All-purpose religious argument clusterfuck thread

[ASMR fart huffer]

I think it's perfectly valid to approach the Bible as a collection of wisdom teachings. Maybe not from a christian perspective, but a lot of jesus' sayings/conception of God are echoed in virtually every other great wisdom tradition inthe world, such as the Kingdom of God being within you, jesus' insistence that one must have the innocence of a child to truly approach God, the holy spirit as a vitalizing force that  allows one to be more engaged in reality and subsequently become a happier and more compassionate human being. The bible has something of value to teach even atheists and for that I have a profound respect for it.

[cis scum 1.0]

I was wrong about the Christians stomping them into the ground repeatedly part, but if you think this is some liberal talking point rather than historical fact you're a fucking idiot.

lmao you're the equivalent of people who whinge and cry about global warming being 100% man-made and anyone who says that it might not totally be the case are evil and retarded conspiracy theorists.

I was actually going to get a degree in History of the Middle-East, concentrating specifically on the expansion of Islam after the death of Mohammed, but thankfully after a semester I realized 'Oh shit, my dumbass counsellor made me conflate hobbies and interests with an actual career' and switched to something lucrative.

The idea that there was a "golden age of Islam" is an idea that comes partly through the orientalist school of thought (aka people who love to suck Islamic cocks and can't get enough while shitting all over the Western world) and Muslims themselves.

There was no golden age of Islam where science flourished, and certainly not in Spain. It's a myth that has been mindlessly repeated. Wherever scientific progress kept on flourishing while under Islamic control did so in spite of Islam, and not thanks to it.

[Rocket]

Every supernatural part of his story is lifted from other sources from the time period, from his resurrection to walking on water to immaculate conception. All of it.

I have no idea what you're talking about and that makes two of us.

[skink shamed]

btw I've been the only one to use 'xtian' and I do so ironically. Sorry.

And implying that there's something inherent about Christian belief that fostered modern science is just as fucking stupid as saying there's an incompatibility with theism and science.

As such, saying there's something inherent about most religions (most so as not to include anything like the Amish or other religions with intentionally luddite tenants) as to whether or not it will produce scientific thought is retarded.  Am I wrong on any of this?

Are you saying that someone who has a belief that undermines scientific inquiry is just as much inclined to be a scientist than someone who doesn't? 

[Linebacker in a Dress]

^^^ I don't subscrive to anything other than hell being a seperation from God. And that because if perfection is mixed with imperfection it all becomes imperfect. So God must remain seperate from anyone who is not perfect. God allows anyone who choses to become perfect. I also have misgivings about someone who has children and thinks they are nothing more than accidental chemical reactions that mean nothing more significant than anything an ant does. When the sun goes nova all of human history disappears so what is the point of being a good person or even living a single day beyond now? If there is nothing else out there, why are you reading these words? Why do you go to work? Why do you tip a waiter when you dine out of town, knowing you will never see that person again? Why is an innocent baby any better than John Wayne Gacey? Don't tell me becasue the baby is innocent, because if this is all a cosmic accident and there is nothing after this, then there is no such thing as morals and innocence and guilt.

Everyone thinks they have to answer in the end or they become Ed Gein.


And from the other thread:

This is essentially the flavor of Christianity that I have no problem living next door to, in a figurative sense.

When it comes to the meaning of life, this is strictly a personal thing but I find it highly joyous that I don't think there's an inherent universal meaning. For me, that lets me define my existence on my own terms (with the necessary concessions made to social standards and the like.)

The work I've chosen as I went through life progressively moved toward the betterment of my fellow human beings, not because I believe there's an innate moral requirement as a condition of our existence, but because that's the work that brings me the most personal satisfaction.

However, this particular take has been something that I've never really been able to make relatable to a believer any more than I feel the need to have a greater force defining my existence either. But ultimately I don't feel the need to enforce my state of existence on others and prefer they do the same, again with respect for the mutual social contracts we create to better coexist.

I do believe that the most likely cause of our universe is random, that there was no creator or clockmaker. That belief is subject to modification by way of measurable evidence, but I seriously doubt I'll ever encounter that evidence. In the meantime I'm going to occupy my infinitesimal speck of the greater whole and get the most enjoyment out of life that I can.

[skink shamed]

The whole discussion is stupid. It is a question of faith, and there can be no conclusive proof of the existence/nonexistence of omnipotent gods.

"There can be no conclusive proof of the existence/nonexistence of omnipotent gods", where is your conclusive proof for this statement or is its validity a question of faith? 

If everything comes from something, where did God come from? If He is eternal, then why could the Universe not be? etcetc endless morass.

The assumption of a creator that doesn't need a beginning is no more rational than assuming no creator, since you will always run into the problem of how can something exist that has no beginning.

Only things which began to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. It's only endless because you refuse to accept that a creator of all contingent things cannot itself be created.
An infinite regress of causes has no explanatory power for why there is something rather than nothing.

[skink shamed]

I think you can objectively say that if you believe in the story of Christ you are deluding yourself. God, as a greater entity, obviously much less so - especially if you have a pretty loose interpretation of what that God is like. But the story of Christ is so clearly and verifiable-y false that to believe in it is to purposely fool yourself.

Please prove how the account of Christ is false, tia. 

No, he existed (almost certainly). Every supernatural part of his story is lifted from other sources from the time period, from his resurrection to walking on water to immaculate conception. All of it.

The story of Jesus Christ is a composite myth, ripped off from Horus, Mithra, etc.

Hasn't been proven. Even if true, does not negate the belief that the story of Christ is true.

[Rocket]

btw I've been the only one to use 'xtian' and I do so ironically. Sorry.

Dude, I have thicker skin than that and I was faggot for saying anything at all. Please don't apologize. I believe I can live through your ironic use of xtian.

As for Rrail, what in a whole basket of fucks are you talking about? I'm not one for asking people to back up what they say with peer-reviewed faggotry, but the ideas you're talking about are really silly. Where did you hear this?

I remember in the 90s there was a theory going around that the Bible was written by a woman in England. And sooo many people bought into it. By the way, there is also a widely held belief that Shakespear was not one person but a collective of authors. The reason I was told is because "nobody can write that well." How fair is that to William Shakespear? In 200 years that will be taught as fact in schools. So I am not surprised that you think the stories of Jesus that were recounted by eye witnesses and supported by secular historians never happened.

[skink shamed]

No, it doesn't, because you can't disprove something like religion. All you can do is show that it is very unlikely to be true given whatever evidence, and if you choose to believe it past that point you are being irrational.

I think it's about time you start presenting evidence to support your beliefs instead of crying B-B-B-BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE like a goon.
Also show me the rule that states "Only x amount of evidence makes a belief rational." 

I also like the whole "PROVE THAT IT'S FALSE THEN" thing. Why? That's not the standard by which Christians operate.

It's becoming clear that you have no clue how Christians operate.

I assume you are aware that Christianity only became a major religion when Constantine wanted it for pragmatic purposes, right?

lol ya christianity was a weak religion until it was used to dominate the minds of men!!!    Btw, Even if true, does not negate the belief that the story of Christ is true.

it's still more believable than that a guy rose from the dead and turned water into wine.

Subjective.

[skink shamed]

What it comes down to is that many of the elements of the Jesus myth pre-existed his time and were commonly known throughout that part of the ancient world. Walking on water, virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc. It's all pretty blatantly influenced by Greek/Egyptian/Zoroastrian/Roman mythology.

Proof? Also, Even if true, does not negate the belief that the story of Christ is true.

[Rocket]

Dude what the fuck are you rambling about? Do you even understand the history of your own religion, relative to the time period it existed in? I assume you are aware that Christianity only became a major religion when Constantine wanted it for pragmatic purposes, right?

The psyops thing is obviously way more tenuous, especially since that author may not know shit, but it's still more believable than that a guy rose from the dead and turned water into wine. It does fit with Roman tactics for subjugating unruly provinces by creating internal division.

Or are you referring to the Horus/Mithra stuff? Because I linked a whole bunch of shit about that. Though I did accidentally link the Christ Myth theory, which is retarded.

Edit: Let me reverse out the Mithra stuff - I remembered wrong. It's Perseus/Zoroaster.

This is something I constantly have to deal with but I usually just don't deal with it. Do YOU realize that to Christians, there is no older religion because our religion dates back to the beginning of the planet? Do you understand that we are a continuation of Judaism? Jesus said he was not here to break the law, but to complete the law, that law being Judaism. We, as a religion, are direct descendants from Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is a hand-me-down from the Jews. So no, there is no religion older than Christianity and for you to say so means you have not studied it at all. Moses was a slave who rose to prominence in ancient Egypt. The Bible covers the Mesopotamians. Tell me of an ancient culture in that region and it is refered to in the Bible. The same Bible I read. So the idea that Christianity just popped up a thousand years ago is an argument born in ignorance.

But we have both made our statements, I'm not trying to change your mind and so before it gets into a pissing match, I'll back out.

[Rocket]

Dude what the fuck are you rambling about? Do you even understand the history of your own religion, relative to the time period it existed in? I assume you are aware that Christianity only became a major religion when Constantine wanted it for pragmatic purposes, right?

The psyops thing is obviously way more tenuous, especially since that author may not know shit, but it's still more believable than that a guy rose from the dead and turned water into wine. It does fit with Roman tactics for subjugating unruly provinces by creating internal division.

Or are you referring to the Horus/Mithra stuff? Because I linked a whole bunch of shit about that. Though I did accidentally link the Christ Myth theory, which is retarded.

Edit: Let me reverse out the Mithra stuff - I remembered wrong. It's Perseus/Zoroaster.

This is something I constantly have to deal with but I usually just don't deal with it. Do YOU realize that to Christians, there is no older religion because our religion dates back to the beginning of the planet? Do you understand that we are a continuation of Judaism? Jesus said he was not here to break the law, but to complete the law, that law being Judaism. We, as a religion, are direct descendants from Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is a hand-me-down from the Jews. So no, there is no religion older than Christianity and for you to say so means you have not studied it at all. Moses was a slave who rose to prominence in ancient Egypt. The Bible covers the Mesopotamians. Tell me of an ancient culture in that region and it is refered to in the Bible. The same Bible I read. So the idea that Christianity just popped up a thousand years ago is an argument born in ignorance.

But we have both mad our statements, I'm not trying to change your mind and so before it gets into a pissing match, I'll back out.

Except, you know, all those religions that predate Judaism.

No.

And this all started when you said that if I made the statement ""he might not get caught now but he has someone to answer to one day" you said you would think I'm a religious wack job. I think that's pretty damn extreme, don't you?

[skink shamed]

What it comes down to is that many of the elements of the Jesus myth pre-existed his time and were commonly known throughout that part of the ancient world. Walking on water, virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc. It's all pretty blatantly influenced by Greek/Egyptian/Zoroastrian/Roman mythology.

Proof? Also, Even if true, does not negate the belief that the story of Christ is true.

It does to reasonable people. Someone that holds onto a concept because there is that .01% chance that it's true while the majority of the evidence is to the contrary aren't reasonable. So no, it will never be fully negated because you can't ever disprove something like the Jesus myth. My apologies that Roman's weren't doing peer reviewed studies on their subject province's cult's validity (not that this would even be accepted if they had).

If something cannot be negated then it is not unreasonable to believe in it. You're the one being unreasonable by postulating the falsity of a claim without proof of its negation.

[skink shamed]

You can not prove that I am not a reincarnation of Christ with a different outlook on the world. You can not prove that I do not have the soul of a cat and turtle controlling my body like that dude at the end of Wizard of Oz. It is unreasonable for you to believe any of that is true. Your argument that irrationality requires proven negation is incredibly sophomoric.

lol. Without negation and with evidence to support a belief, it is not unreasonable. It's actually an example of human reason. 

Stop being a goon.

[ASMR fart huffer]

You can not prove that I am not a reincarnation of Christ with a different outlook on the world. You can not prove that I do not have the soul of a cat and turtle controlling my body like that dude at the end of Wizard of Oz. It is unreasonable for you to believe any of that is true. Your argument that irrationality requires proven negation is incredibly sophomoric.

lol. Without negation and with evidence to support a belief, it is not unreasonable. It's actually an example of human reason. 

Stop being a goon.

what are you on about even bertrand russell said the same thing you clown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[skink shamed]

You can not prove that I am not a reincarnation of Christ with a different outlook on the world. You can not prove that I do not have the soul of a cat and turtle controlling my body like that dude at the end of Wizard of Oz. It is unreasonable for you to believe any of that is true. Your argument that irrationality requires proven negation is incredibly sophomoric.

lol. Without negation and with evidence to support a belief, it is not unreasonable. It's actually an example of human reason. 

Stop being a goon.

what are you on about even bertrand russell said the same thing you clown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Are you saying there's an absence of evidence for the existence of a Christian God? Nice try though.

You're legit dumb as fuck.

Nice belief you have there. 

[Rob Halford's Scrotal Sack]

People apologizing to each other, on my SS? Did Jesus turn you all into little pussies or what? 

[ASMR fart huffer]

watch out brah he might bold john 3:16 at you

[skink shamed]

Even if I'm dumb as fuck, none of you proven atheism to be more true than theism. Keep on gooning though.

[Dental Grade Dildo]

religion offers you a simple meaning, a human-shaped purpose to your life. Do good whenever you can, care for your fellow man, don't be an asshole, and in the end everything will be all right.

And isn't it so marvelously convenient?

Isn't it exactly what we wanted to see?

If you've already seen and understood the thousands of ways in which men deceive themselves, hiding their eyes behind all sorts of blatantly (to everyone else) false flags such as "Communism is the way!" or "My family is in the right, it was the McCoys who started it!" or "My husband loves me, he only beats me because he loves me!" or "I didn't screw up, it wasn't my fault, I just had bad luck!"...

... shouldn't you start making it a habit, just in case, of checking that there isn't a flag in front of your eyes too? Shouldn't you start to ask yourself "would I still feel God's presence, if I did not have a need to feel Him?"

While I don't disagree with the gist of your post - that people deceive themselves to make an uncaring, meaningless reality more comfortable to live in - I take issue with the idea that finding personal meaning in something is somehow pulling the wool over your eyes, that anything less than a nihilistic appraisal of the universe is somehow less "authentic". At the end of the day, it is you and only you who choose how to engage your reality.

I've read a lot of Buddhist literature the past few years and have found that for a philosophical system that doesn't espouse any particular conception of reality, there's a lot to find personal meaning in. If you have to, I guess you can say a Buddhist's conception of reality is that there isn't one: all is emptiness. You are the air you breathe, the company you keep, the food you eat, the media you ingest, etc. and yet you are also not these things. You exist in an environment that you influence and in turn influences you, and yet the boundary between you and your world is very blurry. You are not your body or your mind, because if you took six shots of tequila right now you would suddenly be dealing with a very different self than the one ten minutes ago. The point is, you're a part of something greater, and in that feeling of brotherhood and kinship with his fellow man a person can derive great joy and personal meaning that I don't think is manufactured in any way.

 Now, you can choose to meditate on the futility of human endeavor or you can reach out and engage with the reality right in front of you. It's all about choice: what you allow to occupy your awareness. It can be nihilism, God, My Little Pony, the recognition of being an infinitesimal speck in a sublime and horrific cosmos, or whatever. It is what it is. Just choose.

(not trying to paint you as some angsty teenager, I just remember my own days when I was pretty lost and couldn't break out of my stupid internet atheist "all is darkness" hurr hurr bullshit)

No offense taken. And I actually do agree that finding, or I'd rather say building, a meaning for your life is something that anyone will have to do one way or another. Yeah, the universe might not care, but you're not a blank slate either; you have desires and connections, which aren't any less real to you just because they're made of amoral atoms. You stop expecting to find a Golden Path to follow, and instead start laying down yellow bricks one by one - not because anyone says you have to, but because you'll be moving somewhere anyway so you might as well have a plan.

I believe, however, that all that stuff must come later. I believe it's critical to first go through your pre-existing thoughts with a very ruthless drill, and find out exactly where they came from (was it really you? or was it your parents, your friends, that first year in college when you thought you had figured it all out?). Even more, you have to strip down until you're uncomfortable, until you're looking at your raw, unexplained place in the world without having any answer in your hand; because if you remain comfortably attached to your old answer while you search, you'll keep looking where it works and you'll look away from where it creaks. We can see everybody else falling for it, having their beliefs constantly "confirmed" over and over, and so should not expect ourselves to be the one exception who can love a belief and test it at the same time.

So yes, do choose a purpose for your existence, because you're existing whether you want it or not, duh. But you have to first become capable of making an actual choice in the first place. If, for as long as you can remember, you have always held and followed a compass, and you start to wonder if the magnetic north is actually the real geographic north, and you want to truly go north... the best thing to do is disassemble the compass. Otherwise you'll follow the magnetic north without even thinking about it. When you do figure out where the real north lies, then you may remake the compass and look at it, and see if following the magnetic north was actually any good.



Those of you who enjoyed the civilized conversation above may want to skip the next part:

I was wrong about the Christians stomping them into the ground repeatedly part, but if you think this is some liberal talking point rather than historical fact you're a fucking idiot.

lmao you're the equivalent of people who whinge and cry about global warming being 100% man-made and anyone who says that it might not totally be the case are evil and retarded conspiracy theorists.

The idea that there was a "golden age of Islam" is an idea that comes partly through the orientalist school of thought (aka people who love to suck Islamic cocks and can't get enough while shitting all over the Western world) and Muslims themselves.

 

Yeah man Constantine the African, Fibonacci, Pope Silvester II were orientalist faggots who hated the West and only bothered to collect and translate Arab books as a ploy to score liberal cred on Facebook. 15th century surgeons consulted Abulcasis's medical encyclopaedia ironically, because they wanted to punish their patients for being evil cis white males. You got it all figured out, congratulations. Man that was one revolutionary semester you took.

You could actually have stuck with the perfectly reasonable argument that "calling it the Islamic Golden Age is dumb because it was the Arabic Golden Age if anything, Islam shouldn't claim credit for it", but nooo, you had to goon out and go "Mu'Tazila is a postmodern myth and Cordoba is a liberal hoax!"

[wimpb]

god bless you atheists

[Beepboop]

"There can be no conclusive proof of the existence/nonexistence of omnipotent gods", where is your conclusive proof for this statement or is its validity a question of faith? 
Only things which began to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. It's only endless because you refuse to accept that a creator of all contingent things cannot itself be created.
An infinite regress of causes has no explanatory power for why there is something rather than nothing.

By definition (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent and all that) God is incomprehensible to human reason. Whatever proof one concocts, God could always just hide from it. There is also no need for said proof. Either He exists or does not exist, life goes on either way.

Here you come to the problem of assuming that the Universe began. We do not know for certain, but there are several options for that:

1) Before the big bang there was no thing. This is not the same as nothing. Any question of existence, even time, is utterly irrelevant before the big bang in this case, and if you say the Universe began from nothing you are arguing from the limits of human comprehension. In this case there is no need for a creator, simply some rules of attraction and repulsion, you know, physics.

2) The Universe has always existed. It is possible that the Universe is doing a cyclical big bang/big crush thing, or a cyclical expansion where new big bangs occasionally take place in some other conditions. When the branes of superstring theory almost bang against each other for example. Still no need for a creator.

Even if I'm dumb as fuck, none of you proven atheism to be more true than theism. Keep on gooning though.

And here it is, my original point. Neither can really be proven, if God exists he most certainly would not have a need to step down from the heavens to assert his existence in a conclusive way. If He doesn't exist that can't really be proven either. A question of faith

The discussion is dumb and so am I for participating in it.

This is something I constantly have to deal with but I usually just don't deal with it. Do YOU realize that to Christians, there is no older religion because our religion dates back to the beginning of the planet?


Tell me of an ancient culture in that region and it is refered to in the Bible. The same Bible I read.

Rocket, am I failing reading comprehension or are you a young earther? And do the Nephilim count as a mention of an ancient culture?

[wimpb]

i thought the jews existed before christianity

[Dental Grade Dildo]

i thought the jews existed before christianity

Of course, reptilians predate humans.

[Rocket]

Christians believe their religious lineage goes back to the first humans and all prehistory and early history was focused on one point. No matter how old the earth is, that is when Christianity started. Jesus showed up 2,000 years ago and atheists want to say that is when Christianity started because if the religion is new then it is silly to believe in it. But atheists misunderstand us completely.

As for the age of the earth, in 2013 it looks like 4 billion years have passed but that is about a third of the life of the universe, which has been going through a lot of growing pains. Everything is expanding. We all accept relativity when it comes to speed, which is another way to describe distance, but we haven't broached the idea of temporal relativity. If you are stretching matter and generally fucking with the fabric of the universe, you are necessarily fucking with time and stretching it. A day is still a day, but relative to what? I don't know why physicists don't talk about this. It seems obvious to me. So what is a day to the universe? What is a billion years or eternity?

When time is relative, who knows what time it is or how long it took to get here?