are evangelicals and most likely have a great influence on the way the US is operating right now.

No one said anything about science being majority athiest either jfl where did u get that from
I didn't mean to say the majority of scientists are atheist let me correct myself, I stand corrected, rather that the general science approach is that of someone who ignores religious influence when doing research.

Aight tbh no point in continuing this

 

[Deleted member 685]

.

 

[Deleted member 685]

Aight tbh no point in continuing this

Yeah let's cut it off

 

[Deleted member 7866]

These kids are going to school for 8-9 hours a day, something you’re ignoring.
Irrelevant to the discussion, because many schools in the US are still known for being Christian or not purposely spreading the idea of evolution.

The number has decreased along the years. The total number includes boomers and greatest gen. People from Gen X onward likely have even higher rates of belief in evolution, both for those who affiliate with religion and don’t.
That doesn't go to prove religion isn't holding us back whatsoever, since you're not just somehow gonna get rid of boomers and greatest gen and my point wasn't to say it's holding humanity back on a major scale, rather that it's still a problem since adults obviously have a huge influx on kids that get ideas about the world passed down.

So again, this trope of “it’s holding us back” is cope. The number to begin with is low and is rapidly decreasing, which means rapidly decreasing influence. Belief in evolution is standard among Christians at this point (outside of evangelicals)
Instead you don't realize a great amount of military personel and government people are evangelicals and most likely have a great influence on the way the US is operating right now.

No one said anything about science being majority athiest either jfl where did u get that from
I didn't mean to say the majority of scientists are atheist let me correct myself, I stand corrected, rather that the general science approach is that of someone who ignores religious influence when doing research.

Godro u edgelord

 

[curryslayerordeath]

big bang doesnt say that some magical explosion happened and all this shit came out of nowhere lol. large amounts of energy led to the expansion of the universe, which then led to the settling of many subatomic particles and creation of some fundamental forces as it cooled down.

given that its possible to measure these interactions, that seems significantly more viable than all of humanity and life being created out of nowhere (from god's hand by a rib lol)

 

[EckhartTollemaxx]

There are about 3000 "God's" out there that people believed in. Christians, Muslims and jews don't believe in 2999 of them, I just don't believe in 1 more of them.

Well said.
Most of them are the same god and his demons though.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Christianity advanced science if anything

The Catholic Church played an important role in the advancement of the sciences / arts. The islamic Middle East during its golden age was a hub for scientific advancement, such as substantial contributions towards the field of mathematics.

Religion certainly has been a motivator and factor in the advancement of science. It’s not just the people doing the science identifying as religious, when the schools they were brought up in and the people who educated them were given resources by religious institutions

christianity hampered the advancement of science/arts by a HUGE margin, especially since many of the leaders of oligarchies/religious figures considered results that contradicted the currently held notion to be "against God". the catholic church in the 17th centuries placed copernicus and galilei (two of the ppl to theorize that everything does not revolve around the Earth) as heretics and had them arrested until their death. jfl @ that advancing anything

the only thing preventing them from being tortured and killed at the hands of the church were their status as some of the smartest people in the country and vast amount of money, so what would happen to a random young innovator?

 

[Deleted member 10172]

The majority of Nobel prize winners have been religiously affiliated. Most scientists are either religious or spiritual. I could go on

I’m sorry but this notion of “nobody who’s high iq believes in religion” is basement atheist cope and a desperate attempt to make up for insecurity through flexing affiliation to an ideology.

cause they are low iq too just because ur a nobel prize winner doesnt mean ur not low iq

 

[Deleted member 6892]

christianity hampered the advancement of science/arts by a HUGE margin, especially since many of the leaders of oligarchies/religious figures considered results that contradicted the currently held notion to be "against God". the catholic church in the 17th centuries placed copernicus and galilei (two of the ppl to theorize that everything does not revolve around the Earth) as heretics and had them arrested until their death. jfl @ that advancing anything

the only thing preventing them from being tortured and killed at the hands of the church were their status as some of the smartest people in the country and vast amount of money, so what would happen to a random young innovator?

Galileo and copernicus wouldn’t even exist without christianityl I already described it through my aristatolean relationship argument

 

[Deleted member 6892]

cause they are low iq too just because ur a nobel prize winner doesnt mean ur not low iq

It does lmao nigga

 

[Blackout.xl]

christianity hampered the advancement of science/arts by a HUGE margin, especially since many of the leaders of oligarchies/religious figures considered results that contradicted the currently held notion to be "against God". the catholic church in the 17th centuries placed copernicus and galilei (two of the ppl to theorize that everything does not revolve around the Earth) as heretics and had them arrested until their death. jfl @ that advancing anything

the only thing preventing them from being tortured and killed at the hands of the church were their status as some of the smartest people in the country and vast amount of money, so what would happen to a random young innovator?

I simply can’t agree with this.

Science and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A Catholic History of the Fake Conflict Between Science and Religion

Christopher Baglow on the American background of a fabricated conflict.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

The view that the Catholic Church has been purely anti-science throughout history has little foundation in historical record

Edit: Christianity is also literally the foundation of western art. To say it held it back is extreme levels of cope

 

[Deleted member 10172]

Massive cope. atheists people on average probably slight smarter because it requires some thinking, but i hope that's a joke.

"Massive cope" Albert Einsten said everything is predtermined so if everything is predetermined there cant be no god fuck god he fucked me over I could have been a normal kid but instead im rotting on this stupid fucking forum man A 16 year old shouldnt be thinking about nihlism and how its over for u

 

[NaturalDisaster]

"Massive cope" Albert Einsten said everything is predtermined so if everything is predetermined there cant be no god fuck god he fucked me over I could have been a normal kid but instead im rotting on this stupid fucking forum man A 16 year old shouldnt be thinking about nihlism and how its over for u

 

[Blackout.xl]

"Massive cope" Albert Einsten said everything is predtermined so if everything is predetermined there cant be no god fuck god he fucked me over I could have been a normal kid but instead im rotting on this stupid fucking forum man A 16 year old shouldnt be thinking about nihlism and how its over for u

So ur lashing out and blaming god for u rotting on PSL at 16?

 

[curryslayerordeath]

I simply can’t agree with this.

Science and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A Catholic History of the Fake Conflict Between Science and Religion

Christopher Baglow on the American background of a fabricated conflict.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

The view that the Catholic Church has been purely anti-science throughout history has little foundation in historical record

it's not purely anti-science throughout history, but it's more anti-science than the counterpart society without the catholic church's existence. most of the conflict comes from officials with too much of an ego, but even progressive leaders are overall a net negative to advancement (i mean u have ppl here on this forum saying that evolution shouldnt be taught in school bc its fake news, while not realizing that much of modern medicine is based on similar principles).

Galileo and copernicus wouldn’t even exist without christianityl I already described it through my aristatolean relationship argument

that argument is kinda weird lmfao, in that case you can't argue negatively against anything throughout history, since it leads to the creation of some positive things.

 

[Deleted member 6892]

it's not purely anti-science throughout history, but it's more anti-science than the counterpart society without the catholic church's existence. most of the conflict comes from officials with too much of an ego, but even progressive leaders are overall a net negative to advancement (i mean u have ppl here on this forum saying that evolution shouldnt be taught in school bc its fake news, while not realizing that much of modern medicine is based on similar principles).


that argument is kinda weird lmfao, in that case you can't argue negatively against anything throughout history, since it leads to the creation of some positive things.

Except we are arguing about Christianity hampering technological advancement within retrostective terms and as such we must analyze the alternatives

 

[Deleted member 10172]

So ur lashing out and blaming god for u rotting on PSL at 16?

I never asked to be born in this body and if god is the creator that means he allowed me to suffer

Why do I have to rot on this forum with autistic basement dwellers for social interactions why?

Why couldnt I just be a normal kid not worrying about life but noooo

 

[Blackout.xl]

it's not purely anti-science throughout history, but it's more anti-science than the counterpart society without the catholic church's existence. most of the conflict comes from officials with too much of an ego, but even progressive leaders are overall a net negative to advancement (i mean u have ppl here on this forum saying that evolution shouldnt be taught in school bc its fake news, while not realizing that much of modern medicine is based on similar principles).


that argument is kinda weird lmfao, in that case you can't argue negatively against anything throughout history, since it leads to the creation of some positive things.

I don’t think you can claim the counter part society without the Catholic churches’ existence would be less anti science, as we have nothing to base it on.

And considering the fact that it was literally the Catholic Church who preserved information from the roman era after its collapse and used its funds to spread education and fund development across the European continent during the time, without them there possibly would of been much less advancement within education and the sciences during Middle Ages Europe.

Let’s also not forget that they were one of the chief forces behind the beginning of the Renaissance, which was a period of major advancement in terms of science.

How are progressive religious leaders detrimental to advancement? Progressive religious leaders always have been ahead of their time, especially now where they accept the full validity of the sciences. Once again, I can’t agree with this.

Edit: The ego argument can be applied to anyone who subscribes to any certain ideology and wields significant power

 

[TITUS]

I believe i am myself God..

 

[Hades]

@Hades dude I'm losing braincels here talking with this 15 year old. Is it even worth taking shots at them?

Yeah I learned a while ago there’s no point in arguing with them cause they’ll never see the irrational loop of thinking they’re trapped in jfl

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Except we are arguing about Christianity hampering technological advancement within retrostective terms and as such we must analyze the alternatives

the alternative would be to have complete freedom of ideas, except its not possible to analyze this since w/o Christianity's influence, civilization in Europe would be completely different beyond ways that we can theorize. ig its kinda futile to even argue abt things from many centuries ago.

I don’t think you can claim the counter part society without the Catholic churches’ existence would be less anti science, as we have nothing to base it on.

And considering the fact that it was literally the Catholic Church who preserved information from the roman era after its collapse and used its funds to spread education and fund development across the European continent during the time, without them there possibly would of been much less advancement within education and the sciences during Middle Ages Europe.

Let’s also not forget that they were one of the chief forces behind the beginning of the Renaissance, which was a period of major advancement in terms of science.

How are progressive religious leaders detrimental to advancement? Progressive religious leaders always have been ahead of their time, especially now where they accept the full validity of the sciences. Once again, I can’t agree with this.

Edit: The ego argument can be applied to anyone who subscribes to any certain ideology and wields significant power

Yeah it's pretty much impossible to try and theorize how something would've changed hundreds of years ago. Imo, given that a "progressive" religious leader is one that adapts to current advancements and strays further away from the original religious principles, wouldn't this heavily imply that those religious principles aren't as strong held as the believers think? It doesn't really matter at all to me, just seems fallacious.

Also, current Christian ideas are heavily pushing against scientific advancements. Many of the principles that guide our society atm are considered false/deceptive by many Christians (and other religious groups), which is undoubtedly not a good thing for innovation.

 

[Blackout.xl]

the alternative would be to have complete freedom of ideas, except its not possible to analyze this since w/o Christianity's influence, civilization in Europe would be completely different beyond ways that we can theorize. ig its kinda futile to even argue abt things from many centuries ago.



Yeah it's pretty much impossible to try and theorize how something would've changed hundreds of years ago. Imo, given that a "progressive" religious leader is one that adapts to current advancements and strays further away from the original religious principles, wouldn't this heavily imply that those religious principles aren't as strong held as the believers think? It doesn't really matter at all to me, just seems fallacious.

Also, current Christian ideas are heavily pushing against scientific advancements. Many of the principles that guide our society atm are considered false/deceptive by many Christians (and other religious groups), which is undoubtedly not a good thing for innovation.

The pope alone has taken the entire Catholic Church towards the left and mainstream Protestant denominations are degenerate as Shit as a means to be modern, to the point of having gay and female clergy. There are conservatives but that will always exist because people naturally value tradition / the status quo of things

 

[Deleted member 10913]

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of a god. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.[1] Its historic proponents include Al-Kindi,[2] Saadia Gaon,[3] Al-Ghazali,[4] and St. Bonaventure.[5] William Lane Craig revived interest in the Kalām cosmological argument with his 1979 publication of a book of the same name

The Kalām argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kalām means "words, discussion, discourse."
The cosmological argument was refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes).[8] In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian Bonaventure (See Craig, 1979, p 18). Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover, which was also propounded by Averroes.

Classical argument

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.[13]

Contemporary argument

William Lane Craig formulates the argument with an additional set of premises:[14]
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)

 

[Lasko123]

seems like cope, no reason to believe he's made my life a living hell

Satan made your life a living hell not god

 

[AlwaysHaveQuestions]

god created me to be his champion
no other possbility

 

[Lasko123]

Why would i need a god to believe in? has any god ever believed in me? (finger point)

Yes god believes in you

 

[Lasko123]

about that in church I've heard that God doesn't give you the pain that you can't take, but why people suicide then

Maybe because satan gives more pain

 

[Deleted member 7192]

also whatever you voted, are you a spiritual person?

most replies ive seen in a thread by a greycel mirin

 

[Lasko123]

Why could it not be random? Most of the research we have indicates to a big bang where these molecules were together (Expansion of the universe, cosmic microwave background) The earth being 6000 years old is relatively unlikely too, especially since the Christian God has made an exceptionally bad effort trying to reveal itself to mankind and an insane amount of fundamental beliefs the Abrahamic religions kept for centuries have been proven to be scientifically illiterate.

The christian god reveals himself to certain people that are worthy