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

[Aesthetics_III]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

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]

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]

nah, the ancients were more in tune with God

see musica universalis, string theory is but a modern convolution

 

[looksmaxxed]

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.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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)

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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?

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

 

[Deleted member 18849]

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.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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]

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.

don't bother this guy is retarded brainwashed christian

 

[Deleted member 18849]

"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.

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

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.

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]

"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.

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

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.

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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

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 "

 

[Deleted member 7725]

@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.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 7725]

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?

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.

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.