Why must we talk about religion on this site?

[Blackout.xl]

It’s pointless. Because unlike the blackpill, or economics, or the trajectory of society, or politics, or the sciences, religion is not a game of objective truth. It’s a game of personal truth.

As in, there is no right or wrong answer. If there was a right answer, everybody would follow it and this conversation would be over.

What matters, is what matters and holds the most value to you personally. It’s a personal connection, not a connection to objective fact and truth.

A Buddhist builds a connection between the individual and personal philosophy / personal growth. A Muslim/Christian/jew builds a connection to a higher power through scripture and community. A spiritualist builds connections through meditation and seeking inner peace (a lot of overlap with Buddhism for this one). An atheist will often build a personal connection to the sciences.

The point here is that you can’t really argue this, because the personal connection to the ideology is too strong. Which therefore makes the perceptions different.

People will say evidence is objective, but in this case, it’s not. Because your acceptance of the evidence depends on the preconceived notions you already have. As in, if you are spiritual, you will be more open to the evidence and arguments for higher realms or the supernatural, compared to an atheist who is a strict believer in naturalism and will accept nothing short of something which can be tested through the scientific method.

There are even some atheists who accept spirituality and are more open to arguments, due to preconceived notions. A Muslim won’t be open to atheism because of preconceived notions pointing them towards the existence of a supernatural power rather than nothing existing that is greater than nature.


Then there’s the fact that many ppl here obviously haven’t done much research, on both sides. So why must we argue and pollute the forum with these conversations that go no where? Dumb and pointless imo. Leave that to reddit or YouTube. This is a looksmaxxing site based on the blackpill which measures what can be proven through objective means. Not things which are subjective

 

[Britishlooksmaxxer]

As I said in another thread earlier religion is the original cope that suffering in life and dying for your religion in Islam will garner you an amazing afterlife

 

[Zygos4Life]

There is a right or wrong answer

God either exists or he doesn't

 

[Deleted member 6997]

Another essay

 

[Blackout.xl]

There is a right or wrong answer

God either exists or he doesn't

When I say there’s no right or wrong answer, I’m saying that in the context of, it’s an open book question. If you take up the position of him existing, it’s not objectively more wrong or more valid than him not existing. It comes down to personal intuition.

When you talk In absolutes, for subjects such as these, you can’t claim yourself to be reasonable

 

[Deleted member 5927]

This is your worldview @Blackout.xl

You believe the world is subjective and that truth is subjective. Religious people inheritely believe that truth is objective and so do many non religious people.

You are actually doing the same thing everyone else is, in saying you shouldn't talk about religion (a worldview) you are promoting your own worldview.

 

[Blackout.xl]

This is your worldview @Blackout.xl

You believe the world is subjective and that truth is subjective. Religious people inheritely believe that truth is objective and so do many non religious people.

You are actually doing the same thing everyone else is, in saying you shouldn't talk about religion (a worldview) you are promoting your own worldview.

I don’t really think the world is subjective or the truth is subjective. My view is that it has to go on a case by case basis. The room for subjectivity for something like gravity, is basically 0. While the room for subjectivity for politics or religion, is 100%.

Yes I’m promoting my own worldview, everyone promotes their own worldview when they speak on a subject. You can’t avoid it, unless you don’t speak at all

 

[Zygos4Life]

When I say there’s no right or wrong answer, I’m saying that in the context of, it’s an open book question. If you take up the position of him existing, it’s not objectively more wrong or more valid than him not existing. It comes down to personal intuition.

When you talk In absolutes, for subjects such as these, you can’t claim yourself to be reasonable

Taking the position of a God existing is actually less valid, since that viewpoint is concluded despite a lack of evidence.
Whilst taking the position of a God not existing is a logical conclusion drawn because there is a lack of evidence.

They're not comparable at all and don't have the same value.

The belief that Santa Claus exists is less valid than the belief that he doesn't exist.
I'm not comparing Santa Claus to God, I'm just giving an example of how 2 sides of the same coin don't always have the same value in terms of validity.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Taking the position of a God existing is actually less valid, since that viewpoint is concluded despite a lack of evidence.
Whilst taking the position of a God not existing is a logical conclusion drawn because there is a lack of evidence.

They're not comparable at all and don't have the same value.

The belief that Santa Claus exists is less valid than the belief that he doesn't exist.
I'm not comparing Santa Claus to God, I'm just giving an example of how 2 sides of the same coin don't always have the same value in terms of validity.

Again, not true. See the kalam and fine tuning. To say that there is a lack of evidence, is an assertion. There isn’t smoking gun evidence which puts the argument to rest, sure. But there is evidence for the position of god existing being coherent and plausible.

Ontop of that, if we disregard the various arguments for god that do exist, there is still 0 evidence for atheism. It has no more value than a god existing, it has no more explanatory power. If such is the case then the value still is 50/50.

Santa Claus is wildly different. We have 0 evidence for him existing and have evidence AGAINST Him existing. Therefore him not existing has more value and validity. If we were able to do the same for god then this debate would be over.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

Again, not true. See the kalam and fine tuning. To say that there is a lack of evidence, is an assertion. There isn’t smoking gun evidence which puts the argument to rest, sure. But there is evidence for the position of god existing being coherent and plausible.

Ontop of that, if we disregard the various arguments for god that do exist, there is still 0 evidence for atheism. It has no more value than a god existing, it has no more explanatory power. If such is the case then the value still is 50/50.

Santa Claus is wildly different. We have 0 evidence for him existing and have evidence AGAINST Him existing. Therefore him not existing has more value and validity. If we were able to do the same for god then this debate would be over.

Dude , there is a difference between a potential god who created this universe and Yahweh/Allah or other gods from differents religions.
We don't know if there is a God, but for sure, we know that Allah/Yahweh and etc... don't exist and are man made.

Religions are pure cope , used to comfort and guide early humans, in today world these religions, need to leave.

Theists need to come with evidence for their God( Yahweh,Krishna,Vishnu,Zeus, etc..).It's their job to prove their existence , atheism is the lack of belief , most atheist are agnostic theist , they'lll not believe until you come with stong evidence for your claim; if you can't then there is no reason to believe at all.

And which religions is the true one ?, there is like thousand of religions , anyway .

 

[Blackout.xl]

Dude , there is a difference between a potential god who created this universe and Yahweh/Allah or other gods from differents religions.
We don't know if there is a God, but for sure, we know that Allah/Yahweh and etc... don't exist and are man made.

Religions are pure cope , used to comfort and guide early humans, in today world these religions, need to leave.

Theists need to come with evidence for their God( Yahweh,Krishna,Vishnu,Zeus, etc..).It's their job to prove their existence , atheism is the lack of belief , most atheist are agnostic theist , they'lll not believe until you come with stong evidence for your claim; if you can't then there is no reason to believe at all.

And which religions is the true one ?, there is like thousand of religions , anyway .

If you could prove the abrahamic religions are man made, nobody would follow them. If you could prove any religion to be man made, nobody would follow it. This is why paganism and roman/Greek era religions are dead.

Anyways you people have a habit for misinterpreting what I say so there’s no point in me continuing

 

[Deleted member 8365]

If you could prove the abrahamic religions are man made, nobody would follow them. If you could prove any religion to be man made, nobody would follow it. This is why paganism and roman/Greek era religions are dead.

Anyways you people have a habit for misinterpreting what I say so there’s no point in me continuing

yeah keep coping with the man made fairytales.
There's a ton shit of people who read the Quran or Bible and after that become Atheisy because they acknowledge , that there is a lot of bullshit inside.
The same thing that happened to these Roman/Greek religions will happen to the Abrahamic ones.They will fade away ....

 

[Blackout.xl]

yeah keep coping with the man made fairytales.
There's a ton shit of people who read the Quran or Bible and after that become Atheisy because they acknowledge , that there is a lot of bullshit inside.
The same thing that happened to these Roman/Greek religions will happen to the Abrahamic ones.They will fade away ....

There’s also a shit ton of people who read the Koran and became Muslim. Or read the bible and became Christian. Or read on Buddhist philosophy and became Buddhist. It happens every single day.

The fact that all you can say is “keep coping with ur fairy tales” and “people who read scripture become atheist” shows that you are not equipped to have a conversation. You’re on the same tier of teenage reddit atheists in a rebellion phase.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

There’s also a shit ton of people who read the Koran and became Muslim. Or read the bible and became Christian. Or read on Buddhist philosophy and became Buddhist. It happens every single day.

The fact that all you can say is “keep coping with ur fairy tales” and “people who read scripture become atheist” shows that you are not equipped to have a conversation. You’re on the same tier of teenage reddit atheists in a rebellion phase.

I'm not in rebellion phase, if you still believe in these fairytales ,you aren't bright . that's not my problem and go on the reddit and you'll will see how, they will welcome you....
There's no evidence for the stories in these books , there's no gods.
wake up
God =/= Yahweh,Allah etc..

 

[Blackout.xl]

I'm not in rebellion phase, if you still believe in these fairytales ,you aren't bright . that's not my problem and go on the reddit and you'll will see how, they will welcome you....
There's no evidence for the stories in these books , there's no gods.
wake up
God =/= Yahweh,Allah etc..

I’ve gone on reddit and it’s literally just a circle jerk on everything, from religion to politics. They’re not a standard of evidence or intelligence.

If all you can repeat is the word “fairytales” and then accuse others of low Iq while giving no evidence for your arguments, then you yourself are severely lacking intelligence. Arguments are almost never conducted this way.

This is why atheists who could actually put 2 and 2 together give evidence for their conclusions, rather than acting as if their world view is self evident. Just lol

Assertion based on an opinion. Why are they not true? Why is there no evidence? If you Act as if your view is self evident then you won’t get anywhere, no one will agree with you. Actually elaborate.

When people make arguments for the existence of god, through the ways I listed, they always make additional arguments to get to their god. They don’t just assume. These arguments are meant to justify the concept, and then build a base for further argumentation. You are so ignorant it’s astounding.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

I’ve gone on reddit and it’s literally just a circle jerk on everything, from religion to politics. They’re not a standard of evidence or intelligence.

If all you can repeat is the word “fairytales” and then accuse others of low Iq while giving no evidence for your arguments, then you yourself are severely lacking intelligence. Arguments are almost never conducted this way.

This is why atheists who could actually put 2 and 2 together give evidence for their conclusions, rather than acting as if their world view is self evident. Just lol

Assertion based on an opinion. Why are they not true? Why is there no evidence? If you Act as if your view is self evident then you won’t get anywhere, no one will agree with you. Actually elaborate.

When people make arguments for the existence of god, through the ways I listed, they always make additional arguments to get to their god. They don’t just assume. These arguments are meant to justify the concept, and then build a base for further argumentation. You are so ignorant it’s astounding.

ok , then
give me evidence for the existence of your God, give me evidence for the stories inside the bible or quran?
You really don't get what atheism really is, if you can't provide proof for the existence of your god , then there is no reason to believe you , do you understand?

it's not my work to proof to you that your god doesn't exist , it's YOUR work to show me that.
The Bible or Quran isn't a sufficent proof for the existence of this god , like Spiderman comic aren't for the existence of Spiderman.
YOU are the ignorant one for believing in religion

the other problem is , Hinduism could be true, Zoroastrianism could be true , etc...? the fact that there is a lot of religions seems odd to me , tbh. I consider myself like a Agnostic Atheist not an "active" or gnostic atheist = someone who don't believe in any deity and think that its impossible that a god can exist.
i would like to believe again but i can't .

 

[Deleted member 8365]

I’ve gone on reddit and it’s literally just a circle jerk on everything, from religion to politics. They’re not a standard of evidence or intelligence.

If all you can repeat is the word “fairytales” and then accuse others of low Iq while giving no evidence for your arguments, then you yourself are severely lacking intelligence. Arguments are almost never conducted this way.

This is why atheists who could actually put 2 and 2 together give evidence for their conclusions, rather than acting as if their world view is self evident. Just lol

Assertion based on an opinion. Why are they not true? Why is there no evidence? If you Act as if your view is self evident then you won’t get anywhere, no one will agree with you. Actually elaborate.

When people make arguments for the existence of god, through the ways I listed, they always make additional arguments to get to their god. They don’t just assume. These arguments are meant to justify the concept, and then build a base for further argumentation. You are so ignorant it’s astounding.

ok , then
give me evidence for the existence of your God, give me evidence for the stories inside the bible or quran?
You really don't get what atheism really is, if you can't provide proof for the existence of your god , then there is no reason to believe you , do you understand?

it's not my work to proof to you that your god doesn't exist , it's YOUR work to show me that, until that i will not believe, it's like that i need proof to believe in something.

The Bible or Quran isn't a sufficent proof for the existence of this god , like Spiderman comic aren't for the existence of Spiderman.
YOU are the ignorant one for believing in religion.

the other problem is , Hinduism could be true, Zoroastrianism could be true , etc...? the fact that there is a lot of religions seems odd to me , tbh. I consider myself like a Agnostic Atheist not an "active" or gnostic atheist = someone who don't believe in any deity and think that its impossible that a god can exist.
i would like to believe again but i can't .

 

[Blackout.xl]

ok , then
give me evidence for the existence of your God, give me evidence for the stories inside the bible or quran?
You really don't get what atheism really is, if you can't provide proof for the existence of your god , then there is no reason to believe you , do you understand?

it's not my work to proof to you that your god doesn't exist , it's YOUR work to show me that.
The Bible or Quran isn't a sufficent proof for the existence of this god , like Spiderman comic aren't for the existence of Spiderman.
YOU are the ignorant one for believing in religion.

I said nothing about atheism apart from how athiests who can actually argue tend to attach conclusions to their arguments. so I don’t know where that “you don’t know how atheism works” argument from.

I never said the Koran or bible was sufficient proof for god. I never talked about it being a proof for god. I specifically mentioned certain arguments (such as the kalam or fine tuning) being proofs for god, which people of different religions argue for and build onto as a means to prove their select definition of god.

What a bad example. Spider-Man is deliberately written as fiction. We can verify this. The Koran and bible are intentionally written to detail historical events. Whether or not you believe the Koran or bible are historical, you cannot compare what they put forward to Spider-Man. Because both books, belong to completely different genres. And therefore have to be weighed and viewed in a completely different light.

For the bible at least, eye witness testimony, we can confirm the existence of Jesus in some form ( vast majority of scholarly field agrees he existed), solid proof for him being put into a tomb (Joseph of arimithea is detailed in all 4 gospels as holding the same exact role of burying jesus), lack of incentive to lie, a lack of explanatory power for the hallucination hypothesis, Early creed that can be dated to within 5 yrs of Jesus’s death, which means the core doctrine did not see significant historical embellishment, etc.

All of this depends on how open you are To it anyway, it will matter less to some and matter more to some.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

I said nothing about atheism apart from how athiests who can actually argue tend to attach conclusions to their arguments. so I don’t know where that “you don’t know how atheism works” argument from.

I never said the Koran or bible was sufficient proof for god. I never talked about it being a proof for god. I specifically mentioned certain arguments (such as the kalam or fine tuning) being proofs for god, which people of different religions argue for and build onto as a means to prove their select definition of god.

What a bad example. Spider-Man is deliberately written as fiction. We can verify this. The Koran and bible are intentionally written to detail historical events. Whether or not you believe the Koran or bible are historical, you cannot compare what they put forward to Spider-Man. Because both books, belong to completely different genres. And therefore have to be weighed and viewed in a completely different light.

For the bible at least, eye witness testimony, we can confirm the existence of Jesus in some form ( vast majority of scholarly field agrees he existed), solid proof for him being put into a tomb (Joseph of arimithea is detailed in all 4 gospels as holding the same exact role of burying jesus), lack of incentive to lie, a lack of explanatory power for the hallucination hypothesis, Early creed that can be dated to within 5 yrs of Jesus’s death, which means the core doctrine did not see significant historical embellishment, etc.

All of this depends on how open you are To it anyway, it will matter less to some and matter more to some.

ofc , you don't know how it works , because your asking me for proof that gods don't exist. i'm not the one making these claim , if you can't provide me evidence then i can't believe you , do you understand ?

I'm not saying that you said that , what i'm saying is that most gnostic theist usually use the bible as proof fro their claim. I'm not talking about the historical event but the characters inside these books or even other religions not only Bible , why would the Bible or Quran be more relevant than other books , anyway.
So spiderman still a good argument for people who use the bible or other religious scriptures to prove the existence of their gods. It's pretty the same thing . Both have things that are real inside ,it but there's thing inside it who are lack evidence.
Just prove me things inside these scriptures and i'll believe you, that's it.

There's a lot of scholar who don't believe too , plus there is a lack of evidences for Jesus, anyway . Even , if he was real we need to have strong evidence for that , saying that there's eye witness testimony isn't enough once again ,because people can say what they want .
it can be biased , and untrue . later forgeries, etc.... the same for other religions .
if you really want to debate go to reddit , r/atheism and talk ,debate and we will see.

 

[Copemaxxing]

Too long that thread and I wont use the gaston gif that time

 

[Blackout.xl]

ofc , you don't know how it works , because your asking me for proof that gods don't exist. i'm not the one making these claim , if you can't provide me evidence then i can't believe you , do you understand ?

I'm not saying that you said that , what i'm saying is that most gnostic theist usually use the bible as proof fro their claim. I'm not talking about the historical event but the characters inside these books or even other religions not only Bible , why would the Bible or Quran be more relevant than other books , anyway.
So spiderman still a good argument for people who use the bible or other religious scriptures to prove the existence of their gods. It's pretty the same thing . Both have things that are real inside ,it but there's thing inside it who are lack evidence.
Just prove me things inside these scriptures and i'll believe you, that's it.

There's a lot of scholar who don't believe too , plus there is a lack of evidences for Jesus, anyway . Even , if he was real we need to have strong evidence for that , saying that there's eye witness testimony isn't enough once again ,because people can say what they want .
it can be biased , and untrue . later forgeries, etc.... the same for other religions .
if you really want to debate go to reddit , r/atheism and talk ,debate and we will see.

Yes. When you make a statement, you have to actually attach something to your argument. You have to provide some reasoning. You don’t need concrete proof, just something beyond “fairy tales”. The fact that you can’t understand this has me questioning if you’re equipped for this conversation.

Most theists who argue on stuff like this don’t just use the bible, they use arguments I listed and then use the bible to back their claims. In pretty much every debate. Regardless.

Except it’s not the same thing, not even similar. Spider-Man as I stated before is deliberate fiction, it’s meant to tell a story to provide entertainment for the reader. We can confirm this through the authors who wrote Spider-Man itself.

This cannot be compared to a book which falls under ancient biography, that is attempting to detail historical events, rather than a story to excite the reader. The genres are completely different. Therefore the claims have to be seen as different and therefore have to be weighed in a different way. If you view the bible asserting jesus to be divine, in the same way of someone hypothetically asserting Spider-Man to exist through mentioning the book of Spider-Man, then you either are biased, uneducated, or both. You can’t call a religious person ignorant and look at things in this way.

There are a lot of scholars who don’t believe and there are a lot of scholars who do believe, which should tell you that your atheistic position isn’t as self evident as you thought it was.

At this point you’re going against history in order to back your world view and you are confirming yourself to be ignorant. Josephus, a Jewish historian born just after the time of Jesus, who was born and raised in the same city where Jesus was in, mentioned him and his brother James.

Tacitus, a respected roman historian, who hated Christianity and Christians, directly mentioned Jesus when he was detailing Christians being punished by Nero after the fire of rome around 64 AD or so.

The scholarly field is pretty much unanimous in Jesus existing. The evidence is far from weak.

People are biased if they have preconceived notions of something and are already convinced. It wouldn’t make sense for the disciples to be biased of the resurrection and therefore give a false account, if they did not see it happen.

We can date the creed which said Jesus was died and buried to within 5 years of his death. All the textual variants of the OT, all agree he was killed, buried and rose again. All the gospels agree and Paul, writing in the 50’s AD, agreed. Despite the vast amount of Christian sects which all existed with different interpretations of scripture and Jesus, all agree he was killed and buried. There is no room for a forgery here.

R/atheism is quite literally seen as a joke on reddit, devoid of any reasoning or logic. By everybody. Religious and non religious. So much so to where multiple atheists have broken off from it and created their own sub Reddit’s. If you hold them as a standard for evidence and intelligence, then you’re retarded. And likely bluepilled because the sub is based around leftist bluepilled garbage. And in that case, why are you here?

 

[Marsiere214]

im not very religious but i dont believe that something as great as the universe was made by itself

 

[Deleted member 3702]

why is god don't giving me hot jbs

 

[Charles the Fat]

Religion is just a product of human nature and fear. I do believe God exists, but humans and Earth is just a small pointless spot in the vast universe that God created

 

[Blackout.xl]

Religion is just a product of human nature and fear. I do believe God exists, but humans and Earth is just a small pointless spot in the vast universe that God created

Religion is indeed a evolutionary trait exclusive to humans

 

[Deleted member 8365]

Yes. When you make a statement, you have to actually attach something to your argument. You have to provide some reasoning. You don’t need concrete proof, just something beyond “fairy tales”. The fact that you can’t understand this has me questioning if you’re equipped for this conversation.

Most theists who argue on stuff like this don’t just use the bible, they use arguments I listed and then use the bible to back their claims. In pretty much every debate. Regardless.

Except it’s not the same thing, not even similar. Spider-Man as I stated before is deliberate fiction, it’s meant to tell a story to provide entertainment for the reader. We can confirm this through the authors who wrote Spider-Man itself.

This cannot be compared to a book which falls under ancient biography, that is attempting to detail historical events, rather than a story to excite the reader. The genres are completely different. Therefore the claims have to be seen as different and therefore have to be weighed in a different way. If you view the bible asserting jesus to be divine, in the same way of someone hypothetically asserting Spider-Man to exist through mentioning the book of Spider-Man, then you either are biased, uneducated, or both. You can’t call a religious person ignorant and look at things in this way.

There are a lot of scholars who don’t believe and there are a lot of scholars who do believe, which should tell you that your atheistic position isn’t as self evident as you thought it was.

At this point you’re going against history in order to back your world view and you are confirming yourself to be ignorant. Josephus, a Jewish historian born just after the time of Jesus, who was born and raised in the same city where Jesus was in, mentioned him and his brother James.

Tacitus, a respected roman historian, who hated Christianity and Christians, directly mentioned Jesus when he was detailing Christians being punished by Nero after the fire of rome around 64 AD or so.

The scholarly field is pretty much unanimous in Jesus existing. The evidence is far from weak.

People are biased if they have preconceived notions of something and are already convinced. It wouldn’t make sense for the disciples to be biased of the resurrection and therefore give a false account, if they did not see it happen.

We can date the creed which said Jesus was died and buried to within 5 years of his death. All the textual variants of the OT, all agree he was killed, buried and rose again. All the gospels agree and Paul, writing in the 50’s AD, agreed. Despite the vast amount of Christian sects which all existed with different interpretations of scripture and Jesus, all agree he was killed and buried. There is no room for a forgery here.

R/atheism is quite literally seen as a joke on reddit, devoid of any reasoning or logic. By everybody. Religious and non religious. So much so to where multiple atheists have broken off from it and created their own sub Reddit’s. If you hold them as a standard for evidence and intelligence, then you’re retarded. And likely bluepilled because the sub is based around leftist bluepilled garbage. And in that case, why are you here?

Dude , i dont care of Jesus .
What i'm trying to say , is that which religions is true , if there's a lot .
you' re low iq .
show me proof , for these claim , now
r/atheism is has a lot of intelligent people who use , logic contrary to you fucking idiot, it's simple you don't have enough proof for a god , therefore there isn't any reason to believe at all , plus there like thousand of religions, which one is true ?
r/atheism is seen as joke because people love to circlejerk , but apart of that , people discuss and give content, sources; etc....

YOU are the one bluepilled, you fuck dumbass , imagine still believing in religion in 2020, jfl

 

[Blackout.xl]

Dude , i dont care of Jesus .
What i'm trying to say , is that which religions is true , if there's a lot .
you' re low iq .
show me proof , for these claim , now
i'll wait

You quite literally said there’s a lack of evidence for Jesus, I addressed that claim, now you don’t care about Jesus? Talk about shifting the goalposts backwards.

bruh we were specifically talking about the resurrection and Christianity. I gave you the evidence. Did you not see it?

As for all the many religions, it’s a search for personal truth. Find what matters and makes sense to you the most, because that’s what will resonate with you the most and be the most legitimate. I made this point in the OP. If this is how you’re going to argue, then I think we’re done here.

 

[john2]

Nothing much to say.

You either live forever or you burn & cry forever.

You can cope as much as you want in this world with drugs/sex/wealth/fame/success/validation...

but at the end, it doesn't matter.

End of discussion.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

You quite literally said there’s a lack of evidence for Jesus, I addressed that claim, now you don’t care about Jesus? Talk about shifting the goalposts backwards.

bruh we were specifically talking about the resurrection and Christianity. I gave you the evidence. Did you not see it?

As for all the many religions, it’s a search for personal truth. Find what matters and makes sense to you the most, because that’s what will resonate with you the most and be the most legitimate. I made this point in the OP. If this is how you’re going to argue, then I think we’re done here.

the evidence for Jesus is weak ,bro that's a fact.
what i'm trying to say , it that there is no reason to believe in anything without any proof , how hard it is for you to understand ?......
what make the most sense is being a agnostic atheist. You can't prove that a god exist or doesn't exist , and you don't believe in any deity at all.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

Nothing much to say.

You either live forever or burn + cry forever.

You can cope as much as you want in this world with drugs/sex/wealth/fame/success/validation...

but at the end, it doesn't matter.

End of discussion.

when you die , there's more likely nothing , since your consciousness cease , shut off... it's like before you were born

 

[Blackout.xl]

the evidence for Jesus is weak ,bro that's a fact.
what i'm trying to say , it that there is no reason to believe in anything without any proof , how hard it is for you to understand ?......
what make the most sense is being a agnostic atheist. You can't prove that a god exist or doesn't exist , and you don't believe in any deity at all.

You can’t assert it’s a fact, when Theres smoking gun evidence that I mentioned to you, and when scholars across all religious faiths, atheist, muslim, or otherwise, agree that he existed.

If you’re talking about the resurrection, the evidence isn’t really weak either. You keep saying “belief without any proof”, and then ignore the proof given to you. Legit, what is your issue? This seems to not even be an issue with facts or lies, but rather a personal issue with religion.

You say being an agnostic atheist makes the most sense and then in the same breath say you can’t prove god does or doesn’t exist. Lol

 

[john2]

@Blackout.xl this is an incel website, where people are mainly motivated to seek hedonistic pleasures and will throw out all morality to satisfy themselves and senselessly indulge themselves into immorality and degeneracy. People are heavily pessimistic here (I won't deny that i may come across as pessimistic sometimes too). This is why I believe there are mainly atheists here blackpilled through Nietzsche's philosophy of nihilism. They see this world as pure suffering. If that is the case, then i still wonder why all atheistic incels don't simply tie a noose and place their head in it to exit this world of 'unbearable' suffering. I mean, they aren't worried about any eternal consequences either right? I personally think discussing religion over here is pointless.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

You can’t assert it’s a fact, when Theres smoking gun evidence that I mentioned to you, and when scholars across all religious faiths, atheist, muslim, or otherwise, agree that he existed.

If you’re talking about the resurrection, the evidence isn’t really weak either. You keep saying “belief without any proof”, and then ignore the proof given to you. Legit, what is your issue? This seems to not even be an issue with facts or lies, but rather a personal issue with religion.

You say being an agnostic atheist makes the most sense and then in the same breath say you can’t prove god does or doesn’t exist. Lol

bro, you're so dumb, jfl
Definition /Agnostic atheists :are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. that's what it means.

show me link , sources and etc....
because there's a lot of scholar who don't believe and other who believe,

 

[Blackout.xl]

Dude , i dont care of Jesus .
What i'm trying to say , is that which religions is true , if there's a lot .
you' re low iq .
show me proof , for these claim , now
r/atheism is has a lot of intelligent people who use , logic contrary to you fucking idiot, it's simple you don't have enough proof for a god , therefore there isn't any reason to believe at all , plus there like thousand of religions, which one is true ?
r/atheism is seen as joke because people love to circlejerk , but apart of that , people discuss and give content, sources; etc....

YOU are the one bluepilled, you fuck dumbass , imagine still believing in religion in 2020, jfl

Ripe with insults, lacking in substance.

R/atheism has next to no intelligent people. They don’t even debate god there anymore, it’s an echo chamber of people who cry about religion 24/7 and just make anti-trump, anti-gop and anti religious influence posts.

Mentioned 2 arguments which establish the coherence and plausibility of a higher power / creator. Gave you some proof for the resurrection, which you passed off as biased or forgery, despite both Holding little explanatory power. all ignored by you.

People giving content and sources doesn’t mean anything when all their content is complete shit and their sources are biased. Even other atheists on reddit will agree with this. R/atheism is a joke.

They also happen to take the most literalistic views of biblical scripture and strawman the fuck out of Christians. They mass downvote any dissenting opinion, which further lines up with them being nothing more than an echo-chamber. When islam is brought up they default to appeals to emotion and talk about “Muh human rights” “muh gay marriage” “muh secular liberal values” and fail to mention context.

They are Notorious for trotting out the secular societies in Europe being happier, therefore secularism is better, despite these countries they mention being built on generous plots of natural resources or making a fortune off of colonialism.

They aren’t smart in any way whatsoever. They are retarded and only show how atheists too, can be low iq and retarded.

 

[Deleted member 8365]

@Blackout.xl this is an incel website, where people are mainly motivated to seek hedonistic pleasures and will throw out all morality to satisfy themselves and senselessly indulge themselves into immorality and degeneracy. People are heavily pessimistic here (I won't deny that i may come across as pessimistic sometimes too). This is why I believe there are mainly atheists here blackpilled through Nietzsche's philosophy of nihilism. They see this world as pure suffering. If that is the case, then i still wonder why all atheistic incels don't simply tie a noose and place their head in it to exit this world of 'unbearable' suffering. I mean, they aren't worried about any eternal consequences either right? I personally think discussing religion over here is pointless.

i'm not an incel , i'm just here to discuss , share and being more blackpilled.

 

[john2]

i'm not an incel , i'm just here to discuss , share and being more blackpilled.

So you still deny the existence and reassertion of Jesus of Nazareth,... something that has been widely accepted, not only by the world and Christians, but even atheistic scholars?

I understand that you probably won't believe him as the messiah, because that is simply personal opinion, upon reading the scriptures.

 

[Blackout.xl]

bro, you're so dumb, jfl
Definition /Agnostic atheists :are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. that's what it means.

show me link , sources and etc....
because there's a lot of scholar who don't believe and other who believe,

If you can’t prove god does or doesn’t exist, then agnostic atheism isn’t the most valid position. Because it’s making a claim that god probably does not exist, despite according to you, the matter being unsolvable and not being able to provide a concrete conclusion.

In this case, agnostic atheism is not the most valid position, pure agnosticism would be the most valid position. This isn’t hard to understand.

If you want the smoking gun evidence for Jesus, I’ll link it for you here.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tacitus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Deleted member 8365]

Ripe with insults, lacking in substance.

R/atheism has next to no intelligent people. They don’t even debate god there anymore, it’s an echo chamber of people who cry about religion 24/7 and just make anti-trump, anti-gop and anti religious influence posts.

Mentioned 2 arguments which establish the coherence and plausibility of a higher power / creator. Gave you some proof for the resurrection, which you passed off as biased or forgery, despite both Holding little explanatory power. all ignored by you.

People giving content and sources doesn’t mean anything when all their content is complete shit and their sources are biased. Even other atheists on reddit will agree with this. R/atheism is a joke.

They also happen to take the most literalistic views of biblical scripture and strawman the fuck out of Christians. They mass downvote any dissenting opinion, which further lines up with them being nothing more than an echo-chamber. When islam is brought up they default to appeals to emotion and talk about “Muh human rights” “muh gay marriage” “muh secular liberal values” and fail to mention context.

They are Notorious for trotting out the secular societies in Europe being happier, therefore secularism is better, despite these countries they mention being built on generous plots of natural resources or making a fortune off of colonialism.

They aren’t smart in any way whatsoever. They are retarded and only show how atheists too, can be low iq and retarded.

The bible is meant to be literal , Evangelical Christians think it's literal for example like many Christian.
If you think that r/atheism is a joke , invite you to go there and u will see...
their sources aren't biased at all , and they are always being logical , they use logic when arguing with people , the only thing that suck with this sub is the obessesion with Trump .
what make you think their content and sources are biased ?

 

[Deleted member 8365]

If you can’t prove god does or doesn’t exist, then agnostic atheism isn’t the most valid position. Because it’s making a claim that god probably does not exist, despite according to you, the matter being unsolvable and not being able to provide a concrete conclusion.

In this case, agnostic atheism is not the most valid position, pure agnosticism would be the most valid position. This isn’t hard to understand.

If you want the smoking gun evidence for Jesus, I’ll link it for you here.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tacitus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

dude, i think we need to stop here ,at this point u seem ignorant af and get your fucking sources from wikipedia too jfl.
i'm agnostic because i CAN'T prove if a god exist or not , and atheist because i don't believe in any deity.
There is a difference between a potential god that i can't prove or disprove and Yahweh/ALLAH ,Krisha ,Vishnu, Zeus ,Etc....
to make it simple i dont know if there is a creator or not and i don't believe in any man made religions .

 

[Hades]

dude, i think we need to stop here ,at this point u seem ignorant af and get your fucking sources from wikipedia too jfl.
i'm agnostic because i CAN'T prove if a god exist or not , and atheist because i don't believe in any deity.
There is a difference between a potential god that i can't prove or disprove and Yahweh/ALLAH ,Krisha ,Vishnu, Zeus ,Etc....
to make it simple i dont know if there is a creator or not and i don't believe in any man made religions .

There’s really no point in arguing it, man. This topic has been brought up many of times on .me. So many times yet no one ever comes to the realization that even if every thing in the Bible/Quran/Any holy book was proven true historically, it still does not prove they’re God/Creator of the universe in ANY capacity.

It’s a fruitless argument. Lets all just stop the religion threads.

 

[Blackout.xl]

The bible is meant to be literal , Evangelical Christians think it's literal for example like many Christian.
If you think that r/atheism is a joke , invite you to go there and u will see...
their sources aren't biased at all , and they are always being logical , they use logic when arguing with people , the only thing that suck with this sub is the obessesion with Trump .
what make you think their content and sources are biased ?

At this point you aren’t equipped to have this conversation, because it’s obvious you haven’t done the reading necessary.

The bible is NOT meant to be taken wholly as literal. Christian doctrines such as impassibility, prove this. Or metaphors within the bible, such as jesus teaching in parables, which were meant to detail a larger point and not to be taken literally.

Impassibility - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The minority of Christians think the bible is literal.

50.1% of all Christians on this planet are catholic and catholic doctrine states that not everything should be taken in a literal way.

Then there’s the extra protestant denominations, which number in the millions, if not hundreds of millions, like Anglicanism, which are more liberal in terms of Theology, and also are a group who do not take everything as literal in the bible.

Their sources are always left wing in outlook.

Theyre always logical yet they mass downvote those who even have the slightest disagreements and engage in constant circlejerking? Where is the logic in that?

they’re logical when they take Biblical fundamentalist Tier readings of the bible? They’re logical when they appeal to emotion when talking about Islam and just repeat Islam being a “monstrous ideology”? They’re logical when they overreact to everything involving the state and the church? Recently when trump gave some cash bailouts to churches, they threw a fit, demanding they pay taxes and be opened up to accountants and that “secularism must be enforced”?

They’re logical when they refuse to view scripture, or outcomes of countries in context?

They literally will tell you that sweden is rich and happy and Congo is a miserable shithole and because Congo is more religious and Sweden is less religious, religion surely has a link to it, despite that being an absolutely retarded conclusion. When they say religion causes misery and has caused misery throughout history, they will automatically dismiss you if you retort with the fact that atheistic communism in the 20th century killed hundreds of millions, more than religion has killed in the past few hundred years.

They’re logical when they say religion is holding back science, despite science operating independently from religion in pretty much every country and has done so for hundreds of years?

They’re logical when they say religion has held back the sciences in the past significantly, despite it being a documented historical fact that the Catholic Church were one of the most major factors behind the spread of education and the funding of sciences? Or the Middle East being one of the pioneers of modern mathematics during the islamic golden age? Or the Catholic Church being one of the biggest preservers of information and books from the roman era? Literally hundreds of books, saved and maintained by scribes. which would of otherwise been lost to time.

They’re logical when they say religion is parents brainwashing the children and that it’s “child abuse”, despite every parent literally passing down their ideology to their kids. Christian parents create Christian kids, atheist parents create atheist kids. This is how the world works, yet the former is somehow child abuse and the latter isn’t even talked about? Or how about the convenience of them forgetting that most atheists on this planet had that ideology handed down to them, in the form of their parents.

with all of this, I can’t conclude that they are logical. They are retarded and hypocritical, with no knowledge of history. They cherry-pick whats “fact” and conveniently ignore things that are contradictory to their opinions. This is the exact reason why the rest of reddit, which is just as left wing and irreligious, still manages to come to the same conclusion that I have now. Just lol

 

[Blackout.xl]

dude, i think we need to stop here ,at this point u seem ignorant af and get your fucking sources from wikipedia too jfl.
i'm agnostic because i CAN'T prove if a god exist or not , and atheist because i don't believe in any deity.
There is a difference between a potential god that i can't prove or disprove and Yahweh/ALLAH ,Krisha ,Vishnu, Zeus ,Etc....
to make it simple i dont know if there is a creator or not and i don't believe in any man made religions .

It’s like talking to a brick wall.

You denied the historicity of Jesus despite that having no backing and being contradicted by multiple pieces of evidence.

You ignored the Pieces of evidence i gave for the resurrection, and now you’re attacking my sources. Wikipedia is not a source in of itself. It’s a library of information AND sources. If you did so much as read the articles I sent you, the sources used to make these pages, that listed all the info, are right there for you. In plain sight at references tab.

I know what agnostic atheism is. You don’t have to repeat the meaning to me.

What I specifically mentioned and talked about, was the fact that you cannot have agnostic atheism being the most valid position alongside holding the belief that god cannot be proven or disproven. These are mutually exclusive statements, You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If it cannot be known what the true answer is, then pure agnosticism is the most coherent position.

agnosticism is based around there being a lack of knowledge on something and a lack of info, which means that no proper conclusion can be met. It’s the middle of the ground. If you attach atheism to this, you are now making an active claim, that no deity probably exists. If you make a claim, when there is no adequate information to base your conclusion on, then it cannot be the most valid position.

It would be like if a jury said they don’t know if the person being accused of a crime did anything due to inconclusive evidence, but then claim that he is guilty. How would this be the most valid conclusion?

The point of individual religions is something that I addressed earlier. It’s clear you’re not reading my comments

 

[Blackout.xl]

There’s really no point in arguing it, man. This topic has been brought up many of times on .me. So many times yet no one ever comes to the realization that even if every thing in the Bible/Quran/Any holy book was proven true historically, it still does not prove they’re God/Creator of the universe in ANY capacity.

It’s a fruitless argument. Lets all just stop the religion threads.

To be honest the Paragraph is completely wrong and logically doesn’t make sense. I agree with the bottom though

 

[Deleted member 6488]

@Blackout.xl

with these ingenious philosophical-esque threads, you're gonna have a rep to post ratio of 4 or 5

 

[Hades]

To be honest the Paragraph is completely wrong and logically doesn’t make sense. I agree with the bottom though

It isn’t wrong, but like I said there is no point in arguing it with religious people. Nothing ever changes because it was pounded into their heads from a young age.

 

[john2]

They’re logical when they say religion is parents brainwashing the children and that it’s “child abuse”, despite every parent literally passing down their ideology to their kids. Christian parents create Christian kids, atheist parents create atheist kids. This is how the world works, yet the former is somehow child abuse and the latter isn’t even talked about? Or how about the convenience of them forgetting that most atheists on this planet had that ideology handed down to them, in the form of their parents.

Damn, just took a shower rn.

Atheists believe telling kids not to lie, not to steal, not to hate/murder anyone is 'brainwashing'. JFL. Imagine thinking that imposing the OT laws on a child is brainwashing.
There are uncountable kids in america and rising in other countries, who are secular and often part of the LGBTQ, involved with crime and drugs... because their parents forgot to teach them morals and put them in their place.
I will go on to argue further that if Christianity was actually forced upon people, society will excel... and not only will it benefit them in their after life, but also benefit them here. But people claim and whine that Christianity and the Church has kept us backwards lol. If everyone lived according to the law Moses gave, there would have only been justice and holiness. Nothing else.

 

[Blackout.xl]

It isn’t wrong, but like I said there is no point in arguing it with religious people. Nothing ever changes because it was pounded into their heads from a young age.

Since I’m not muslim, I’ll argue from the stance of a Muslim then.

Its completely wrong. If you granted all of the events in the Koran and agreed they are historical, you cannot possibly then conclude that Islam’s view of the supernatural is not confirmed. Because then you would be claiming

- Despite the moon being literally split
- despite angels meeting Mohammed
- Despite the Quran being revealed to Mohammed by god himself

That this somehow doesn’t confirm Islam’s view of god. Or at least give it more explanatory power over all other explanations. Just lol.

Btw religion wasn’t “pounded” into my head since youth. I would barely pay attention in church and sometimes sleep during mass. I did bible study one time at 8 and came to confirmation at 13 and did jack shit, I didn’t care about what was happening. By 11 I myself stopped going to church every Sunday and opted to just sleep in and play vidya. In all of my teen years I can count on 2 hands how much I engaged in prayer. Safe to say, I’m not very religious.

I don’t appreciate you making assumptions about those who disagree with you. It’s not proper.

 

[wateriswet]

fucking essay after essay from op, you would have written a book by now if you had put your mind to it instead of competing in philosophical pissing races with 15 yo autists tbh

 

[Blackout.xl]

fucking essay after essay from op, you would have written a book by now if you had put your mind to it instead of competing in philosophical pissing races with 15 yo autists tbh

I appreciate that

 

[Deleted member 8365]

So you still deny the existence and reassertion of Jesus of Nazareth,... something that has been widely accepted, not only by the world and Christians, but even atheistic scholars?

I understand that you probably won't believe him as the messiah, because that is simply personal opinion, upon reading the scriptures.

There is evidence for others religions too , why i should only believe in christianism ???