God doesn't exist.

[Deleted member 3177]

So God doesn't exist, it's just a concept/idea used by religious people to cope?

Your line of thought is clouded by the childish notion that God is a person, or by the leniency to believe that your creation is attributed to God. God is a mechanism of the superstructure the way the school system is a mechanism of the superstructure. Schools are just buildings, where people enter and take on tasks. Depending on your level of interpretation you will think it to be one thing or another. Nobody denies the fact that "schools," exist, despite the fact that they are buildings where people do a series of things; the quality of the object depends on a series of social conceptions. "God" is not a coping tool the way repeating "We're all gonna make it" is; it's not a vocal cue or an idea, it's an institution, just like capitalism, hospitals and the police are institutions. Just because in the year 0 literary licenses and attributing creation powers to institutions was in vogue does not mean that religious people and you think of the same God.

 

[Zygos4Life]

By that logic, nothing can be proven to be true because everything that exists is made up one way or another.
What you, and I, make of the 'evidence' (which can never be 100% for anything) surrounding it, determines our personal beliefs.

Nothing can be proven 100% true, I agree with you.
Things can have tons of proof to the point that it can be accepted to be true, like evolution.
God doesn't have any proof at all whatsoever, though.

 

[gymislife]

 

[Zygos4Life]

Your line of thought is clouded by the childish notion that God is a person, or by the leniency to believe that your creation is attributed to God. God is a mechanism of the superstructure the way the school system is a mechanism of the superstructure. Schools are just buildings, where people enter and take on tasks. Depending on your level of interpretation you will think it to be one thing or another. Nobody denies the fact that "schools," exist, despite the fact that they are buildings where people do a series of things; the quality of the object depends on a series of social conceptions. "God" is not a coping tool the way repeating "We're all gonna make it" is; it's not a vocal cue or an idea, it's an institution, just like capitalism, hospitals and the police are institutions. Just because in the year 0 literary licenses and attributing creation powers to institutions was in vogue does not mean that religious people and you think of the same God.

So, is there proof that your idea of "God" exists?
But we all already know that schools exist since they have already been built, we have evidence that schools exists and we have been to school and there's many schools that exist around the world.
this isn't the same for god.
we don't have evidence that he exists, and we haven't ever seen him.

 

[Deleted member 3177]

So, is there proof that your idea of "God" exists?
But we all already know that schools exist since they have already been built, we have evidence that schools exists and we have been to school and there's many schools that exist around the world.
this isn't the same for god.
we don't have evidence that he exists, and we haven't ever seen him.

Proof for God is the various artistic depictions, political movements and different philosophical adaptations throughout the transition from feudalism into urbanism. If a thousand years from now the school system stops existing, since primary and high schools are a new concept, the buildings that stand for them will remain as evidence of their existence, though they themselves will be just building. You might ask for proof of capitalism, but capitalism is based on a transactional economic system (dollar bills) which doesn't have any presence in the physical world. The existence of something depends purely on social and cultural context. I don't know for sure if our institutions translate to the context of Africa, but I can't deny that they have institutions of their own that work in a determined frame

 

[Gargantuan]

Nothing can be proven 100% true, I agree with you.
Things can have tons of proof to the point that it can be accepted to be true, like evolution.
God doesn't have any proof at all whatsoever, though.

At least that's one thing we'll agree on. And that's cool, those are your beliefs and the conclusions you have come to and mine just so happen to be the polar opposite of those.

 

[Zygos4Life]

Proof for God is the various artistic depictions, political movements and different philosophical adaptations throughout the transition from feudalism into urbanism. If a thousand years from now the school system stops existing, since primary and high schools are a new concept, the buildings that stand for them will remain as evidence of their existence, though they themselves will be just building. You might ask for proof of capitalism, but capitalism is based on a transactional economic system (dollar bills) which doesn't have any presence in the physical world. The existence of something depends purely on social and cultural context. I don't know for sure if our institutions translate to the context of Africa, but I can't deny that they have institutions of their own that work in a determined frame

So by that logic, there's proof that Santa Claus also exists. there's also proof that The earth is flat.
Since there has been artistic depictions of Santa Claus, artistic depictions of the earth being Flat.
There has also been proof that Zeus and The Roman gods existed, especially since the Government in the Roman empire was instructed by the religion of the Romans.
The artistic depictions prove that Zeus must exist.
There have also been political movements and philosophical adaptations with the Religion of the Romans.


All this is, is proof that these ideas have existed in the past.
It isn't proof that these ideas were valid ideas.

 

[Zygos4Life]

At least that's one thing we'll agree on. And that's cool, those are your beliefs and the conclusions you have come to and mine just so happen to be the polar opposite of those.

Thanks for the convo, man.
I enjoyed speaking with you

 

[Deleted member 3177]

So by that logic, there's proof that Santa Claus also exists. there's also proof that The earth is flat.
Since there has been artistic depictions of Santa Claus, artistic depictions of the earth being Flat.
There has also been proof that Zeus and The Roman gods existed, especially since the Government in the Roman empire was instructed by the religion of the Romans.
The artistic depictions prove that Zeus must exist.
There have also been political movements and philosophical adaptations with the Religion of the Romans.


All this is, is proof that these ideas have existed in the past.
It isn't proof that these ideas were valid ideas.

God in the past acts the same way as capitalism does now, just like the Roman gods were a metaphysical representation of what a prototypical citizen should do, the way laws dictate what a prototypical citizen should do. There is proof for this influence existing in the past, though not now as we transitioned from Romanticism to capitalism. God exists like laws exist, as a force of institutional power, not as a myth, as a fictitious resource or as a character in a book.

 

[Deleted member 534]

I believe in god because I can feel him packing me up and on my shadow

but god made us subhuman on purpose because if everyone is good looking society will fall into chads hands

 

[Gargantuan]

Thanks for the convo, man.
I enjoyed speaking with you

Mirin and likewise, man. Conversations like these are underrated and underappreciated, for sure. It's also a breath of fresh air compared to most threads regarding these topics where folks on both sides just throw insults at each other like a bunch headless chickens.

 

[Zygos4Life]

God in the past acts the same way as capitalism does now, just like the Roman gods were a metaphysical representation of what a prototypical citizen should do, the way laws dictate what a prototypical citizen should do. There is proof for this influence existing in the past, though not now as we transitioned from Romanticism to capitalism. God exists like laws exist, as a force of institutional power, not as a myth, as a fictitious resource or as a character in a book.

Yeah, I get what you mean.
That god basically acts like a rulebook, for which the followers must abide to those rules.
But that doesn't really mean that God exists, since the what acts as the law is subject to change throughout times.
Like the Romans, their infleunce and power existed. Now it's gone.
The same could be said for the existence of the Modern day God.
If, all of sudden, this influence and power got wiped out and got replaced by another ideological being, does this wipe off the credibility for the Modern Day God?

Also, what if the existence of Santa Claus instead acted as a law for citizens to follow.
(not saying he does, this is hypothetical)
and this following was widespread across the globe, does it give validity to the idea of Santa Claus existing? (Santa Claus would obviously exist as an imaginary figure)

 

[Deleted member 3177]

Yeah, I get what you mean.
That god basically acts like a rulebook, for which the followers must abide to those rules.
But that doesn't really mean that God exists, since the what acts as the law is subject to change throughout times.
Like the Romans, their infleunce and power existed. Now it's gone.
The same could be said for the existence of the Modern day God.
If, all of sudden, this influence and power got wiped out and got replaced by another ideological being, does this wipe off the credibility for the Modern Day God?

Also, what if the existence of Santa Claus instead acted as a law for citizens to follow.
(not saying he does, this is hypothetical)
and this following was widespread across the globe, does it give validity to the idea of Santa Claus existing? (Santa Claus would obviously exist as an imaginary figure)

The difference between things that exist in a metaphysical frame is thin and depends on the interpretation of society and the context. Harry Potter doesn't exist; he is a character in a book, and the book is a compact piece of paper, though its influence on the real world is real; by that standard, we can ponder whether art exists or not, though most people agree that it does, to some degree, as it is represented graphically. You can't touch or hold a law, and it exists only in name; if you know at least one law, you abide to it because of the repercusions of going against an institution. And then again, your submission to the law system depends on your own value judgement and your culture. The same way, since God has been powered by people and is a permanent institution (not legal, though it does implement social rules), it exists. Not as a person; you don't submit to presidents or policemen, you submit to the institution they represent. God is the same sort of institution

 

[CrazyFitLover]

Stop coping subhumans, god does not exist, there is no proof of god existing, why thi fuck would he hide if he existed? why the fuck would he make you 5,2 indian janitor? why the fuck would he make world so cruel? if god exist who created god then? if that is true then who created the creator of the god? and on and on and on, there is no end to it, so accept it this is the reality! god doesnot exist its just imagination for subhumans to cope with their shitty lives!

 

[Gosick]

God doesnt exist lmao

a pedophile,murderer etc will go to the same place as a sinless saint upon death.

 

[Zygos4Life]

The difference between things that exist in a metaphysical frame is thin and depends on the interpretation of society and the context. Harry Potter doesn't exist; he is a character in a book, and the book is a compact piece of paper, though its influence on the real world is real; by that standard, we can ponder whether art exists or not, though most people agree that it does, to some degree, as it is represented graphically. You can't touch or hold a law, and it exists only in name; if you know at least one law, you abide to it because of the repercusions of going against an institution. And then again, your submission to the law system depends on your own value judgement and your culture. The same way, since God has been powered by people and is a permanent institution (not legal, though it does implement social rules), it exists. Not as a person; you don't submit to presidents or policemen, you submit to the institution they represent. God is the same sort of institution

It exists as an institution and it has been powered by people, like you said.
But that only proves that the idea of a God exists, and that it's an idea that rules over many people.
This doesn't prove the validity of the idea of God.

Just because a society abides to an ideology or a constitution, it doesn't give validity to the claims of existence (like how religion claims that god exists) in that ideology.
Many ideologies in the past have been abided by society, this doesn't give it them any sort of credibility when it comes to their claims on the existences in the universe.

The Indian society in India abides to Hinduism.
It's powered by the people, and it serves as a constitution.
Does this give the claims that Hinduism makes of our universe any validity?
Sure, the various Gods in the Polytheistic religion of Hinduism exist as ideas that act as rulebooks for the society of India, but this doesn't give any sort of validity to Hinduism

 

[Deleted member 3177]

It exists as an institution and it has been powered by people, like you said.
But that only proves that the idea of a God exists, and that it's an idea that rules over many people.
This doesn't prove the validity of the idea of God.

Just because a society abides to an ideology or a constitution, it doesn't give validity to the claims of existence (like how religion claims that god exists) in that ideology.
Many ideologies in the past have been abided by society, this doesn't give it them any sort of credibility when it comes to their claims on the existences in the universe.

The Indian society in India abides to Hinduism.
It's powered by the people, and it serves as a constitution.
Does this give the claims that Hinduism makes of our universe any validity?
Sure, the various Gods in the Polytheistic religion of Hinduism exist as ideas that act as rulebooks for the society of India, but this doesn't give any sort of validity to Hinduism

You could ask yourself the same question regarding laws. Nobody forces you to stop at a red light, and, in practice, many situations show up that prompt you to ignore the law. Yet you still abide. There is nothing giving real validity to the laws; you could ask yourself why they even exist, or what is their purpose. You're complying just because it was written down. What is the point of a law, or what is the point of abstract concepts such as economy, politics, religion or society? They are mindframes constructed by humans. In reality, only things with physical bodies exist; you could ask yourself time and time again why economy is real, and yet you were indoctrinated to validate it and adapt to it. God is the same, and Christianity is the same, with the exception that the period of time in which the book religions were conceived lends for the humans' insight into things that technology could not verify. If it weren't for the fictitious, creationist part, no one would have any problem accepting the existence of a God. The problem is people don't know what God is, to begin with

 

[Zygos4Life]

You could ask yourself the same question regarding laws. Nobody forces you to stop at a red light, and, in practice, many situations show up that prompt you to ignore the law. Yet you still abide. There is nothing giving real validity to the laws; you could ask yourself why they even exist, or what is their purpose. You're complying just because it was written down. What is the point of a law, or what is the point of abstract concepts such as economy, politics, religion or society? They are mindframes constructed by humans. In reality, only things with physical bodies exist; you could ask yourself time and time again why economy is real, and yet you were indoctrinated to validate it and adapt to it. God is the same, and Christianity is the same, with the exception that the period of time in which the book religions were conceived lends for the humans' insight into things that technology could not verify. If it weren't for the fictitious, creationist part, no one would have any problem accepting the existence of a God. The problem is people don't know what God is, to begin with

But the thing with laws, for example the concept of there being a must to stop at a red light, is that they don't make claims about the existence of the universe.
Religion does.
I agree with you that religion can be used as a tool to enact laws and regulations that citizens must follow, and this has been done many times in the past. Its still done to this day in many Islamic Countries.
But these laws don't make claims about the universe.
It's the actual religion itself that makes claims of the universe.

Let's look at capitalism.
It can be used to enact laws.
But capitalism, in of itself, doesn't make any claims of existence in our universe.
And if it did make claims of our universe, the fact that capitalism is abided by a huge society doesn't add credibility to these hypothetical claims made by capitalism of our universe.

 

[Numb The Pain]

in my region? hell nah

ye. its completely possible

Definition of a myth(s):
1)traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Religion ticks that box.

2)a widely held but false belief or idea.

Religion ticks that box. there's no proof that god exists. There's no proof that zeus exists. They're false ideas.

3)a fictitious or imaginary person or thing

Religion also ticks this one aswell.
God is an imaginary person.

Just because something isnt considered mythical by society, isn't a good way to determine whether it's mythical or not.

The only thing thats different between Zeus and Modern Religions is:
Zeus doesn't have many followers today, Modern religions has many followers.

But just because something has many followers, this doesn't give it any validity

Many things in the past were deemed correct by society and had followers, like flat earth
Or even christianity, that has many followers, but that doesn't give it any sort of credibility

cope, mythical and religious is entirely different. if your iq was in the double digits youd know. keep on neckbearding jfl.

 

[Zygos4Life]

ye. its completely possible

cope, mythical and religious is entirely different. if your iq was in the double digits youd know. keep on neckbearding jfl.

But religion ticks the boxes of what makes something mythical.
The only reason the Ancient Roman Religion is considered mythical and Modern Religions aren't is simply because of Society's views on the 2.
As we know, what society thinks of an ideology isn't a good way to categorise that ideology in different boxes.
We use definitions, and whether or not those ideologies meet those definitions, to categorise them into respective boxes.
Like the tendency for an ideology to be mythical.

 

[Numb The Pain]

But religion ticks the boxes of what makes something mythical.
The only reason the Ancient Roman Religion is considered mythical and Modern Religions aren't is simply because of Society's views on the 2.
As we know, what society thinks of an ideology isn't a good way to categorise that ideology in different boxes.
We use definitions, and whether or not those ideologies meet those definitions, to categorise them into respective boxes.
Like the tendency for an ideology to be mythical.

no because we call things that arent true myths which comes from mythical and religious people would never say their beliefs are myths bc that defeats the point. there, i increased your iq a bit

 

[Zygos4Life]

no because we call things that arent true myths which comes from mythical and religious people would never say their beliefs are myths bc that defeats the point. there, i increased your iq a bit

Well obviously religious people wouldn't call their religion myths, they have a strong bias towards their religion and have been brought up their entire lives following that religion, believing it to be true.

And Yep, you're correct. Things that aren't true can be called myths.
Religion is one of them due to the lack of evidence.

 

[Numb The Pain]

Well obviously religious people wouldn't call their religion myths, they have a strong bias towards their religion and have been brought up their entire lives following that religion, believing it to be true.

And Yep, you're correct. Things that aren't true can be called myths.
Religion is one of them due to the lack of evidence.

well im islamic & i dont call christianity nor judaism myths, but certain beliefs are very wrong.

 

[Zygos4Life]

well im islamic & i dont call christianity nor judaism myths, but certain beliefs are very wrong.

Why do you not call Christianity a myth, but call ancient religions myths?
What's the difference between them from your point of view, I'm curious.

 

[balding17yomanletcel]

what was before big bang?

 

[Numb The Pain]

Why do you not call Christianity a myth, but call ancient religions myths?
What's the difference between them from your point of view, I'm curious.

we still believe in one god, others dont like hindus or sikhs or buddhists etc.

 

[Zygos4Life]

what was before big bang?

I don't know anything about the beginning of the universe. I'm not claiming that it's the big bang that caused it, I'm not sure.

Just because we're not sure, this doesn't mean that it was because of God.

 

[Deleted member 3177]

But the thing with laws, for example the concept of there being a must to stop at a red light, is that they don't make claims about the existence of the universe.
Religion does.
I agree with you that religion can be used as a tool to enact laws and regulations that citizens must follow, and this has been done many times in the past. Its still done to this day in many Islamic Countries.
But these laws don't make claims about the universe.
It's the actual religion itself that makes claims of the universe.

Let's look at capitalism.
It can be used to enact laws.
But capitalism, in of itself, doesn't make any claims of existence in our universe.
And if it did make claims of our universe, the fact that capitalism is abided by a huge society doesn't add credibility to these hypothetical claims made by capitalism of our universe.

The same way Verne or Asimov tried to get an insight into the future of technology or movies set up a context within the immediate future where technological advances let us discover something new, Christianism tried to give a thorough explanation of sentience, the universe and our existence with the means it had during the period of time where it was created. Religion doesn't doubt science, and doesn't doubt contemporary advances, though it coexists with them; it tried to disclose the most fervent questions humanity had, just like in this point in time how our relationship with technology will change us is the biggest question that we have. It reacts to a dogma of the time, but that doesn't nullify it; it's like nullifying a chemical law that was defined a century ago simply because our technology lets us know better.

You have to assume that religious people believe in the institutional God, not the creationist God. It depends on their education and their exposure

 

[Zygos4Life]

we still believe in one god, others dont like hindus or sikhs or buddhists etc.

Sikhs also believe in one God (I'm not a Sikh anymore though)

But fair enough.
Would you consider those things that Christians believe in that don't align with Islam to be mythical?
Like Jesus being the son of God.
Would you consider that to be mythical?

 

[Bitch]

Of course he exists jfl at your stupidity.

 

[balding17yomanletcel]

I don't know anything about the beginning of the universe. I'm not claiming that it's the big bang that caused it, I'm not sure.

Just because we're not sure, this doesn't mean that it was because of God.

jfl

 

[Deleted member 7465]

I guess you will find your answer when you die brother.

 

[Deleted member 3323]

Maybe a creator exists but he doesn't give a shit about human beings.

 

[Zygos4Life]

The same way Verne or Asimov tried to get an insight into the future of technology or movies set up a context within the immediate future where technological advances let us discover something new, Christianism tried to give a thorough explanation of sentience, the universe and our existence with the means it had during the period of time where it was created. Religion doesn't doubt science, and doesn't doubt contemporary advances, though it coexists with them; it tried to disclose the most fervent questions humanity had, just like in this point in time how our relationship with technology will change us is the biggest question that we have. It reacts to a dogma of the time, but that doesn't nullify it; it's like nullifying a chemical law that was defined a century ago simply because our technology lets us know better.

You have to assume that religious people believe in the institutional God, not the creationist God. It depends on their education and their exposure

Yeah, Christianity tried to explain the existence of the universe (like the earth being 6000 years old) and today's findings prove this wrong.
I'm not sure about whether or not the entirety of religion could fit with science, but there's many ideas in religion that do not agree with scientific findings.

And also old ideas, like religion, can be nullified.
There have been many chemical laws in the past that have been proven to be wrong, and as such, science adapted with the new evidence.
For example:
The theory on how the atom is structured has changed as a consequence of new and better evidence
J.J Thomson's old "Plum-pudding model" of the atom suggested the Atom was in the shape of a plum-pudding, and that positive and negative charges were spread out in the plum-like structure. This theory was based on the evidence that was available at the time.
It was more accurate than the previous models of the atom, but still yet not accurate.
Then a man named Rutherford conducted Alpha-Scattering Experiments which changed the way we saw atoms.
The new evidence gave us insight to how the atom is structured, and through time, more evidence came that proved some of Rutherford's findings to not be the full story.

So old ideas can be nullified in favour of new ones.

 

[Deleted member 3177]

Yeah, Christianity tried to explain the existence of the universe (like the earth being 6000 years old) and today's findings prove this wrong.
I'm not sure about whether or not the entirety of religion could fit with science, but there's many ideas in religion that do not agree with scientific findings.

And also old ideas, like religion, can be nullified.
There have been many chemical laws in the past that have been proven to be wrong, and as such, science adapted with the new evidence.
For example:
The theory on how the atom is structured has changed as a consequence of new and better evidence
J.J Thomson's old "Plum-pudding model" of the atom suggested the Atom was in the shape of a plum-pudding, and that positive and negative charges were spread out in the plum-like structure. This theory was based on the evidence that was available at the time.
It was more accurate than the previous models of the atom, but still yet not accurate.
Then a man named Rutherford conducted Alpha-Scattering Experiments which changed the way we saw atoms.
The new evidence gave us insight to how the atom is structured, and through time, more evidence came that proved some of Rutherford's findings to not be the full story.

So old ideas can be nullified in favour of new ones.

Obviously, though there is a certain degree of judgement to which ideas can be subjected. If today you say that the Earth is flat, you'll be met with rejection, because that is a conception that is denied by today's canons. Centuries back, racial and social stigmas flew freely and there was really no moral conflict regarding them, whereas today there is one. Chemical laws that are denied are still documented in books and respected; the only thing that changes is the historical context and the amount of information available. In contrast, the creationist theory is 2000 years old. It is obvious that there is a temporal disconnect that makes the idea of a creationist God hard to reconcile with our knowledge, but that's simply because of its place in our history. It's giving way too much importance to that sole fact of the books and letting that drag down the general idea of God and religion

 

[Deleted member 4106]

I'll try to prove
Let us suppose that God exists.
1 The definition of God is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Therefore he is the most rational being existing, so any argument based on the moral or logic of his actions is invalid, since if he is the most rational being, he has an excellent reason for its actions.
2 By that logic, following the Bible, God did several miracles so we would need to confirm them, we cannot confirm the oldest ones, but the main Jesus.
Jesus was resurrected and several people reported, in this case the main one, the 4 gospels.
jesus is confirmed historically, and the gospels are true.

 

[Aesthetics_III]

“Yeah so there’s no evidence for god so it’s stupid to believe in him. Put your faith in science instead”

The science:

 

[Zygos4Life]

Obviously, though there is a certain degree of judgement to which ideas can be subjected. If today you say that the Earth is flat, you'll be met with rejection, because that is a conception that is denied by today's canons. Centuries back, racial and social stigmas flew freely and there was really no moral conflict regarding them, whereas today there is one. Chemical laws that are denied are still documented in books and respected; the only thing that changes is the historical context and the amount of information available. In contrast, the creationist theory is 2000 years old. It is obvious that there is a temporal disconnect that makes the idea of a creationist God hard to reconcile with our knowledge, but that's simply because of its place in our history. It's giving way too much importance to that sole fact of the books and letting that drag down the general idea of God and religion

I think looking at what a society views on a concept isn't a good way to determine it's validity. Rather than looking at what a group of people in a community think of a concept, it's best to look at the evidence that's present.
Like the thing with the earth being flat, we determine that it isn't flat through photographs of the earth from space, not from what society thinks of that idea.

Chemical laws that have been denied are indeed still remembered.

And I think Modern Religion should still be remembered, but seen in the same light as Ancient Religions. (Like how zeus and etc. Are still remembered)
Since both ancient and modern ones lack evidence and are stories.
Whereas Old chemical laws aren't stories.

And also I think the general idea of God is something that isn't valid.
There isn't proof that God, whether it be the interpretation that you were talking about earlier, or the physical interpretation of God,
Is a valid idea.

 

[MarloStanfield]

Hail Murray fail of grace,
The Virgin Mark is super fappin thru time and space

 

[sytyl]

I find it quite interesting that the story of the virgin birth of jesus by mary is a rip off of several previous myths.

Not to mention god supposedly choosing a small region of the world to spread his message multiple times instead of selecting more populous centers.

Really makes me think.

 

[Zygos4Life]

I'll try to prove
Let us suppose that God exists.
1 The definition of God is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Therefore he is the most rational being existing, so any argument based on the moral or logic of his actions is invalid, since if he is the most rational being, he has an excellent reason for its actions.
2 By that logic, following the Bible, God did several miracles so we would need to confirm them, we cannot confirm the oldest ones, but the main Jesus.
Jesus was resurrected and several people reported, in this case the main one, the 4 gospels.
jesus is confirmed historically, and the gospels are true.

I'm not sure about whether or not Jesus was a real person (he very well could have been).
But all the miracles done by him are simply just stories written in the Bible.
There's many other religious books which describe people doing miracles and etc. Not just the Bible. And they're all stories.

 

[BigBoy]

The same way Verne or Asimov tried to get an insight into the future of technology or movies set up a context within the immediate future where technological advances let us discover something new, Christianism tried to give a thorough explanation of sentience, the universe and our existence with the means it had during the period of time where it was created. Religion doesn't doubt science, and doesn't doubt contemporary advances, though it coexists with them; it tried to disclose the most fervent questions humanity had, just like in this point in time how our relationship with technology will change us is the biggest question that we have. It reacts to a dogma of the time, but that doesn't nullify it; it's like nullifying a chemical law that was defined a century ago simply because our technology lets us know better.

You have to assume that religious people believe in the institutional God, not the creationist God. It depends on their education and their exposure

Religious people believe in both the creationist and institutional God. They accept his institutional rules because he proved himself as the one who created the universe.

Youre arguing that an institutional God exists like other institutions like capitalism and laws. But all three of these things were created by humans. Everyone is aware capitalism and laws dont exist, but we follow them because people in authority force us follow them. If the general population finds their current economic and legislative system to be incompetent they lash out through revolution and reinstate a new government and laws and economic system. Such has been the case all throughout history and one case in particular, the USSR.

These things dont exist, they are there because there are humans to follow/believe them. Using your own frame set God doesnt exist.

 

[Deleted member 4106]

I'm not sure about whether or not Jesus was a real person (he very well could have been).
But all the miracles done by him are simply just stories written in the Bible.
There's many other religious books which describe people doing miracles and etc. Not just the Bible. And they're all stories.

Jesus is confirmed historically, including by atheist historians.

 

[Zygos4Life]

Jesus is confirmed historically, including by atheist historians.

Yeah, Jesus very well may have been a real person.
His miracles weren't true though.

 

[Zygos4Life]

@Chadelite if you give me sufficient proof that God exists, then I'll convert to Islam.

 

[Deleted member 4106]

To be honest, God does not exist.
The very definition of God is a great coppe. People knew they were going to die and, to deal with it, they created God.
We have no scientific evidence, innumerable logical errors.
I've been a Christian all my life, but I have to stop coping

 

[Deleted member 3177]

Religious people believe in both the creationist and institutional God. They accept his institutional rules because he proved himself as the one who created the universe.

Youre arguing that an institutional God exists like other institutions like capitalism and laws. But all three of these things were created by humans. Everyone is aware capitalism and laws dont exist, but we follow them because people in authority force us follow them. If the general population finds their current economic and legislative system to be incompetent they lash out through revolution and reinstate a new government and laws and economic system. Such has been the case all throughout history and one case in particular, the USSR.

These things dont exist, they are there because there are humans to follow/believe them. Using your own frame set God doesnt exist.

Using my frame set the validity of a concept depends on the societal judgement of said concept, which is the only real way to verify anything, since we are animals, we eat and we poop. Nothing exists, but I'm lenient to believe that everything not physical that human has created is real. Capitalism doesn't exist, but it's real. It all depends on society. The way it's argued that God doesn't exist can be extrapolated to any given theme and the answers will always be ambivalent.

 

[Deleted member 5683]

Water

 

[Seth Walsh]

All of you Christiancels, Muslimcels, Hinducels and Atheistcels gtfih tbh

Prove to me that god exists.

God exists you fuckin wanker. How low IQ can you be. God literally exists. I will literally go to you and show you how God exists and it has nothing to do with religion

 

[Deleted member 3177]

I think looking at what a society views on a concept isn't a good way to determine it's validity. Rather than looking at what a group of people in a community think of a concept, it's best to look at the evidence that's present.
Like the thing with the earth being flat, we determine that it isn't flat through photographs of the earth from space, not from what society thinks of that idea.

Chemical laws that have been denied are indeed still remembered.

And I think Modern Religion should still be remembered, but seen in the same light as Ancient Religions. (Like how zeus and etc. Are still remembered)
Since both ancient and modern ones lack evidence and are stories.
Whereas Old chemical laws aren't stories.

And also I think the general idea of God is something that isn't valid.
There isn't proof that God, whether it be the interpretation that you were talking about earlier, or the physical interpretation of God,
Is a valid idea.

Greeks used to verify their scientific mumblings through austere, often non scientific way, when in actuality there is a strict scientific method which rules over every hard science and discipline. Creationism is "arcaic science," if you want to call it that. It's a hypothesis on the creation of all things and sentience.