Personal truth, find what you agree with most and can improve you the most in terms of philosophy. Personally weigh the evidence and see if it fits into your life and gives you meaning. That’s what matters, because every religion after all is a personal connection to the spiritual and a personal connection to the community around you of fellow believers
No, you don't understand, i'm the one talking to a brick of wall
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
This post is full of strawman,most people there don't share this view, some will share this view ;and will that religions has held back science , that's liberal countries are better ,etc... not all people on this subreddit are "active" atheist ,or share all the same view; there is alot of thing i don't agree with them; some are logical , some aren't. Not believing in any deity withoAt 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
Do you even believe Christianism is the only true religion or not?
But, I never said his existence makes Christianity more valid than other religions. The first time I mentioned it I was talking about the validity of Christianity itself alone, not compared to other religions. and all the other times I mentioned Jesus I was responding to your assertion that there’s weak evidence for his existence. Despite that having absolutely 0 evidence to back it.
All we asked was some proof for your Christian deity
Forget about the other millions of people, I had an OBE about God, do you trust me? Or do you want to find out about God when you die?
Dude have you literally ever fucking heard of actual science? There's dozens of people that report that type of shit, truth of the matter is it can pretty much be explained by brain chemicals. There's also dozens of people that report alien abductions or other hocus pocus autistic tantrum.
Alright.
So why do you believe in your deity? And how do you know he's the one true God and not the God of Islam/Judaism and their scriptures?
No dw, I'm wrong, you're right. Whatever I'll say will get over your head. It's pointless. I'd rather let you live and believe in whatever you want comfortably than write an essay arguing with you over something I've highly stressed over in the past.
I mean it's more about providing actual proof than it is about things getting over my head.
Jesus resurrected with his body and since 2000 years nobody has found his body, what should I prove to you for that?
Literally how is that evidence? That's 1. Assuming he actually resurrected which we don't know for sure and 2. Implying all bodies from 2000 years and earlier get found which just doesn't happen. We didn't even find the tomb of Alexander the Great yet
Because in this case you're talking about the resurrection, so the state of his body being missing proves my point.
That's my question, what do you want me to prove to you and how? There's only anecdotal and eye witness evidence for both the resurrection and his life... apart from this by Christian, Roman and Jewish writers/historians. Now it's totally to you whether you believe that's shekel-backed or true now. Other than this, there's the fulfilled prophecies which are a whole different thing to talk about.
yes i agree islam is the superior religion
You read that?
